Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[Magenta]

Hebrews 10:26-30
26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins. 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

1 John 2:19

 

[studier]

I am curious to know what you mean here. I wonder if you believe the natural man has an
inherent ability, without any help from God, to throw over his hostile mindset toward Him.
Since that is an admixture of human viewpoint thinking imposing on what His Word says.

Ephesians 2:8-9

I'm speaking of Christians.

IMO we live in a time where there is for various reasons a very widespread immaturity/unlearned condition in the Church.

I was speaking in part about the Biblical concept of 'perfection" (and other things Cameron and I touched on) in regard to what I think @Cameron143 and I agree on - that most (if not nearly all) today are not really in pursuit of utilizing all we've been given to become what Christ died to enable us to become.

I had commented on this concept of being perfect as we're commanded by Jesus to be: NET Matthew 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

As soon as we start talking like this, it's quite usually met with, "Well, we can't be perfect" and "You're teaching sinless perfection" (which I'm not but neither am I arbitrarily limiting how far God in Christ in Spirit will take us) and immediately the command of Jesus Christ gets set aside for some human viewpoint that does not match Scripture.

For some of us, we let Scripture speak and teach us what God means when He uses such words and issues such commands and we seek and are in pursuit of not only Christian maturity (also translated as being perfect) and continuing the pursuit that Paul speaks of as the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil3:14) which he says is beyond maturity (perfection) (3:15) and he says is another perfection (3:12).

I found when teaching that few in my few were even familiar with such concepts.

Hope that helps.

 

[BillyBob]

I truly wonder and have done so for a long time what the ultimate condition for us is in these bodies. I've at times told people not to tell me I can't be perfect because God commands me to be perfect, God defines what He means by perfect, there are Scriptures (Hebrews) that speak of the perfecting of the conscience under the Great high Priesthood of Jesus Christ, and there are Scriptures like Paul's in Philippians that speak of the mature (aka perfect) seeking perfection which he equates to arriving at the resurrection. He additionally says that those without this mindset are enemies of the cross of Christ, which tells me that the cross was for much, much more than most seem to be pursuing.

The sad thing to me is to hear so many say we can't be what God commands us to be and Jesus Christ died to give us the ability to become. We have way too much admixture of human viewpoint thinking imposing on what His Word says.

Christ has paid the price for our sins – past, present, and future. I believe that knowing this and trusting that it is true is the only way that we will ever be achieve perfection in this lifetime. We will never be perfect in our own eyes but will be perfect in the Father's eyes because our sins have been put on Christ's head!
Luke 22:61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” Mark 14:72 And he broke down and wept.
How many times do you think in Peter's life did he think back at this event and lower his head in shame!

 

[Cameron143]

Nothing can "violently snatch" us out. But there are other ways of leaving. John 10:29 "harpazein"

Adam wasn't violently snatched either.

Nothing can separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Rufus]

Re claim 1. Moses (a type of Christ) was sent to "save" only the ancient Hebrews in Egypt, which were God's elect by virtue of His covenant with Abraham wherein He promised the patriarch that He would make a great nation out of him.

I presume you believe God has two wills: one preceptive and one decretive. Given that there were not only Hebrews saved out of Egypt during the Exodus, but also a mixed multitude that went with them, you would have to concede that it was not God's decretive will to save only the ancient Hebrews in Egypt. See Ex. 12:38

Re Claim 2: God's "firstborn" (Ex 4:22; 7:1) were totally powerless and helpless to extricate themselves from the yoke of bondage under Pharaoh -- a bondage that was decreed by God (Gen 15:12-16).

Is there evidence that the bondage was decreed by God as His will, rather than prophesied to happen as a consequence of decisions her anticipated the Hebrews would make, choosing ease in Egypt after the end of the famine, rather than embrace the risks of a return to Canaan. Maybe they had preferred to bask in the approval and largesse Pharaoh and Joseph instead of leaving, until suddenly the new pharaoh decided to draft them into compulsory work details. I don't think you can argue from silence, that the bondage was "decreed". Was the destruction of Nineveh after 40 days "decreed", merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Nineveh's response. Was the destruction of Israel and making Moses a great nation in their place "decreed" merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Moses' response. Maybe God's foretelling of 400 years bondage was also not decreed, but subject to change depending on Israel's response.

I addressed the mixed multitude in my post.

And I addressed God's omniscience on a few occasions in the past. If God is truly omniscient, as the scriptures teach, then he cannot and does not acquire knowledge. I explained this on previous occasions. You have this concept of omniscience that posits that God acquires or learns and that an eternal God must rely upon his creation of temporal reality to gain knowledge. Conversely, I believe God possesses universal, complete knowledge of all things at once and that what he predicts will come to past precisely because of his decrees. God's awareness, understanding and insight is infinite and transcends his creation of time and space.

 

[Cameron143]

Hebrews 10:26-30
26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins. 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

Romans 1 says all men have knowledge of the truth. Nothing else in the passage says these people were saved. And the reason they have the expectation of judgement is because they have rejected the only One who could keep them from it.

 

[Rufus]

Do you assume they were worshipping only idols? Who were they crying out to so that God heard their cries and sent Moses?

I don't assume anything. I go by what Joshua wrote about the Hebrews in Egypt. But why do you assume that they were "crying out" to God to save their souls, rather than just to extricate them from their physical miseries? Numerous religious people "find" God and "seek" his help from their troubles and miseries in temporal reality when they're up to their armpits in 'gators but care not a whit about living for his glory.

 

[Rufus]

Rufus said:
Mr Studier, sir, to the best of my knowledge you have never answered my question re God's inability to sin.
Actually I did answer you at one point as I recall. I also don't see the reason or the logic in the question, which may have been a part of my answer.

Rufus said:
You might recall that you appealed to the consciences of men as their [best] moral compass, their moral guide even though it is as corrupt as the rest of our faculties. Here's what you wrote:
Actually, as you've indicated, you've inserted "best" which I didn't say. Also, I've said a lot more about men throughout history who did have faith and who did not turn from God as He revealed Himself through time.

Rufus said:
But I see the issue quite clearly, which is why I have pursued this "issue" with you on several occasions The Creator and his created image-bearers have something pretty big in common: Both have the inability to do something. The Creator cannot lie, cannot sin, cannot deny himself. Likewise, his image-bearers have the inability to be good, righteous, pure and holy, since we cannot not sin. And since you appealed to the consciences of God's image-bearers as being the primary (?) cause "to strive to do good instead of evil", then do you also see God's conscience as the primary cause for all his good, righteous and holy choices? Is it God's conscience that ultimately defines him, as you seem to think it is with his image-bearers?
Again, what's your actual point and where have I, as stated above, placed such a strict focus on men's conscience rather than making it a factor among other factors?

Does God have a conscience? His image-bearers are not the same as Him. They have similarities based upon God their Creator but that's about it.

Also, I think you'll find that people in Adam I in the Biblical account of history had faith, did do good, were said to be righteous, even perfect in their generation. I think we both agree that they still needed what only YHWH's Christ would ultimately provide, but the version of humanity you seem to favor does not match the Biblical, historical account of all people.

And I would posit that those similarities are deeply profound! God IS a Personal, Rational, Passionate, Moral and Social being. And so is man! (Feel free to consult any secular dictionary for the definitions of the above qualities if you're wondering what I'm talking about.)

Furthermore, when you attribute man's conscience as being the primary cause (as you have implied) for our inability to live sinless lives, then aren't you saying that our conscience is a huge liability to living perfect, pure, holy, righteous lives? That it's our Achilles' Heel to being Good? And wouldn't this make your hypothesis be a self-defeating proposition? You see, you ducked this issue of inability by assigning to man's conscience the ability to do good from time-to-time. But that answer is a total non sequitur because it had nothing to do with the parallels I drew between the Creator and his image-bearers -- a parallel that had to do with absolute inability for both parties -- and not the doing of relative good by man. Furthermore, the Good God performs is never merely relative!

Since God has the inability to sin, then this can only have to do with who and what He IS -- in his Essence, is his Nature. Since God alone is Good, then there is no evil within him -- that is to say, he's 100% Good; there is no Absence or Deprivation of Good within him, which is what Evil is. Conversely, scripture teaches that man IS Evil, which explains how Jesus could say that only God alone is Good. Jesus never thought in relative terms such as you have. He only thought in absolute terms. So the upshot with God is that since he cannot sin, this can only be attributed to all his PERFECTIONS. And this in turn also means that God cannot change who or what he is because if he could change, he was never perfect. Can perfection be improved upon? Or can an imperfect being attain to perfection, as you seem to think?

Since God's good, holy, righteous nature is immutable; then why would we think that man's nature is mutable? Why would any of us think that we have some intrinsic power that our Creator doesn't and that we can actually transform our own nature? Do you know what the Law of Identity is? And do you know that this Law is supported by scripture? What makes you think that inherently bad trees can bear good fruit, which Jesus said isn't possible? What makes you think that the Ethiopian can actually change the color of his skin or the leopard change its spots? And, therefore, that those who live in sin, i.e. "who are accustomed to doing evil" can still do good?

As far as "people in Adam", what was this good that they did and did they do good all the time? And were they inherently righteous? And were they inherently perfect? If so, why would they need to be saved? But if not, then maybe you need to rethink what those passages are really saying. And then I, for one, would certainly be eager to learn what you personally mean by "good", "righteous" and "perfect". How do you interpret those passages in light of the numerous passages that teach that all men are sinners? Should we be understanding such passages to mean that only some or many men are sinners? Is that how you understand Rom 5:12ff., for example? I mean you could be unto something since Jesus clearly said that he did not come into this world to save the righteous but to call sinners to repentance! With your soteriology, why would they need to repent and be saved?

 

[Rufus]

God cannot sin because God is all-wise and all-knowing. An all knowing and wise person will not choose to sin, because to do so would be foolish. Man sins because his knowledge and understanding are limited. He needs to learn that the consequences of selfishness will be destructive to himself and others.

You are fallaciously presupposing that man being "not good" means man is 100% evil and therefore incapable of good". "Not good" means not 100% good, like an buyer considers an apple "not good" if it is flawed; but it may still have many good parts that can produce good juice when squeezed.

There is not one perfectly wise human, therefore there is no human, who relies at times on their own wisdom, who always does good, not one. There is no human, who relies at times on their own wisdom, who is always righteous, not one. And yet, evil people, from their good parts, can do good. "You who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children." Mt. 7:11

Give me a scripture text that teaches "God will not sin".

 

[studier]

Christ has paid the price for our sins – past, present, and future. I believe that knowing this and trusting that it is true is the only way that we will ever be achieve perfection in this lifetime. We will never be perfect in our own eyes but will be perfect in the Father's eyes because our sins have been put on Christ's head!
Luke 22:61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” Mark 14:72 And he broke down and wept.
How many times do you think in Peter's life did he think back at this event and lower his head in shame!

I understand, especially as the years in Christ accumulate, the thoughts of looking back and being ashamed of things.

Perfection/Maturity and beyond is clearly spelled out and commanded of Christians. The problem is that Christians don't look to see how God explains it and instead insert their own worldly concepts into its meaning and say we won't achieve it.

 

[maxamir]

Perfect example of the doctrine of the pot and the kettle, perfect...

if you think I am wrong according to Scripture then say so otherwise do not waste my time with your pseudo-theology that does not even know who man is before God.

 

[studier]

if you think I am wrong according to Scripture then say so otherwise do not waste my time with your pseudo-theology that does not even know who man is before God.

I think you're the one wasting your time. Put me on ignore. It works quite well.

 

[Magenta]

Nothing can separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:38-39 Psalm 91:11

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

First address my two examples. Show why my sentences cannot be true, if the person had been competent but had become incompetent. Show why my sentence cannot be true, if the person had had a fear of spiders but had overcome that fear?

Merely repeating your inaccurate claim, will not make it true.

For the same reason that, if three friends are caught in a snowstorm and Mike becomes completely frozen, I could say, "Michael alone is frozen", but it can still be true that John and Mike have some fingers and toes that are frozen. God is completely good. But that does not mean humans cannot be partially good.

Sorry to slide in here but a good example of this is Cornealus.

 

[maxamir]

you cannot see anything except what your Calvinist beliefs allow you to see

every single person who has ever read any post from me, including this thread, knows I have posted alot of scripture

you simply ignore anything you cannot respond to without making a mess out of scripture and you make personal comments towards people and say they have not provided scripture

I know the Bible says do not bear false witness.....haven't seen that?

I only see what God has granted me to see in His Scriptures which proclaim that salvation is of the Lord and all of its glory belongs to Him alone and not the choice of men as your idolatry of will worship deceives you into thinking.

Christ said that it was impossible for men to save themselves but you think Christ was mistaken and are perverting His Gospel and robbing Him of His glory and giving it to the clay rather than the Potter.

 

[maxamir]

I am not Arminian as I have stated numerous times both to you and others of your kind

get some fresh air. your post are getting rather stale

If it looks, sounds and walks like a duck, it is a duck!

Very few people today like having labels attached to them, including yourself, but all of your responses so far seem to definitely make you fit into the Arminian camp if you believe that man cooperates with God for his salvation. Deal with it and if you disagree, please correct me and tell me why you are not an Arminian as defined below.

 

[maxamir]

I think you're the one wasting your time. Put me on ignore. It works quite well.

I only respond to those who mention me, so please stop doing so if you can't handle the truth.

 

[Rufus]

[QuoteRufus said:
I take my meaning from the post-fall narrative. God did what A&E should have done. God didn't run away and hide himself from them, did he? Didn't he go and search for them? Didn't He call out to the man? Isn't that something personal beings do when we search for one another?
My point was that I don't think you are bringing to the discussion any knowledge of what is contained in the phrase "seeking God" other than a basic seek to find concept. If we were to go through all of the occurrences of seek* in the Text, do you think this is the only meaning we will find?

I will tell you that neither the Greek nor the Hebrew word translated mostly as "seek" shows up until Gen9, then only a few times in Gen, once in Ex, once in Lev and then it begins showing up more in Deut. So, though you are inserting the concept into the Garden story, it is not actually there.[/quote]

Immaterial about the Gr. or Heb word "seek" and when it shows up in scripture. I suppose when God called out to Adam, we should not interpret that as Him seeking Adam because that particular Gr. term is not in the Genesis post-fall narrative, right? Again, I use the THREE-FOLD context of ALL scripture to understand any given passage. When A&E sinned, they ran and hid from God because they DIED the moment they sinned. Is not the warp 'n' woof of spiritual death SEPARATION from our Creator who just happens to be the Author and Source of Life? Well, they both ran and hid from their Creator! Didn't they just do what came naturally to them!? Did not their behavior accurately reflect what they had become spiritually in their inner man!? DEAD! Yet, we're not supposed to talk about them not seeking after God after they sinned? Really?

Rufus said:
Are you suggesting by your second question that A&E reacted to God in the righteous manner by hiding from him? They did the right thing, did they? It wasn't necessary for them to seek after the Lord to confess their sins? To own their sins honestly before him? And to seek his forgiveness and mercy?

Is your questioning here at all serious?

My point was that they had a face-to-face relational experience with God that was seemingly beyond what anyone has had since them. There must be a reason that seeking is not mentioned until much later. The concept more akin to what you are speaking of doesn't even show up until Deut. Maybe it's used elsewhere to refer back to before this. I haven't done the work. Nor does it seem have you.

Okay you want a reason: God in his infinite wisdom said it wasn't necessary to explicitly spell out each and every detail because he gave us all reasoning powers to make reasonable and logical inferences from the three-fold context of all scripture.

Rufus said:
Even the conscience that you appealed to as being man's moral compass malfunctioned after they sinned! Yes, their conscience rightly accused them. They felt guilt and shame. But what they didn't feel. was godly remorse for their sin. Such sorrow would have moved them to confess their sin and repent of it. But they would have none of that! The deceitfulness of sin already took root in their heart so that the best they could respond to God was by playing the blame game. They thought nothing of piling on to their original sin and lying through their teeth to God when they glibly rationalized away their personal, moral culpability.

Sorry, but you're just making things up here. You don't know what they felt, nor what they knew or could understand from such an experience. All we're told is that God told them they would die. Nowhere I know of are we told that He had told them what to do if they failed Him.

I know from what I just said from above that a godly, God-fearing person would NOT have reacted as they did! David didn't. And you conveniently ignore the fact that they just piled on to their sin!

Rufus said:
Re your third point, what about numerous other texts that apply to sinners and how they are supposed to respond to God after they sin? How 'bout David's penitential psalms, for example? What are they chopped liver? Those psalms weren't written for all of us as examples to follow? If so, then I'd say those psalms, and a host of other scriptures as well, serve as the general tenor of scripture on the subject and, therefore, strongly support my argument -- and that my argument would not be one from silence at all since I use the three-fold context of all scripture to understand any given passage properly. If the progeny of Adam are required to follow certain spiritual protocols after they sin, then why wouldn't those protocols have also applied to our first parents?

Same answer. And yes you are arguing from silence if you cannot point to Scripture that informs us that A&E and anyone else you want to point to knew what God desired and required of them.[/quote]

No, it's not an argument of silence. You just got done making the point above that A&E had a stupendous, exceptional relationship and experience with their Creator so they should have deduced from that his infinite Goodness and Love for them, no? Furthermore, what if they didn't know how to respond or react to God after they sinned? So what!? Since when is Ignorance blissful? Since when is ignorance a legitimate excuse for not doing the right thing? Does the bible ever speak favorably of Ignorance? And whose fault was it that they became ignorant? Oh...should we just blame the Serpent? Eve did!

Rufus said:
When Job said Adam hid his transgression (Job 31:33), do you think Job was making a positive statement about Adam? And aren't there other scriptures that also speak to this subject in a negative or condemning way!?
Well, firstly, there is a question to whether or not Job is speaking of Adam or of man. This can be seen in some translations. The same can be seen in some translations of Genesis.

Once again, what point are you trying to make - that Adam was a God-hater and wanted nothing to do with God? Is this another all unregenerate men are TD or RTD? Are we back to TD instead of UE?

And as his wanna-be defense attorney, are you trying to say your client was a God-lover? Methinks Adam quit loving God the moment he sinned! (And by he way what is "RTD" and "UE"?) Are you going to make the case Adam loved God even though he transgressed against him and hid his transgression from him? Didn't Jesus say somewhere, "If you love me, you'll keep my commandments"? |So make your case that Adam was a God-lover. But if you can't, then this means Adam hated God -- as I have defined "hate" previously.

Rufus said:
What I do know from the Exodus account I posted in my argument, which you haven't really read but only "scanned". I do know God sent Moses on a rescue mission to rescue hundreds of thousands of Hebrews who were for the most part as idolatrous as their Egyptian captors. I do know that there is no text in the Exodus narrative itself that teaches that the Hebrews sought after God. And I do know that God, once again, sought after a bunch of sinners. God himself said he would "come down". Good enough for me to make some very logical inferences and conclusions.

Again, you're arguing from silence because seeking God is really not a topic of discussion until Deut. You're also reading past the fact that some Hebrews in Egypt had a proper fear of God. The Text uses wording in certain ways for certain reasons and we get ourselves into trouble by thinking we can just insert words and concepts because we think it's logical. The word for "seek is used once in Ex at 18:15. So, I'm not seeing any Scripture in that story itself that speaks of God seeking anyone, nor that seeking God is even a topic.

BTW, this is in part why I only scanned your Ex work and asked rather that you bring only a portion into discussion at a time. Typologies, let alone Scripture, are very easy to insert concepts into to make arguments.

Well, feel free to dismantle (if you think you can) any part of the 16-pt argument. (I did add the Song of Moses later.) I supported it well from scripture.

 

[Rufus]

No, my argument presupposes nothing. Man is evil period!

Sorry, but I'll stop at this quote and won't read on. You just asserted a presupposition telling me your argument presupposes nothing.[/quote]

Okay you win. My argument presupposes biblical teaching, as opposed to my own personal, subjective presuppositions.

Yes, both Jews and Greeks are under sin in Adam I. But your use of "evil period!" is being stated in apposition to all men are God-haters and have no interest in God. I've said I disagree with this. You've taken us into a typological narrative to assert your case from Exodus where one of the first things we're told about Israel in Egypt is that there were Hebrew midwives who had the [proper] fear of God.

As far as the midwives were concerned I did acknowledge them and also qualified statements when necessary. But did those two midwives typify the moral/spiritual condition of 600,000+ Hebrews. Joshua didn't seem to think so! So, I don't think the early placement of the midwives in the Exodus narrative is all that significant.

Also, I never said anything about all men not having an interest in religion or God. You're putting words into my mouth. But I do stand by my premise that all unregenerate mankind are God-haters.

TD or RTD, whatever the similarities or differences, IMO has an unbiblical view of the capacities of man under sin and a view that makes all unregenerate men and women into God haters who want absolutely nothing to do with Him. The Biblical record clearly does not support this as I read the Text. And this is why I attempted to bring out some considerations of Biblical history when we began discussing Rom1-3. There is context to what Paul is discussing including historical context. As a few of us have attempted to bring into discussion, not all concepts are gnomic - timeless principles to be transported all over the Text.

Well, just quote me a text that says that men come into this world loving God and the matter will be closed. And if men aren't loving God, if that's not the natural disposition of depraved, wicked, rebellious, prideful, egotistical, deceitful hearts...then they are God-haters, whether you care to accept that or not. I've explained this twice to you previously by showing that there are two kinds of God-haters in this world. ALL unregenerates who don't love God, as stipulated in the Greatest Commandment and Jn 14:15, are God-haters. Period! There is no third option. And if you want an excellent example of a nice, religious, moral, law-keeping, self-righteous person who hated God, look no further than to the Rich Young Ruler who "sought after" Christ! You remember him, don't you? The self-deceived, self-righteous guy who was an idolater because he loved his money more than than he loved God? He fits the mold perfectly of the Second Type of God hater that I described previously.

P.S. Apparently, you're not up to speed on the importance of godly sorrow given your lame defense of Adam. So, I'll share this passage with you:

2 Cor 7:10-11
10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. 11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.NIV

So, since A&E demonstrated no godly sorrow, I'll stand by my evaluation of their dismal spiritual condition and their UNGODLY feelings. I see no hint of remorse or confession in the post-fall narrative, let alone repentance! But I do see a lot of self-justification going on! Can you spell DEAD!? They merely acted out what they became in their ESSENCE after they sinned!

 

[Rufus]

PT wrote:

First address my two examples. Show why my sentences cannot be true, if the person had been competent but had become incompetent. Show why my sentence cannot be true, if the person had had a fear of spiders but had overcome that fear?

Merely repeating your inaccurate claim, will not make it true.

For the same reason that, if three friends are caught in a snowstorm and Mike becomes completely frozen, I could say, "Michael alone is frozen", but it can still be true that John and Mike have some fingers and toes that are frozen. God is completely good. But that does not mean humans cannot be partially good.

But Jesus, unlike you, did not qualify what he stated in Mk 10:18. He even was redundant to drive his point home more forcefully!

It seems that so many NR just CANNOT help themselves when trying to disprove the glorious Doctrines of Grace. You have no ability to resist the temptation of twisting and perverting the Word of God in your defense of a man-centered theology. Sad...very sad.