Would you not have to "presume" that the pronouns apply to you personally and not others?Romans 8:16; 1 John 5:13.
IOW, do the pronouns apply to anyone or just those who the author had in mind?
Would you not have to "presume" that the pronouns apply to you personally and not others?Romans 8:16; 1 John 5:13.
I have noticed this myself.Sorry Lovette....
You do not reply,,,you make statements,,,you change the topic.
I'm just not able to deal with your posts.
Nothing personal toward you.
Great point !Would you not have to "presume" that the pronouns apply to you personally and not others?
IOW, do the pronouns apply to anyone or just those who the author had in mind?
You seem pretty busy.Sorry Roger316.
I will not be sitting here an hour responding to the above.
If you ever care to address one topic,
let me know.
And it's been rather dishonest of you to insist that you're not a calvinist when all your theologyh is calvinist in nature.
I always am.You seem pretty busy.
Why pray for them then? What do you expect God to do about it?You have stated that God does not want all men to be saved.
That took long enough.
So, YOU claim I don't understand the NT.....
seems to me that YOU do not understand it.
It clearly and specifially states that God loves the whole world
and that God desires that all men be saved....
however, you have just stated that not all men are saved because God does not want them to.
And
this is an uderstandable reply.
Why?
Because if you CORRECTLY answered,,,,,you'd leave calvinism right now.
What you need to do is harmonize WHY all men are not saved
with
God's desire that they be saved.
You have NOT done that but you have correctly replied as a reformed/calvinist would due to their theology.
HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER ROGER:
All men are not saved as God desires....
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO BE SAVED.
BECAUSE THERE ARE CONDITIONS THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO MEET.
FREE WILL causes such problems to calvinist theology!
Those who are in Christ Jesus/those who believe in the name of the Son of God.Would you not have to "presume" that the pronouns apply to you personally and not others?
IOW, do the pronouns apply to anyone or just those who the author had in mind?
I wish they would change the editing feature here and give us more time to edit after we publish. The reason I say this is i am sure you know your scriptural references are wrong, but probably did not see until it was to late.Is it so?
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)
Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:18-19)
That is a not true. Your post contradicts itself. You say sinless perfection is not implied and your Greek scholar reference says we do not keep on sinning. If you don't see the difference between what you said and your reference I am not sure what else needs to be said other than the present active indicative is an on going action from the one being spoken of. And it is being stated as a fact. Something that is established now and is ongoing. The Greek agrees with the CLV provided below. It needs to be translated "not sinning" because that is what is being said,.Sinless perfection is not implied.
1 John 5:18 - We know [absolutely] that anyone born of God does not [deliberately and knowingly] practice committing sin, but the One Who was begotten of God carefully watches over and protects him [Christ’s divine presence within him preserves him against the evil], and the wicked one does not lay hold (get a grip) on him or touch [him]. (AMPC)
As Greek scholar AT Robertson explains:
1 John 5:16
Sinneth not (ουχ αμαρτανε). Lineal present active indicative, "does not keep on sinning," as he has already shown in 1 John 3:4-10.
When did parents become God who alone has the authority over life and death?Please finish the logic of the analogy:
Sin onto death is punishment.Punishment is for those whom chastening was rejected....Parents chasten their children.Parents will punish children who refuse to heed chastening.Parents will kill their children for whom chastening was rejected...
Good point. Forget who could be reading at times. Guess I should include disclaimers.When did parents become God who alone has the authority over life and death?
You try to take the analogy too far. Always a danger.![]()
If only you think beyond simple binaries.That Christ paid such a high price for the salvation of those who believe in His death, burial and resurrection on the third day, and that He taught Paul that salvation has nothing to do with works under the Gospel of Grace, the negations some have put forth in these forums is them saying that it IS their works that allegedly supplements that high price paid, which cheapens what Christ did to the level of human effort.
Bottom line...if salvation were at all based upon our efforts, that only is an attempt at assuming a second escape from Hell when, in fact, there's only one...
MM
Please finish the logic of the analogy:
Sin onto death is punishment.Punishment is for those whom chastening was rejected....Parents chasten their children.Parents will punish children who refuse to heed chastening.Parents will kill their children for whom chastening was rejected...
There is no contradiction and AT Robertson was not implying sinless perfection and he specified in 1 John 3:6 does not keep on sinning and lives a life of sin, not mere occasional acts of sin, the habit of sin.That is a not true. Your post contradicts itself. You say sinless perfection is not implied and your Greek scholar reference says we do not keep on sinning. If you don't see the difference between what you said and your reference I am not sure what else needs to be said other than the present active indicative is an on going action from the one being spoken of. And it is being stated as a fact. Something that is established now and is ongoing. The Greek agrees with the CLV provided below. It needs to be translated "not sinning" because that is what is being said,.
https://studybible.info/CLV/1 John 5:18 We are aware that everyone who has been begotten of God is not sinning, but he who is begotten of God is keeping himself, and the wicked one is not touching him."
Jesus spoke within that loop, and if Jesus asked anyone any question, it wasn't to gain knowledge but to teach what He already knew. And included within that loop, he knew that Peter would deny him three times. But, within that knowledge was the awareness that Peter possessed at least the minimum measure of trust, the mustard seed of faith, required to return to Him once bidden to after he, I think inarguably, fell, three times. Although it is argued, I don't think Judas had even a starter batch of faith. He was in it for, and always looking to gain more, wealth.Yes, the Text is written for everyone and then mainly for those who believe.
But talking with those who have not left and don't think we can, or why would anyone want to leave, seems a pretty closed loop.
God reveals Himself.Why pray for them then? What do you expect God to do about it?
What is the distinction between the many who are "weak and sick" and the "quite a few have died"?
Correct.You're saying that God leaves atheists alone?
But He chastens His own children.
Not better. Just not his child to discipline.Sounds like God treats atheists better than His own children.
Sounds confusing to me the way you worded it.Also,
In your previous post you stated that God causes atheists to have miserable deaths.
How is that leaving them alone?
This sounds confusing.
The recipe for trust:the minimum measure of trust