The Kerygma - God's Requirement for Salvation

[OMC]

Dealing with your straw men created by importing your words instead of quoting is tiresome,
but I will do so because this is another thread. Again, what I claim or affirm that you can quote includes these:

I DO say right reasoning is divine logic and the mind of Christ.
I DO say God is love and Spirit-filled Christians reflect divine love to the world.
I DO say God and Truth are One, so individual truths are part of the whole truth.
And I DO believe enough of God's love and truth are revealed to all people in all cultures in all of the world per Rom. 1:20,
so that they are without excuse for choosing atheism/I-dolatry/tulipism.

In this post you imported "native" into moral ability as though I had claimed such, so I will add this clarification:
I DO believe volition/moral free will is God-given or enabled by God and is also denoted by the phrase "God's permissive will".

God created humans by giving them MFW instead of mere instinct or reflexes.
If ability to reject did NOT mean ability to accept, that would mean God created robots rather than humans.

Saying Jesus said unbelievers cannot hear His word places the blame on God for not allowing/enabling them to do so.
Saying someone refuses to love truth indicates MFW that places the blame on them for choosing hatred.

Paul said souls who only know gen rev will be judged on that basis, NOT damned without a chance to repent.

Your tulipism blinds you to understanding God's omnilove and justness, but I hope such heresy is not intentional myopia.
I used to believe OSAS, but when I learned Scripture teaching otherwise, I repented, and I hope you will too.

Your whole reply is just you re‑asserting MFW by treating suppression in Romans 1 as if it were neutral choice, but Paul says the unbelieving mind is “unable to submit” (Rom 8:7–8), not “fully able but choosing poorly,” which means your claim that rejecting implies the ability to accept is philosophical symmetry, not exegesis; your appeal to “God’s permissive will” simply assumes the very native_ability Paul denies, and your complaint that Jesus saying unbelievers “cannot hear” His word “blames God” ignores that inability is a moral condition, not a mechanical restriction.
General revelation gives guilt, not saving power — they are “without excuse” because they suppress what they know, not because they possess libertarian freedom — and your attempt to turn that into a universal chance for repentance rewrites Romans_1 entirely.
Your OSAS jab doesn’t land either, because perseverance is the fruit of regeneration, not the fuel of it, and your “tulipism blinds you to omnilove” is just you refusing Paul’s anthropology: sinners perish because they refuse the truth (2 Thess 2:10), not because God failed to give them a philosophical power of contrary choice.

 

[GWH]

Your whole reply is just you re‑asserting MFW by treating suppression in Romans 1 as if it were neutral choice, but Paul says the unbelieving mind is “unable to submit” (Rom 8:7–8), not “fully able but choosing poorly,” which means your claim that rejecting implies the ability to accept is philosophical symmetry, not exegesis; your appeal to “God’s permissive will” simply assumes the very native_ability Paul denies, and your complaint that Jesus saying unbelievers “cannot hear” His word “blames God” ignores that inability is a moral condition, not a mechanical restriction.
General revelation gives guilt, not saving power — they are “without excuse” because they suppress what they know, not because they possess libertarian freedom — and your attempt to turn that into a universal chance for repentance rewrites Romans_1 entirely.
Your OSAS jab doesn’t land either, because perseverance is the fruit of regeneration, not the fuel of it, and your “tulipism blinds you to omnilove” is just you refusing Paul’s anthropology: sinners perish because they refuse the truth (2 Thess 2:10), not because God failed to give them a philosophical power of contrary choice.

I hope you did not import "neutral" and "native" again with the intention of obfuscating, but at least I can quote myself:
"I DO believe volition/moral free will is God-given or enabled by God and is also denoted by the phrase "God's permissive will"."

We can call God's initiating/enabling MFW "neutralizing sinners" so they can repent, seek and be saved. What is wrong with that?

Paul also said that "you are slaves of the one you obey" (Rom. 6:16) and "Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people" (Rom. 5:18). And regarding gen rev Paul wrote Rom. 1:20, Col. 1:23, Rom. 10:13-18, Gal. 3:8, Rom. 2:14-16, Acts 17:24-31 and Matt. 7:12.

God gives tulipists the power of choosing to repent of heresy (demeaning divine omnilove and justness), and my recent insight is that if their heresy is unintentional, they may escape the flames just barely per 1Cor. 3:13-15. (Hence )

 

[OMC]

I hope you did not import "neutral" and "native" again with the intention of obfuscating, but at least I can quote myself:
"I DO believe volition/moral free will is God-given or enabled by God and is also denoted by the phrase "God's permissive will"."

We can call God's initiating/enabling MFW "neutralizing sinners" so they can repent, seek and be saved. What is wrong with that?

Paul also said that "you are slaves of the one you obey" (Rom. 6:16) and "Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people" (Rom. 5:18). And regarding gen rev Paul wrote Rom. 1:20, Col. 1:23, Rom. 10:13-18, Gal. 3:8, Rom. 2:14-16, Acts 17:24-31 and Matt. 7:12.

God gives tulipists the power of choosing to repent of heresy (demeaning divine omnilove and justness), and my recent insight is that if their heresy is unintentional, they may escape the flames just barely per 1Cor. 3:13-15. (Hence )

Your “neutralizing sinners” idea is just MFW renamed so you can sneak libertarian ability into texts that explicitly deny it; Paul never teaches a universal moral reset, he teaches inability (Rom 8:7–8; John 8:43).
Rom 6:16 doesn’t give equal ability to obey either master — slavery determines obedience — and Rom 5:18 is federal headship, not universal enablement.
Your gen‑rev chain only works if “all have heard” means “all are able,” but Paul says revelation yields guilt, not saving capacity.
And your claim that God gives “tulipists the power to repent of heresy” assumes the very native inability Paul grounds his anthropology in.
1 Cor 3:13–15 is about the works of the regenerate, not unregenerate escape clauses.
You’re not defending divine love; you’re defending a system where God must undo the very moral inability Scripture says defines the unbeliever.

 

[GWH]

Your “neutralizing sinners” idea is just MFW renamed so you can sneak libertarian ability into texts that explicitly deny it; Paul never teaches a universal moral reset, he teaches inability (Rom 8:7–8; John 8:43).
Rom 6:16 doesn’t give equal ability to obey either master — slavery determines obedience — and Rom 5:18 is federal headship, not universal enablement.
Your gen‑rev chain only works if “all have heard” means “all are able,” but Paul says revelation yields guilt, not saving capacity.
And your claim that God gives “tulipists the power to repent of heresy” assumes the very native inability Paul grounds his anthropology in.
1 Cor 3:13–15 is about the works of the regenerate, not unregenerate escape clauses.
You’re not defending divine love; you’re defending a system where God must undo the very moral inability Scripture says defines the unbeliever.

No, YOU sneaked in "neutral" and now "libertarian" and "native" again after I explicitly denied meaning that,
so we are looping--as always happens in discussions with tulipists, so we might as well move on to other topics,
because you said nothing new and I have nothing more to say other than that I agree 1Cor. 3:13-15 is about
"regenerate escape clauses", which I hope per a recent insight might include unintentional heresy.
Happy trails!

 

[OMC]

No, YOU sneaked in "neutral" and now "libertarian" and "native" again after I explicitly denied meaning that,
so we are looping--as always happens in discussions with tulipists, so we might as well move on to other topics,
because you said nothing new and I have nothing more to say other than that I agree 1Cor. 3:13-15 is about
"regenerate escape clauses", which I hope per a recent insight might include unintentional heresy.
Happy trails!

We’re not looping because of my terms — we’re looping because you keep denying moral inability while defending a system that requires it to disappear, and calling that disappearance “unintentional heresy escape clauses” doesn’t fix the anthropology Paul grounds in inability.
You say you reject “neutral,” “libertarian,” and “native,” but your model still demands a God‑given moral reset that lets the unbeliever do what Paul says he cannot do (Rom 8:7–8; John 8:43), which is why every path you take circles back to MFW even when you rename it.
And 1 Cor 3:13–15 cannot include “unintentional heresy” among the regenerate because Paul is talking about works, not doctrines, and only of those who are already saved — there is no category where false doctrine becomes a “regenerate escape clause.”
If you want to move on, fine, but the reason this keeps looping is that your system requires a moral ability Scripture explicitly denies, and you’re trying to preserve that ability while rejecting every term that names it.

 

[GWH]

We’re not looping because of my terms — we’re looping because you keep denying moral inability while defending a system that requires it to disappear, and calling that disappearance “unintentional heresy escape clauses” doesn’t fix the anthropology Paul grounds in inability.
You say you reject “neutral,” “libertarian,” and “native,” but your model still demands a God‑given moral reset that lets the unbeliever do what Paul says he cannot do (Rom 8:7–8; John 8:43), which is why every path you take circles back to MFW even when you rename it.
And 1 Cor 3:13–15 cannot include “unintentional heresy” among the regenerate because Paul is talking about works, not doctrines, and only of those who are already saved — there is no category where false doctrine becomes a “regenerate escape clause.”
If you want to move on, fine, but the reason this keeps looping is that your system requires a moral ability Scripture explicitly denies, and you’re trying to preserve that ability while rejecting every term that names it.

The tulip heresy, whether intended or not, is that it denies/contradicts/nullifies/demeans God's omnilove and justness, thereby collapsing the Gospel, which I urge you to reconsider doing/believing, because Paul considered heresy to be the worst work (Gal. 1:6-9)!

However, if you want to discuss tulip further with the goal of going forward rather than looping or playing verbal ping-pong,
let us meet on the thread with that OP: Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture, and we can give it a try. Thanks.

 

[OMC]

The tulip heresy, whether intended or not, is that it denies/contradicts/nullifies/demeans God's omnilove and justness, thereby collapsing the Gospel, which I urge you to reconsider doing/believing, because Paul considered heresy to be the worst work (Gal. 1:6-9)!

However, if you want to discuss tulip further with the goal of going forward rather than looping or playing verbal ping-pong,
let us meet on the thread with that OP: Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture, and we can give it a try. Thanks.

Yes, of course — the real heresy Paul had in mind in Galatians 1 was definitely “tulip,” not the actual Judaizing crisis he names, because obviously the apostle was prophetically anticipating your internet debates and wanted to make sure you had ammunition for calling entire theological systems “Gospel‑collapsing.”
And naturally your model doesn’t require a moral reset — no, no, it just quietly assumes the unbeliever can do exactly what Paul says he cannot do (Rom 8:7–8; John 8:43), but that’s fine because you’ve rebranded the reset as “unintentional heresy escape clauses,” which I’m sure Paul would have applauded as a bold innovation in soteriology.
And of course 1 Cor 3:13–15 is secretly about doctrinal errors even though Paul explicitly says it’s about works, but who cares if you need a verse to make your system loop‑proof, just repurpose it.

 

[GWH]

Yes, of course — the real heresy Paul had in mind in Galatians 1 was definitely “tulip,” not the actual Judaizing crisis he names, because obviously the apostle was prophetically anticipating your internet debates and wanted to make sure you had ammunition for calling entire theological systems “Gospel‑collapsing.”
And naturally your model doesn’t require a moral reset — no, no, it just quietly assumes the unbeliever can do exactly what Paul says he cannot do (Rom 8:7–8; John 8:43), but that’s fine because you’ve rebranded the reset as “unintentional heresy escape clauses,” which I’m sure Paul would have applauded as a bold innovation in soteriology.
And of course 1 Cor 3:13–15 is secretly about doctrinal errors even though Paul explicitly says it’s about works, but who cares if you need a verse to make your system loop‑proof, just repurpose it.

I can see that discussing tulip further would be pointless, so .