Calvinism is Gospel !

[Bible_Locket]

You claim that "tulipists... defeat God's power to save by limiting it to a favored few." This accusation exposes a fundamental flaw in your theology. You are completely failing to distinguish between the potency of omnipotence and the intent of a decree.
Let’s lay your argument bare alongside the plain text of Scripture:

1. Limiting the Scope of a Decree is Not a Defeat of Power

When a High Calvinist asserts that God elects and redeems a particular people, we are not saying God wants to save everyone but lacks the raw muscular power to achieve it. We are saying His sovereign purpose from all eternity was to save a specific, chosen people to the absolute praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1:4–6).

If a governor decides to pardon 50 inmates out of a prison of 100, his power has not been "defeated" or "limited" by an outside force. He has simply exercised his sovereign will. The true limitation of power belongs entirely to your system:

• In your theology, God intensely desires, intends, and tries to save every single individual human being on earth, yet millions end up in hell anyway. That means your god's power is completely impotent and successfully defeated by human resistance.
• In the High Calvinist theology, God’s saving power is completely limitless, 100% effective, and completely unfrustrated. Whom He intends to save, He actually saves without a single failure (John 6:37–39). We do not limit God's power; we honor its absolute victory.

2. You Are Accusing Jesus of Defeating His Own Power

By claiming that restricting salvation to a particular group is a "hateful limitation of power," you are directly condemning Jesus Christ. Look at His explicit words on the page:

• John 17:9: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."
• Matthew 20:28: "...the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Jesus explicitly limits the scope of His high priestly prayer and the intent of His substitutionary ransom. He does not pray for every individual; He prays particularly for His sheep. Did Jesus "defeat" God's power by choosing not to pray for the world? No. He was executing the perfect, particular, eternal decree of the Father.

3. The Inescapable Irony of Your 55-Year Study

You mention that you learned the "P" (Preservation of the Saints) was wrong 55 years ago. Think through the terrifying logic of your position: if the "P" is wrong, it means a person can be bought by the blood of Christ, justified by faith, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet still slip out of God's hand and burn in hell forever.

If that is true, then human sin is more powerful than God’s preservation. You have a gospel where a child of God can successfully defeat the Almighty's grip. The true God completely shatters your weak framework: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:28).

Conclusion

I do not limit God's power by believing His own words regarding a particular election. You limit His power by turning His omnipotent grace into a weak, conditional offer that relies on dead sinners to make it effective. High Calvinists believe in a Savior who actually accomplished salvation for His people. You believe in a savior who merely made salvation an abstract possibility. Stop projecting human sibling rivalries onto the Almighty and submit to the victorious, particular power of the true Gospel.

I will suggest here that when you are speaking to someone like GWH, or others who sound the same, resorting to pejoratives, derrogatory epithets, thinking to assault your faith,reason and God's words will not change their tactics. Nor open their mind.

If anything GWH and their fellow Foemen, are providing proof God's words are true.

The words of God are foolishness to them.

Which is why they assail the teachings they cannot comprehend by God's will, as they sling Ad Hominems at the Faithful.

 

[Bible_Locket]

"[The Lord desires] EVERYONE to come to repentance."--2 Pet 3:9

Contextual relativity.
That verse applies to and within all Scripture that reiterates Election.
Everyone whom he calls are thus desired by him to come to repentance.

In point of fact if God,bring all that this means,desired all to come into Repentance, they would.

In fact, the hardening God applies to us in our beginning,would have been lifted with the last breath, "It is finished", of Immanuel on the cross.

When in fact,Immanuel died for the Elect only.
Those who are not Elect and live in their sins are the antithesis of righteousness. Reminders of the blessing afforded by grace.

 

[pinebeach]

So you don't believe that Gods Word is true.

You are caught contradicting yourself and you think we are all dumber than you and did not notice.

YOU are the one that is not true. Pathetic.

 

[pinebeach]

The Word IS God!

Comprehension is not your strong point but I was already familiar with that deficit which is why I don't post to/with you.

My post was in reference to why some choose to write God as G-d and had nothing to do with the deity of Jesus. Nothing. smh

 

[Bible_Locket]

Seriously people, if you can't resist insulting people, you cannot actually discuss God's words as if you know what they mean. Because rudeness proves you don't know what they teach.

 

[brightfame52]

In point of fact if God,bring all that this means,desired all to come into Repentance, they would.

Yep Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

 

[pinebeach]

Many modern denominations teach that children are innocent until they reach an "age of accountability" (usually around 8 or 12 years old). But the Bible reveals that all humans inherit original sin from conception and are accountable to God from birth. Therefore, an infant child is not "automatically safe" because of their age; rather, they need the saving grace of Christ just as much as an adult.

So that means that as a 5 yr old child I was in danger of going to hell so good thing I believed instead. You said a 5 yr old cannot be saved because they are not capable of understanding. Yet, here you are saying they are even the babies are not safe.

I don't think you actually know what you believe. It's really not difficult if a person believes the actual gospel instead of trying to cover it up with fables and nonsense and then going back and saying something different then what they first said.

 

[GWH]

You claim that "tulipists... defeat God's power to save by limiting it to a favored few." This accusation exposes a fundamental flaw in your theology. You are completely failing to distinguish between the potency of omnipotence and the intent of a decree.
Let’s lay your argument bare alongside the plain text of Scripture:

1. Limiting the Scope of a Decree is Not a Defeat of Power

When a High Calvinist asserts that God elects and redeems a particular people, we are not saying God wants to save everyone but lacks the raw muscular power to achieve it. We are saying His sovereign purpose from all eternity was to save a specific, chosen people to the absolute praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1:4–6).

If a governor decides to pardon 50 inmates out of a prison of 100, his power has not been "defeated" or "limited" by an outside force. He has simply exercised his sovereign will. The true limitation of power belongs entirely to your system:

• In your theology, God intensely desires, intends, and tries to save every single individual human being on earth, yet millions end up in hell anyway. That means your god's power is completely impotent and successfully defeated by human resistance.
• In the High Calvinist theology, God’s saving power is completely limitless, 100% effective, and completely unfrustrated. Whom He intends to save, He actually saves without a single failure (John 6:37–39). We do not limit God's power; we honor its absolute victory.

2. You Are Accusing Jesus of Defeating His Own Power

By claiming that restricting salvation to a particular group is a "hateful limitation of power," you are directly condemning Jesus Christ. Look at His explicit words on the page:

• John 17:9: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."
• Matthew 20:28: "...the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Jesus explicitly limits the scope of His high priestly prayer and the intent of His substitutionary ransom. He does not pray for every individual; He prays particularly for His sheep. Did Jesus "defeat" God's power by choosing not to pray for the world? No. He was executing the perfect, particular, eternal decree of the Father.

3. The Inescapable Irony of Your 55-Year Study

You mention that you learned the "P" (Preservation of the Saints) was wrong 55 years ago. Think through the terrifying logic of your position: if the "P" is wrong, it means a person can be bought by the blood of Christ, justified by faith, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet still slip out of God's hand and burn in hell forever.

If that is true, then human sin is more powerful than God’s preservation. You have a gospel where a child of God can successfully defeat the Almighty's grip. The true God completely shatters your weak framework: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:28).

Conclusion

I do not limit God's power by believing His own words regarding a particular election. You limit His power by turning His omnipotent grace into a weak, conditional offer that relies on dead sinners to make it effective. High Calvinists believe in a Savior who actually accomplished salvation for His people. You believe in a savior who merely made salvation an abstract possibility. Stop projecting human sibling rivalries onto the Almighty and submit to the victorious, particular power of the true Gospel.

We know tulipists say God's will is to save a chosen few robots, but that is not praiseworthy.
Yes, MFWists say God offers salvation to everyone, but some elect to ignore/reject it to their own just condemnation.
If God were going to force souls to be elect, He would force everyone to be saved. THAT would be 100% effective.

Yes, in John 17:9 Jesus prayed for his disciples, including those who would believe in him through their message,
which is potentially the whole world per John 3:16 and Matt. 28:19-20. Many might be all per Rom. 5:12-19.

What I have learned regarding perseverance is that intentional apostasy is possible. Do I need to post the sixteen Scriptures your perverse gift of omission ignores? I trust you have them saved somewhere and are trying to harmonize them with the ones you like,
beginning by harmonizing John 10:28 with 1John 2:24-27.

 

[pinebeach]

Yes, it is ultimately by God's sovereign decree and will that the non-elect do not believe the gospel, as He chooses to withhold the regenerating grace necessary for faith.

Really? then what is this about?

When God gives mercy to the elect, it is unearned. When God leaves the non-elect in their sin, He gives them the justice they chose and deserve.

You have God electing some and leaving so called non-elect in their sin BECAUSE they CHOSE

You appear to be one of those people with a divided mind. You have made up your own rules and change them as you see fit to serve yourself.

See also my post 5413 where I first noted your discrepancy regarding putting a limit on the age a person may acknowledge Jesus.

 

[GWH]

I will suggest here that when you are speaking to someone like GWH, or others who sound the same, resorting to pejoratives, derrogatory epithets, thinking to assault your faith,reason and God's words will not change their tactics. Nor open their mind.

If anything GWH and their fellow Foemen, are providing proof God's words are true.

The words of God are foolishness to them.

Which is why they assail the teachings they cannot comprehend by God's will, as they sling Ad Hominems at the Faithful.

Actually, you have it bass-ackwards. It is tulipists for whom the words of God regarding His omnilove and justness are foolishness, which is why they assail teachings they refuse to learn.

Also, I suggest that you reprove me if I ever seem to be pejorative or derrogatory, because I try to discuss doctrine rather than resort to personal attacks/ad hominems.

Yes, we have provided God's words teaching the truth of His omnilove and justness, even though you deem them to be foolish.

 

[pinebeach]

Spiritual life is given to a dead soul before that person can even exercise faith. Because the Holy Spirit "blows where it wishes" (John 3:8), He is not restricted by a child’s age, intellectual capacity, or vocabulary. Scripture even notes instances of sanctification and joy in the womb, such as John the Baptist (Luke 1:15, 44).
The "new birth" (regeneration) is entirely a sovereign, miraculous act of the Holy Spirit rather than an act of human willpower, God can save a person at any age—including in early childhood. A child of five, if properly instructed, can be regenerated.

And here again, after the things you said, you state the Holy Spirit is not restricted by a child's age.

No regard, no apology, no embarrasement no nothing. I guess you have no conscience or at least none that can be worked with.

 

[pinebeach]

And this coming from a Calvinist

I have discussed with other Calvinists just where the (well-earned) stereotype of the graceless Calvinist comes from. Shouldn’t belief in total depravity necessitate profound humility? Shouldn’t belief in unconditional election preclude a spirit of superiority? And yet there is a doctrinal arrogance infecting Calvinist Christianity. This culture then produces doctrinaires like Baum’s man of tin: squeaky and heartless.

Cold-hearted rigidity is not limited to those of the Reformed persuasion, of course. You can find it in Christian churches and traditions and cultures of all kinds. In fact, to be fair, I have found that those most enthralled with the idea of gospel-wakefulness, those who seem most prone to champion the centrality of the gospel for life and ministry, happen to be of the Reformed persuasion. So there’s that. But gracelessness is never as big a disappointment, to me anyway, as when it’s found among those who call themselves Calvinists, because it’s such a big waste of Calvinism.

Why? Because it’s a depressing irony and a disgrace that many who hold to the so-called “doctrines of grace” are some of the most graceless people around. The extent to which your soteriology is monergistic—most Calvinistic nerds know what I’m talking about here—is the extent to which you ought to know that your pride is a vomitous affront to God. The hypocrisy is incongruous. source

 

[brightfame52]

We know tulipists say God's will is to save a chosen few robots, but that is not praiseworthy.
Yes, MFWists say God offers salvation to everyone, but some elect to ignore/reject it to their own just condemnation.
If God were going to force souls to be elect, He would force everyone to be saved. THAT would be 100% effective.

Yes, in John 17:9 Jesus prayed for his disciples, including those who would believe in him through their message,
which is potentially the whole world per John 3:16 and Matt. 28:19-20. Many might be all per Rom. 5:12-19.

What I have learned regarding perseverance is that intentional apostasy is possible. Do I need to post the sixteen Scriptures your perverse gift of omission ignores? I trust you have them saved somewhere and are trying to harmonize them with the ones you like,
beginning by harmonizing John 10:28 with 1John 2:24-27.

"GWH,

You have resorted to emotional caricatures like 'robots' because you cannot logically defend a god whose intents and desires are routinely defeated by dead sinners. Let’s look at how your philosophical speculations completely collapse under the weight of the actual text:

1. You Are Telling God How to Use His Power

You claim that if God were going to sovereignly save, He would have to save everyone to be 100% effective. This is a textless human philosophy.

God does not owe salvation to a single human being. If He chooses to display His unmerited mercy on some, and His unyielding justice on others, that is His sovereign right as the Creator. Paul anticipated your exact 'robot' objection in Romans 9:19-21: 'Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?'
When you complain about God making a discriminating choice out of the same lump of clay, you are not arguing with me—you are arguing with the Apostle Paul.

2. Your Desperate Distortion of John 17

You claim that when Jesus prayed for those who would believe through the disciples' message, it was 'potentially the whole world.' This is an explicit denial of the text.

In John 17:9, Jesus says: 'I pray for them: I pray NOT for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.'
In John 17:20, He expands the prayer to include those who will believe.

Notice the text says those who will believe, not those who might potentially believe if their free will allows it. The group given to Him by the Father and the group that eventually believes are the exact same group of people. Jesus explicitly draws a line between them and 'the world' for whom He refuses to pray. Your system forces you to make Jesus pray for the very world He explicitly said He was not praying for.

3. Let's Harmonize: 1 John 2 Destroys Your Apostasy Theory

You challenged me to harmonize John 10:28 ('they shall never perish') with 1 John 2. Let’s let John harmonize himself. Look at 1 John 2:19, a verse your system must completely ignore:

'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.'

John explicitly tells you why people 'apostatize.' It is not because they were bought by the blood of Christ and then lost their salvation. It is because they never belonged to Christ to begin with. True possession of eternal life guarantees continuation.
If a person can possess eternal life and then perish in hell, then the life God gave them was not 'eternal' at all—it was temporary, and Jesus lied when He said 'they shall never perish.'

Stop trying to rescue human free will at the expense of Christ’s explicit words. High Calvinists believe in a Savior who actually keeps His sheep. You believe in a savior who loses them and blames the sheep."

---

 

[Roger316]

I realize you refuse to harmonize, preferring to prooftext, so I warn you in love with the words of Paul.

Yes, in English "all" means everyone.
Yes, God is frustrated and grieved when folks ignore His loving way to be saved.
John Gill is full of prunes.

Yes, Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and weeps over tulipists,
who defeat God's power to save by limiting it to a favored few.
They won't allow God to offer salvation to every sinner.
Any child can discern hate when parents favor a sibling.

Paul condemned Judaizers because they perverted the Gospel, which tulipism also does.
My words are not tantrums but rather the result of studying tulipism ever since I learned the P was wrong 55 years ago.

I affirm BOTH God's right to do whatever He wants AND His desire for everyone to be saved.
Refusing to employ both-and/harmonizing logic seems to cause a lot of sinful interpretations of Scripture.

Can I piggyback on your post to raise an exegetical issue?

In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul’s statement that God “desires all men to be saved” needs to be read with the precision Paul himself uses. First, in context, “all” refers to all kinds of people—kings, authorities, Jews, Gentiles, the socially prominent and the socially insignificant. Paul is dismantling the narrowness of his audience, not declaring that every individual without exception will be saved. Second, if someone insists that “all means all” in a strictly universal sense, then consistency demands that “men means men” in the same strictly universal sense. Paul’s wording forces the interpreter to be logically honest: you cannot universalize one term and then quietly particularize the other. His point is about scope, not headcount—God’s saving desire reaches across every category of humanity, not merely one favored group.

Paul’s exhortation to pray for rulers in 1 Timothy 2 presses a logical question: what does Paul expect God to do with those prayers if the decisive factor in salvation is left entirely to human choice? Paul clearly assumes that our prayers for kings and authorities are meaningful because God Himself acts—He opens hearts, restrains evil, grants repentance, and draws people to the truth. If salvation were simply a matter of human self‑determination, then praying for rulers would be pointless; God could do nothing beyond watching their decisions. But Paul urges prayer precisely because he believes God works through those prayers. The command only makes sense if God is actively involved in bringing all kinds of people—including rulers—to salvation.

I recommend that parents pray for their kids because God can act in their salvation.

 

[Roger316]

"[The Lord desires] EVERYONE to come to repentance."--2 Pet 3:9

Here is another exegetical question. In the Context what was Peter actually addressing?

Peter’s most commonly cited line is in 2 Peter 3:9, where he writes that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” But in context, “any” and “all” refer to the people Peter is addressing—the beloved, the covenant community, those whom God is patiently bringing to repentance. Peter is explaining why the Day of the Lord seems delayed: God is patiently gathering all of His people, not expressing a universal desire that every human being without exception will be saved.

Your instinct is exactly right: the same logic applies to Peter as to Paul, and it exposes a major tension in the “God wants to save every individual, but human freedom stops Him” explanation.

The core issue is simple: if God truly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly desired the salvation of every individual without exception, then nothing could stop Him. The biblical God is not weak, hesitant, or constrained by human decisions. Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 3:9 is about God’s patience toward His people, not a frustrated universal desire. If someone insists that Peter means “every single human being,” then they must explain why the God who created the universe, raises the dead, and governs history is somehow unable to accomplish what He supposedly desires most.

Appealing to human freedom doesn’t solve the problem. It simply shifts the decisive power from God to the creature. If human freedom is the final barrier, then God’s desire is not ultimate—human choice is. That makes salvation contingent not on God’s mercy but on human self‑determination, which contradicts Peter’s entire argument about God’s sovereign patience and purposeful delay.

Peter’s logic only makes sense if “all” refers to all of the people God is gathering, not every individual without exception. Otherwise, we are left with a God who wants something He cannot achieve.

 

[Mem]

The core issue is simple: if God truly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly desired the salvation of every individual without exception, then nothing could stop Him. The biblical God is not weak, hesitant, or constrained by human decisions. Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 3:9 is about God’s patience toward His people, not a frustrated universal desire. If someone insists that Peter means “every single human being,” then they must explain why the God who created the universe, raises the dead, and governs history is somehow unable to accomplish what He supposedly desires most.

Appealing to human freedom doesn’t solve the problem. It simply shifts the decisive power from God to the creature. If human freedom is the final barrier, then God’s desire is not ultimate—human choice is. That makes salvation contingent not on God’s mercy but on human self‑determination, which contradicts Peter’s entire argument about God’s sovereign patience and purposeful delay.

Peter’s logic only makes sense if “all” refers to all of the people God is gathering, not every individual without exception. Otherwise, we are left with a God who wants something He cannot achieve.

If it is god's will to accept, or iow 'grant,' a human's repentance, and that being a willful one if He so please that it be required, and it can only make it acceptable if the repentance comes from Him and then put on them, then it's only a masked repentance that would be sufficient to be saved.

 

[GWH]

"GWH,

You have resorted to emotional caricatures like 'robots' because you cannot logically defend a god whose intents and desires are routinely defeated by dead sinners. Let’s look at how your philosophical speculations completely collapse under the weight of the actual text:

1. You Are Telling God How to Use His Power

You claim that if God were going to sovereignly save, He would have to save everyone to be 100% effective. This is a textless human philosophy.

God does not owe salvation to a single human being. If He chooses to display His unmerited mercy on some, and His unyielding justice on others, that is His sovereign right as the Creator. Paul anticipated your exact 'robot' objection in Romans 9:19-21: 'Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?'
When you complain about God making a discriminating choice out of the same lump of clay, you are not arguing with me—you are arguing with the Apostle Paul.

2. Your Desperate Distortion of John 17

You claim that when Jesus prayed for those who would believe through the disciples' message, it was 'potentially the whole world.' This is an explicit denial of the text.

In John 17:9, Jesus says: 'I pray for them: I pray NOT for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.'
In John 17:20, He expands the prayer to include those who will believe.

Notice the text says those who will believe, not those who might potentially believe if their free will allows it. The group given to Him by the Father and the group that eventually believes are the exact same group of people. Jesus explicitly draws a line between them and 'the world' for whom He refuses to pray. Your system forces you to make Jesus pray for the very world He explicitly said He was not praying for.

3. Let's Harmonize: 1 John 2 Destroys Your Apostasy Theory

You challenged me to harmonize John 10:28 ('they shall never perish') with 1 John 2. Let’s let John harmonize himself. Look at 1 John 2:19, a verse your system must completely ignore:


John explicitly tells you why people 'apostatize.' It is not because they were bought by the blood of Christ and then lost their salvation. It is because they never belonged to Christ to begin with. True possession of eternal life guarantees continuation.
If a person can possess eternal life and then perish in hell, then the life God gave them was not 'eternal' at all—it was temporary, and Jesus lied when He said 'they shall never perish.'

Stop trying to rescue human free will at the expense of Christ’s explicit words. High Calvinists believe in a Savior who actually keeps His sheep. You believe in a savior who loses them and blames the sheep."

---

No, I am calmly stating what is logically obvious: per tulipism God programs/forces humanoids to be elect.

No, MFW notes the obvious fact that per tulipism God favors some with election.

I harmonized John 17:9-20 with John 3:16 and Matt. 28:19-20.

No, I suggested you harmonize John 10:28 with 1John 2:24-27 FOR STARTERS. Although you declined to do that,
you still have fifteen more to ignore: Rom. 11:22, 1Cor. 15:2, Col. 1:22-23, 2Thes. 1:4-5, 2Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6&14, 10:35-36, Jam. 1:12, 2Pet. 1:10-11, 2:20, (1John 2:24-25) and Rev. 2:10.

Yes, John alludes to those who were pseudo-Christians as well as to those who need to remain Christians/not commit apostasy.
Think BOTH-AND. Is it really that difficult? I affirm BOTH God's right to do whatever He wants AND His desire for everyone to be saved. Refusing to employ both-and/harmonizing logic seems to cause a lot of sinful interpretations of Scripture, resulting in disagreements on CC--which should not be fun.

 

[GWH]

Comprehension is not your strong point but I was already familiar with that deficit which is why I don't post to/with you.

My post was in reference to why some choose to write God as G-d and had nothing to do with the deity of Jesus. Nothing. smh

You said "The word God is not in the Bible",
to which I responded "The Word IS God!"

If comprehension were YOUR strong point you would understand that whenever "Word" is used, it means God.
Thus, we could say that those who write God as G-d should also write Word as W-d. Ditto re Creator as C-r, "I AM" as I-m, etc.

 

[GWH]

Can I piggyback on your post to raise an exegetical issue?

In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul’s statement that God “desires all men to be saved” needs to be read with the precision Paul himself uses. First, in context, “all” refers to all kinds of people—kings, authorities, Jews, Gentiles, the socially prominent and the socially insignificant. Paul is dismantling the narrowness of his audience, not declaring that every individual without exception will be saved. Second, if someone insists that “all means all” in a strictly universal sense, then consistency demands that “men means men” in the same strictly universal sense. Paul’s wording forces the interpreter to be logically honest: you cannot universalize one term and then quietly particularize the other. His point is about scope, not headcount—God’s saving desire reaches across every category of humanity, not merely one favored group.

Paul’s exhortation to pray for rulers in 1 Timothy 2 presses a logical question: what does Paul expect God to do with those prayers if the decisive factor in salvation is left entirely to human choice? Paul clearly assumes that our prayers for kings and authorities are meaningful because God Himself acts—He opens hearts, restrains evil, grants repentance, and draws people to the truth. If salvation were simply a matter of human self‑determination, then praying for rulers would be pointless; God could do nothing beyond watching their decisions. But Paul urges prayer precisely because he believes God works through those prayers. The command only makes sense if God is actively involved in bringing all kinds of people—including rulers—to salvation.

I recommend that parents pray for their kids because God can act in their salvation.

Here we have another example of faulty interpretation resulting from refusal to think BOTH-AND. Is it really that difficult?
I affirm BOTH God desires all men to be saved AND God desires all kinds of people to be saved.

Refusing to employ both-and/harmonizing logic seems to cause a lot disagreements on CC that should not happen.

 

[brightfame52]

No, I am calmly stating what is logically obvious: per tulipism God programs/forces humanoids to be elect.

No, MFW notes the obvious fact that per tulipism God favors some with election.

I harmonized John 17:9-20 with John 3:16 and Matt. 28:19-20.

No, I suggested you harmonize John 10:28 with 1John 2:24-27 FOR STARTERS. Although you declined to do that,
you still have fifteen more to ignore: Rom. 11:22, 1Cor. 15:2, Col. 1:22-23, 2Thes. 1:4-5, 2Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6&14, 10:35-36, Jam. 1:12, 2Pet. 1:10-11, 2:20, (1John 2:24-25) and Rev. 2:10.

Yes, John alludes to those who were pseudo-Christians as well as to those who need to remain Christians/not commit apostasy.
Think BOTH-AND. Is it really that difficult? I affirm BOTH God's right to do whatever He wants AND His desire for everyone to be saved. Refusing to employ both-and/harmonizing logic seems to cause a lot of sinful interpretations of Scripture, resulting in disagreements on CC--which should not be fun.

"GWH,

Throwing a shotgun list of scriptures at the page without exegeting a single one is not an argument; it is a retreat. You are hiding behind a lazy 'Both-And' philosophy because your system cannot handle the absolute, unchanging decrees of Almighty God.
Let's dismantle your list and expose why your 'Both-And' thinking is actually an 'Either-Or' contradiction:

1. The Delusion of Your 'Both-And' Logic

You claim to affirm both God’s right to do whatever He wants and His desire for everyone to be saved. Think through your own logic.
If God has the absolute right and power to do whatever He wants (Psalm 115:3), and He truly desires to save every single human being, then everyone would be saved. If people are in hell anyway, then God did not get what He wanted. Your 'Both-And' logic forces you to believe that the will of dead sinners is more powerful than the desire of the Almighty. That is not a mystery; it is a flat-out denial of God's omnipotence.

2. Drowning in the 'Ifs': The True Meaning of Conditional Verses

You listed 15 passages (like Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 3:6, Romans 11:22) that use the word 'if' regarding continuing in the faith, claiming they prove a true Christian can apostatize. You have completely misunderstood the nature of biblical warnings.
In Predestinarian theology, the word 'if' does not mean a child of God can lose their salvation. It establishes the evidence of salvation.

• Look at Hebrews 3:14: 'For we are made partakers of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.'
• Notice the grammar: It does not say, 'If we hold fast, we WILL BECOME partakers.' It says holding fast proves we 'ARE MADE' (past-tense reality) partakers.

Continuance is the proof of possession. If a person does not continue, they do not lose what they had; they prove they never had it.

3. You Doubled Down on Overlooking 1 John 2:19

You claim that 1 John 2 teaches both that apostates were pseudo-Christians and that true Christians can commit apostasy. This is a desperate attempt to force the text to say what it explicitly denies.

Look at the absolute, exclusive language John uses in 1 John 2:19:

'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for IF they had been of us, they would NO DOUBT have continued with us...'

John does not use 'both-and' language here. He uses 'either-or' logic. He says if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued. John leaves 0% room for a true Christian to apostatize. He explicitly states that the sole reason anyone leaves the faith is because they never belonged to Christ.

By claiming a true Christian can intentionally apostatize, you are calling John a liar. He says they would no doubt have continued; you say they might not.

4. The Absolute Failure of Your John 17 Twist

Finally, you claim Jesus's prayer in John 17 'potentially' includes the whole world because of John 3:16.

Jesus did not say, 'I pray not for the world right now, but I might later.' He made a definitive, sovereign, boundary line statement in the courtroom of heaven: 'I pray NOT for the world.' He did not shed His blood for a world He refused to pray for.

Stop running to philosophical 'Both-And' escape hatches to shield human free will. If Jesus says His sheep 'shall never perish' (John 10:28), then they will never perish. Your system turns 'eternal life' into a temporary contract that man can break. Submit to the victorious, keeping power of the true Shepherd."