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 .

 

[GWH]

We considered prayer in some detail, because it is an integral aspect of spiritual dynamics or how the Spirit of God communes with Believers. The second main type of response by Believers is doing good works, which would lead into discussion of a myriad of moral (didachaic) topics that is beyond the scope of this lesson. Let us simply say that saints should seek to become morally perfect (Matt. 5:48) or pure (Phil. 1:10& 2:15) or spiritually mature (Eph. 4:13, Phil. 3:12-15), which means to remain filled by or to be in step with the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:25) more and more of the time (Phil. 1:9, 1Thes. 4:1 &10).

No one achieves moral perfection in this life (Phil. 3:12), but no one who lacks divine love will reap eternal life with God (Gal. 6:7-8). Thus, a person who claims to be godly but who is behaving in an ungodly (unloving, untruthful) manner may be in one of the following categories:

a. a normally loving person observed during a rare moment when he/she acted uncharacteristically (Phil. 3:12-16),
b. an immature Believer, who is making progress–you should have known him/her a year ago! (1Cor. 3:1-3, Eph. 4:11-15)
c. a truthseeker who has not yet learned the correct interpretation of God’s Word (1Cor. 6:9-11, Eph. 5:8-9), or
d. a pseudo-Christian (Matt. 7:21, 1John 2:19), who affirms Jesus as Messiah but rejects His Lordship.
e. an apostate or heretic (1John 2:19, Heb. 6:4-6), who once believed but became blasphemous or foolish and ship-wrecked their faith (1Tim. 1:19-20).
f. An atheist, who may imitate divine love without glorifying the One whose power makes it a golden rule rather than merely a pyrite suggestion.

Paul listed some sins he implied genuine Christians would not typically commit (in 1Cor. 6:9-10), saying: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Apparently, although a new Christian might backslide and commit such sins occasionally, it is inconceivable (because antithetical to NT teaching) that a mature Christian would commit them so typically that the person could be classified as an adulterer, for example. Atheists might try to practice the “Golden Rule”, but the key issue for them on judgment day will be explaining what good reason they had for rejecting God rather than glorifying Him as the One who determines what is good/golden.

Sinners can overcome selfishness only by becoming one with Christ via faith in Him/God as Lord and thereby sharing His goodness because of union with His/God’s Holy Spirit. This spiritual union is denoted by references to those who have saving faith as children of God the Father (Rom. 8:14-16). This is why Christianity is a relationship with God motivated by gratitude for God’s grace (Psa. 100, Eph. 2:4-8) rather than a legalistic religion of working to merit God’s mercy because of fear of punishment.

The evidence of saving faith or satisfying GRFS is working faith, love or helping humanity (John 13:35). Disciples of Jesus (or Believers) tend to love and help others, not by virtue of their own goodness, but because they are moved or motivated by the loving Spirit of the Lord. Christians love everyone by reflecting God’s love (Matt. 5:44&48, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Rom. 5:5-8 & 1John 4:7-19). Humans can never become good enough to earn or merit salvation as a reward for right behavior. A person cannot be good by doing good. Those who try to attain heaven by imitating Christ-like behavior without accepting Christ’s Lordship and atonement do not merely fall short (Rom. 3:23) but actually go in the opposite direction (Gal. 5:4), so we should cooperate with God’s Way.

Someone who does not hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matt. 5:6) and LGW (Psa. 119:9) needs to reevaluate the sincerity of his/her profession of faith in the Lord. As Paul says (in 2Cor. 13:5), “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith.” The spiritual beauty of God’s truth is as awe-inspiring or attractive as the physical beauty of God’s world for one who has the Spirit/mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:12-16).

And this brings us to the final stage of salvation: glorification (1Pet. 5:10) or immortality (1Cor. 15:53) in heaven. Because everyone in heaven will be happy, I speculate that the different degrees of joy possibly indicated by 1Cor. 3:11-15 will correlate with the degrees of suffering for Christ during earthly existence, comparable to why an artist appreciates a painting more than someone with little experiential knowledge of the subject (Rom. 8:18, 2Cor. 4:17, 1Pet. 4:13).

 

[GWH]

All humans who have ever lived had the God-given/enabled ability to be truthseekers or hunger and thirst after righteousness, and God's Word was revealed to folks before the OT and then the NT were written before the Bible was widely published after the printing press was invented circa 1500 AD.

During these times and situations folks were judged on the basis of general revelation via creation and conscience (Rom. 1:20, 2:12-4:3). The Jews had an advantage by receiving revelation via Moses (Rom. 3:1-2), and those who receive the NT have the greater advantage of knowing the Gospel (Rom. 3:21-31). These three categories of revelation are the basis of divine judgment per the Parable of the Three Servants (Matt. 25:14-30).

 

[GWH]

The quest for greater Christian unity prompts me to identify Scripture from which my interpretations of God's Word
regarding salvation spring, and my Top Ten foundational Scriptures in logical order are these:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph. 3:12b)
2. So I sought salvation and found God. (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6b)
3. The loving God who wants all souls to learn the truth about how to be saved. (1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16)
4. Which is to believe that Jesus is Christ, whose death atoned for humanity’s sins. (1Tim. 2:5-6)
5. As taught in all inspired Scripture interpreted in light of this Gospel of salvation. (2Tim. 3:15)
6. Such interpretation of GW also teaches how to be godly after being saved. (2Tim. 3:16-17)
7. Which doctrine Jesus summarized as loving God, oneself and everyone else. (Matt. 22:37-40)
8. And which moral maturity Paul termed as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. (Gal. 5:13-23)
9. That requires persevering in saving faith and learning God’s Word. (Matt. 4:4, 10:22)
10. So that we will grant the prayer of Jesus for us to be one in our witness. (John 17:20-23)