Is This True? - Limited Atonement

[gmm4j]

Limited Atonement: Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners.

According to God’s Word people perish if they refuse to believe the truth of gospel message. For the Calvinist then, the non-elect should not perish because they believe the truth that Jesus didn’t die for them.

2 Thessalonians 2:10
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Those who teach limited atonement would say a person goes to hell because he believes the truth that Jesus did not die for him. According to Calvinism, he is correct for Christ did not die for his salvation. So then, why would God condemn this man for rejecting the Savior, if Christ did nothing to save him? And why would we try to persuade him otherwise? It would be foolish of us to attempt to do so.

When the gospel is preached, what are lost sinners urged to believe? According to Calvinism, the elect are urged to believe a message they are incapable of rejecting. The non-elect however, are urged to believe a message that is not true for them. They are told that Jesus died for their sins, but according to Calvinism this is not true, if they were not one of the elect. He is actually urged to believe a lie (for him). They are invited to believe this lie, commanded to believe it, and threatened with eternal condemnation if they do not believe it, yet Calvinism says they cannot believe it.

The fact is, the gospel does not urge sinners to believe a lie. Sinners do not perish for believing a lie but for rejecting God’s truth. The gospel compels them to believe the truth that Christ died for the sins of the world (John 1:29). He died for their sins. It is their rejection of this wonderful Truth that condemns them.

The gospel is good news for everyone all the time and that’s the truth!

 

[gmm4j]

OP anyone?

 

[gmm4j]

The fact is, the gospel does not urge sinners to believe a lie. Sinners do not perish for believing a lie but for rejecting God’s truth. The gospel compels them to believe the truth that Christ died for the sins of the world (John 1:29). He died for their sins. It is their rejection of this wonderful Truth that condemns them.

The gospel is good news for everyone all the time and that’s the truth!

 

[ronathanedwards]

For the Calvinist then, the non-elect should not perish because they believe the truth that Jesus didn’t die for them.

You REALLY need to take a logic class gmm...
They don't "BELIEVE that Jesus didn't die for them", they don't believe IN Him. They don't believe in the person or deity of Christ. They believe he is an impostor or a myth. Your reaching.

The gospel compels them to believe the truth

Where does it say that in the Bible? That the gospel COMPELS unbelievers?

The gospel IS good news for everyone, but is only effective for the elect, and condemning for the reprobate; but it is still good news!

 

[SolaOne]

Luke 14:24
And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

 

[ronathanedwards]

The compelling is done by the servants, not the Word. If you are trying to analogize it, the servants would be evangelists trying to get people to listen to the Word. The Word itself is either the power UNTO salvation (not "possibly unto salvation), or it is folly.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The gospel IS good news for everyone, but is only effective for the elect, and condemning for the reprobate; but it is still good news!

How in the world can the gospel be "good news for everyone" IF Christ didn't die for everyone?

Would a Calvinist PLEASE explain this? It makes no sense whatsoever.

In fact, the gospel is really really bad news for those that Calvinism claims Christ didn't die for. Horrible news.

 

[ronathanedwards]

And who are the ones that Christ didn't die for... what's their names? So that they would know to take it as "bad news'"?... You're arguing over a spiritual reality not a physical one. It is TRULY good news who hear it and believe it. I flip the question to you, how is it "good news" to those who reject it and hate it to their death bed? To them it is a menace. How is it "good news" when they hear that those who reject it will go to hell? It is only good news to those who believe, and that begs the question, who are the ones who believe? The answer is those who are elect.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And who are the ones that Christ didn't die for... what's their names?

I'm pretty sure you Calvinists call them the "non-elect". You didn't know that? And what's the point of your question anyway? Individual names aren't the issue. Not at all.

So that they would know to take it as "bad news'"?... You're arguing over a spiritual reality not a physical one.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. My question was very clear and you aren't answering it. How is the fact that Christ died ONLY for some good news for the ones He didn't die for? Can you and will you answer that in a manner that is logical, reasonable, and coherent?

It is TRULY good news who hear it and believe it.

But according to Calvinism, the "non-elect" cannot believe it, because God didn't elect them to salvation. Again, how can the gospel be considered good news for those it does NOT apply to?

I flip the question to you, how is it "good news" to those who reject it and hate it to their death bed?

Slick move to try to dodge my question. Just ask another one, hoping my question will go away.

But I'll bite anyway. Your question ignores the problem your theology created by viewing anyone as "non-elect", with all the baggage that goes along with it.

When good news is rejected, they simply don't benefit from the good news. Just as one who rejects a priceless gift simply doesn't get it. No difference.

To them it is a menace. How is it "good news" when they hear that those who reject it will go to hell?

You are still dodging the ISSUE of those Christ didn't die for. Why are you ignoring the problem of the so-called "non-elect"? You know, those for whom Christ DIDN'T die? There is NO good news for them. They were "fitted for destruction according to Calvinism. That is bummer news, not good news.

It is only good news to those who believe, and that begs the question, who are the ones who believe? The answer is those who are elect.

So you agree with my post, that the gospel (good news) isn't good for anyone who reject it. Thanks.

However, you never answered my question. You dodged it by asking more questions, and ignoring the issue of the so-called "non-elect" for whom Christ didn't die for, if that were true, which it isn't, btw.

You have demonstrated just how Calvinists cannot answer my question of how the good news is good for the ones you consider unable to believe it.

Why are you ignoring that issue: that the so-called "non-elect" can't believe the gospel? So, what part of the good news is good for those you deem unable to believe any part of it?

But, fortunately, we have God's Word to enlighten us and close the issue.

Jesus Himself told His disciples to PREACH the gospel to EVERY CREATURE. That settled it. The gospel is to be preached to everyone BECAUSE the gospel is FOR everyone.

Can you refute this? If so, please take a shot.

 

[ronathanedwards]

I did answer it, you just don't understand the concept.
You fail to understand the concept and it's repercussions on the atonement and the work of salvation within the Trinity.

You fail to recognize that we are to preach to everyone but you fail by making unsubstantiated assertions as to WHY. We preach the good news to everyone because man doesn't know who the elect are, if God were to do it Himself, he wouldn't have to because He knows who His elect are, but He chose to use the Church, and since the elect don't have green lights above their heads, the command is to preach to all, because we don't know. By the way, the "good news" is a COMMAND, not a suggestion.

Your theology can not even answer your own question, which ironically you have ignored. How is it "good news" to those people that God created knowing that they will reject it? Their outcome is just as fixed as the Calvinist position, you just don't want to recognize that, because your theology doesn't have an answer for it, unless you are an open theist, which is the only logical (yet heretical) yet consistent answer (excuse) in the road you are on.

The good news is FOR everyone.. yep. The COMMAND is for everyone... but WHY? You can't answer it, I can. Because we don't know who the elect are, and you want to say "Because God wants everyone to be saved", yet that fails to answer God's KNOWING that they WILL NOT BE SAVED ... which is the problem you are not even addressing in your shallow theology.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I did answer it, you just don't understand the concept.

Actually, your answer didn't understand the concept. At all.

You fail to understand the concept and it's repercussions on the atonement and the work of salvation within the Trinity.

And you still can't give a reasonable logical and Biblical answer as to why the gospel is good news for everyone.

Here is what you said:

The gospel IS good news for everyone, but is only effective for the elect, and condemning for the reprobate; but it is still good news!

So, again, how can your view of limited atonement be good news for the non-chosen ones? Please answer.

You fail to recognize that we are to preach to everyone but you fail by making unsubstantiated assertions as to WHY.

I understand that Calvinists understand the command to preach to every creature, but given your limited atonement and limited election, why can't you give a clear, concise, and reasonable answer as to WHY it is good news for those it isn't FOR? I have made no "uinsubstantiated assertions" about anything. I've asked YOU for an answer as to WHY the gospel is good news for everyone, when you believe that Christ didn't die for everyone.

Do you see the problem? IF the gospel is FOR everyone, then Christ had to die FOR everyone. If not, you need to do a lot of explaining.

We preach the good news to everyone because man doesn't know who the elect are

You are only dodging my question, again. Of course you don't know who who God supposedly chose for salvation. And that's not the point. The point is that Paul wrote that regarding his preaching to the lost, "of first importance is that Christ died for OUR sins". 1 Cor 15:3. He was reminding the church of what he initially preached to them before they believed (v.11).

If there is such a thing as the "non-elect", then preaching the gospel to them is LYING to them, if Christ didn't die for them. Nothing but a lie.

[QUTOE]if God were to do it Himself, he wouldn't have to because He knows who His elect are, but He chose to use the Church, and since the elect don't have green lights above their heads, the command is to preach to all, because we don't know. By the way, the "good news" is a COMMAND, not a suggestion.[/QUOTE]
Yes, which is my point. Preaching the gospel TO every creature is a command. Why? Because the good news is FOR everyone. Not just for the elect.

Your theology can not even answer your own question, which ironically you have ignored. How is it "good news" to those people that God created knowing that they will reject it?

That wasn't my question, but I'm happy to give you a proper answer. btw, asking this question only distracts from your problem in that you can't answer my question. There isn't any good news for those who reject it, just as it's bad news to throw away a priceless gift.

Your question merely dodges my point; how is the gospel (including who Christ died for) good news for those He didn't die for? That's about as plain as I can make it. Please answer that.

Their outcome is just as fixed as the Calvinist position, you just don't want to recognize that, because your theology doesn't have an answer for it, unless you are an open theist, which is the only logical (yet heretical) yet consistent answer (excuse) in the road you are on.

Please see above for my answer to your dodgeball question.

The good news is FOR everyone.. yep.

OK, please tell me HOW it is good news for those Christ didn't die for.

The COMMAND is for everyone... but WHY? You can't answer it, I can.

I did, and I will again. The command is FOR everyone because the gospel is FOR everyone. But you can't answer WHY it is good news for those Christ didn't die for. Seems all you do is dodge that issue, and it's clear enough.

Because we don't know who the elect are, and you want to say "Because God wants everyone to be saved", yet that fails to answer God's KNOWING that they WILL NOT BE SAVED ... which is the problem you are not even addressing in your shallow theology.

You just keep missing the point. HOW can the gospel be good news for the ones that Christ didn't die for?

The question is simple. Yet you've been all over the map in avoiding having to give an answer that you know you can't answer.

SINCE the gospel is commanded to be preached TO everyone, that means it is FOR everyone. That means Christ had to die FOR everyone, for the gospel to be good news for everyone.

Let's just say you had a revelation that a certain person was one of those "non-elect" types, you know, Christ didn't die for them.

But, you know the command is to preach the gospel TO everyone. So, you tell this person, well, Christ died for the elect, of which you aren't, but the good news is that all for whom He died will be saved and go to heaven.

Yeah, sure. How does that make sense?

 

[ronathanedwards]

Free Grace,
You are only talking past me. These issues require hard, critical thinking. You have been given answers that fully answer your question, and so far, have not answered mine. Saying "There isn't any good news for those who reject it, just as it's bad news to throw away a priceless gift." Doesn't answer your contrary idea that for some reason believe is a Calvinistic problem, when YOU didn't address the point that GOD KNOWS WHO IS NOT GOING TO BELIEVE!!! YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF YOUR OWN QUESTION!!! It is hilarious that you are not answering your own question... and CAN'T...

If there is such a thing as the "non-elect", then preaching the gospel to them is LYING to them, if Christ didn't die for them. Nothing but a lie.

Again, I can make the same accusation to you. You have a God who tells people to preach the "good news" to people that He knows (before they were created) are not going to accept it. It's a lie, isn't it! Your God is a liar!

Again, you can only come up with these bad arguments because you can not differentiate between the categories of man's knowledge and God's. I have told you this many times now. I think if you really want to know these issues, if you think they are important, you should take some seminary classes... you'll be surprised on how much you don't know..

 

[FreeGrace2]

Free Grace,
You are only talking past me.

That seems to be nearly epidemic on these forums.

These issues require hard, critical thinking. You have been given answers that fully answer your question

No, actually, they don't. Your answers "only talk past me".

and so far, have not answered mine.

I did. Apparently you either don't understand it or you reject it.

Saying "There isn't any good news for those who reject it, just as it's bad news to throw away a priceless gift." Doesn't answer your contrary idea that for some reason believe is a Calvinistic problem, when YOU didn't address the point that GOD KNOWS WHO IS NOT GOING TO BELIEVE!!!

I certainly HAVE addressed the omniscience of God!! Of course He knows, but that isn't the issue. You are bringing up a distraction, a smokescreen. Yes, He knows everything. But that doesn't defend Calvinism at all.

Calvinism's centerpiece is election to salvation without conditions and limited atonement, both being God's choice of who goes to heaven. That in itself gives an excuse for the non-chosen ones, yet none of you, except Anoetos, will acknowledge that. Why is that?

I'll put it to you in hopefully a more "palatable" way. In Calvinism, being non chosen is the REASON people go to hell. Do you agree with that or not?

YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF YOUR OWN QUESTION!!! It is hilarious that you are not answering your own question... and CAN'T...

I've answered every question put to me. Maybe you missed it. Please resubmit and I will answer it. I haven't shied away from any question to date. And I don't intend to. I enjoy the opportunity to explain my view to anyone who asks.

Again, I can make the same accusation to you. You have a God who tells people to preach the "good news" to people that He knows (before they were created) are not going to accept it. It's a lie, isn't it! Your God is a liar!

Excuse me???!! The REASON God commands us to preach the gospel TO every creature is BECAUSE the gospel is FOR every creature, which your theology denies by your view of the so-called non-elect. So, in fact, Calvinism is preaching a lie whenever you preach what Paul preached, "Christ died for OUR sins" to the so-called non-elect. In your view, Christ did not such thing, so to tell those so-called non-elect that Christ died for OUR sins is a lie in your system.

So don't tell me that my God is a liar! Again, the REASON we are to preach the gospel to everyone is BECAUSE Christ died FOR everyone.

Again, you can only come up with these bad arguments because you can not differentiate between the categories of man's knowledge and God's.

Apparently I understand far better than you do, given this really off the wall post.

I have told you this many times now. I think if you really want to know these issues, if you think they are important, you should take some seminary classes... you'll be surprised on how much you don't know..

Back to ya.

 

[nobdysfool]

I think it is clear here that the whole intent of certain posters here is to defame Calvinism, by any and all means, no matter how outrageous, illogical, irrational, or untruthful, and to taunt, bait, and goad Calvinists in the process. That is not a legitimate method of debate. It is also not legitimate debate tactics to gloat over supposed "victory" over Calvinists on a point.

The anti-Calvinist nature of these posters is highlighted by the engagement in accusations of denialism on the part of the Calvinists. That is, the Calvinists are accused of denying some "fact" or "position" that is assumed by the other side to be "self-evident" or the oft-used "plainly stated in Scripture". The truth is, it is simply an offensive move disguised as a defensive move, to distract and sidetrack the discussion.

Many doctrines that are accepted as orthodox are not "plainly stated" in Scripture, but are derived by inference, and deduction. God has not laid all of His Truth out on the top of the ground, like rocks strewn about on a pad of concrete, as some want to assume. Yet when it comes to debate and discussion, the non-Calvinists often act as though that is exactly what has been done, and express shock and dismay that Calvinists don't accept such a ridiculous and illogical premise.

When Calvinists point out the truth that some doctrines are derived from inference, deduction, and the consideration of multiple passages of Scripture, the hue and cry of "eisegesis", or "reading into Scripture", or "adding to the words of scripture" is raised by the non-Calvinists, which allows them to avoid actually engaging in the examination of such multiple passages to see if the Calvinists might possibly have a point.

Much of the resistance to Calvinism is rightly shown to be emotional, and visceral, and often tinged with claims that Calvinists make out God to be a "monster", "tyrant", "unfair", "unloving", etc. which are on their face emotion-based charges. It is an attempt to derail the discussion, to put Calvinists on the defensive, and to drag Calvinists into an emotion-based debate, which it is hoped will work to the anti-Calvinists' advantage, because it is an attempt to move the discussion onto their playing field.

In conclusion, I believe that there is enough evidence to show that while this sub-forum is entitled "Debate with a Calvinist", the substance of at least this thread, and several others is not in keeping with the stated purpose of the sub-forum, but has rather been turned into an attempted platform to defame and impugn Calvinism and by extension CalvinISTS by those who have shown by their tactics and rhetoric that they simply cannot abide the very existence of Calvinism, and by extension, CalvinISTS, and have set their intention to "defeat" Calvinism, by any means necessary, in spite of the clear FACt that Calvinism has undergone such attacks almost since its inception, all of which have met with failure.

And so it will be with these attacks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think it is clear here that the whole intent of certain posters here is to defame Calvinism, by any and all means, no matter how outrageous, illogical, irrational, or untruthful, and to taunt, bait, and goad Calvinists in the process.

Instead of complaining, why haven't you been able to provide any kind of rational defense of your theology, or refuted what I've posted? This kind of complaining isn't complimentary to you.

That is not a legitimate method of debate.

If my method isn't legitimate, why hasn't hammster or another mod told me so?

It is also not legitimate debate tactics to gloat over supposed "victory" over Calvinists on a point.

How is it a gloat to note that you haven't refuted my view? I am merely making a point, a point which you don't like, obviously, but it's still a point.

The anti-Calvinist nature of these posters is highlighted by the engagement in accusations of denialism on the part of the Calvinists. That is, the Calvinists are accused of denying some "fact" or "position" that is assumed by the other side to be "self-evident" or the oft-used "plainly stated in Scripture". The truth is, it is simply an offensive move disguised as a defensive move, to distract and sidetrack the discussion.

From the tone of your post it would appear that you would be offended by anyone who comes to the "debate a Calvinist" subforum to debate with you. Is that correct? If so, that is quite extreme, no? What do you expect from a debate? Just Calvinists going at each other over 3pt, 4pt, or 5pt views? LOL

Many doctrines that are accepted as orthodox are not "plainly stated" in Scripture, but are derived by inference, and deduction.

Yes, that's been admitted by others. But I strongly disagree, and I have given much Scripture to back up my claims, none of which you guys care for. But my view IS plainly stated in Scripture, and that seems to bug the daylights out of you.

[QUTOE] God has not laid all of His Truth out on the top of the ground, like rocks strewn about on a pad of concrete, as some want to assume.[/QUOTE]
No need to be so "dramatic" here. No one has assumed any such thing. And what He HAS given us is plainly stated, contrary to your view.

Yet when it comes to debate and discussion, the non-Calvinists often act as though that is exactly what has been done, and express shock and dismay that Calvinists don't accept such a ridiculous and illogical premise.

I'm still waiting for one of you to clearly show me what is illogical on my part.

When Calvinists point out the truth that some doctrines are derived from inference, deduction, and the consideration of multiple passages of Scripture, the hue and cry of "eisegesis", or "reading into Scripture", or "adding to the words of scripture" is raised by the non-Calvinists, which allows them to avoid actually engaging in the examination of such multiple passages to see if the Calvinists might possibly have a point.

No, that's the truth. You guys dismiss or ignore the plainly stated verses that refute you, or you twist the guts out of them to make them say the exact opposite of what they do plainly say. LOL

Much of the resistance to Calvinism is rightly shown to be emotional, and visceral, and often tinged with claims that Calvinists make out God to be a "monster", "tyrant", "unfair", "unloving", etc. which are on their face emotion-based charges.

Actually, all the emotional outcries have come from you guys. For example, crimsonleaf admitted to getting "all wound up" in discussions and feeling "frustrated". Those are emotions. You guys are taking all this criticism of your theology way too personal. It's NOT personal; it's theology.

And I've backed up my view with plainly stated verses, and you guys can't. You have to hide behind your inference and deduction to come up with your views.

In conclusion, I believe that there is enough evidence to show that while this sub-forum is entitled "Debate with a Calvinist", the substance of at least this thread, and several others is not in keeping with the stated purpose of the sub-forum, but has rather been turned into an attempted platform to defame and impugn Calvinism and by extension CalvinISTS by those who have shown by their tactics and rhetoric that they simply cannot abide the very existence of Calvinism, and by extension, CalvinISTS, and have set their intention to "defeat" Calvinism, by any means necessary, in spite of the clear FACt that Calvinism has undergone such attacks almost since its inception, all of which have met with failure.

Nice long sentence. So, explain what you think "debate" means, please. I can't imagine.

 

[nobdysfool]

Instead of complaining, why haven't you been able to provide any kind of rational defense of your theology, or refuted what I've posted? This kind of complaining isn't complimentary to you.

Address what I said, please.

If my method isn't legitimate, why hasn't hammster or another mod told me so?

Why are you taking this personally?

How is it a gloat to note that you haven't refuted my view? I am merely making a point, a point which you don't like, obviously, but it's still a point.

Something which you never fail to make a big deal about, ad infinitum. And many times, it's only in your own mind.

From the tone of your post it would appear that you would be offended by anyone who comes to the "debate a Calvinist" subforum to debate with you. Is that correct? If so, that is quite extreme, no? What do you expect from a debate? Just Calvinists going at each other over 3pt, 4pt, or 5pt views? LOL

Ad hominem. Please address what I actually said, instead of trying to ascribe motives and thoughts to me that you cannot possibly know.

Yes, that's been admitted by others. But I strongly disagree, and I have given much Scripture to back up my claims, none of which you guys care for. But my view IS plainly stated in Scripture, and that seems to bug the daylights out of you.

God has not laid all of His Truth out on the top of the ground, like rocks strewn about on a pad of concrete, as some want to assume.

No need to be so "dramatic" here. No one has assumed any such thing. And what He HAS given us is plainly stated, contrary to your view.

It's plainly evident from the demands for verses that state a doctrinal position in so many words.

I'm still waiting for one of you to clearly show me what is illogical on my part.

It's been done, but you illogically disagree.

No, that's the truth. You guys dismiss or ignore the plainly stated verses that refute you, or you twist the guts out of them to make them say the exact opposite of what they do plainly say. LOL

In. Your. Opinion. Opinions vary...

Actually, all the emotional outcries have come from you guys. For example, crimsonleaf admitted to getting "all wound up" in discussions and feeling "frustrated". Those are emotions. You guys are taking all this criticism of your theology way too personal. It's NOT personal; it's theology.

More ad hominem. Accusations do not establish truth.

And I've backed up my view with plainly stated verses, and you guys can't. You have to hide behind your inference and deduction to come up with your views.

More accusations. Please address what I actually said, not your interpretation of it.

Nice long sentence. So, explain what you think "debate" means, please. I can't imagine.

It does not mean trying to demean and impugn Calvinism for personal bragging rights, or to demean and impugn Calvinists. You've done both.

 

[ronathanedwards]

I certainly HAVE addressed the omniscience of God!! Of course He knows, but that isn't the issue. You are bringing up a distraction, a smokescreen. Yes, He knows everything. But that doesn't defend Calvinism at all.

"That isn't the issue" is not an answer. The issue is "Is it lying to tell someone the gospel to someone who isn't 'elect' BECAUSE it isn't FOR them" ...

The obvious point you are not addressing is your question applies to your theology and you don't have an answer for it! All you can say is "that isn't the issue"... really? I think it is ! If God knows who is going to NOT choose the gospel, then is it a lie for Him to tell that person the gospel is for them.... You're in the exact same boat.

And by the way, I'm working on my MASTERS in seminary.... how bout you?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Address what I said, please.

here is what I addressed:

I think it is clear here that the whole intent of certain posters here is to defame Calvinism, by any and all means, no matter how outrageous, illogical, irrational, or untruthful, and to taunt, bait, and goad Calvinists in the process.

So, what did I miss?

Why are you taking this personally?

That's funny.

It's plainly evident from the demands for verses that state a doctrinal position in so many words.

How "original" of you. Yet, you can't find any verse to support your limited doctrines of election and atonement, even though there are plainly stated verses that SAY the opposite of what you CLAIM.

It's been done, but you illogically disagree.

OK, your opinion. I'll put that down.

It does not mean trying to demean and impugn Calvinism for personal bragging rights, or to demean and impugn Calvinists. You've done both.

Once again, I invite you to cite post # or actual quotes to support your claim here.

It gets quite obvious from all the charges you and others keep throwing at me, and my request for actual evidence, that none of y'all ever find any.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"That isn't the issue" is not an answer. The issue is "Is it lying to tell someone the gospel to someone who isn't 'elect' BECAUSE it isn't FOR them" ...

For me, that's no issue, because the Bible TELLS us that the gospel is FOR everyone. Therefore, you can look ANYONE in the eye and tell them that Christ died FOR them personally, and purchased eternal life FOR them individually.

That IS the issue.

The obvious point you are not addressing is your question applies to your theology and you don't have an answer for it! All you can say is "that isn't the issue"... really?

OK, just scroll up to the previous statement. There it is, in black and white.

I think it is ! If God knows who is going to NOT choose the gospel, then is it a lie for Him to tell that person the gospel is for them.... You're in the exact same boat.

Here's what you don't to admit: Christ died FOR everyone, therefore it IS FOR everyone. And yes, God already knows who will and won't believe, but that is no issue. It is only a red herring that you're trying to throw out.

You are dodging the real issue: if Christ didn't die for everyone, the gospel CANNOT be for everyone. Is that clear to you?

But since He did, though you deny it, the gospel IS FOR everyone, because He died for everyone. That is why I can look anyone in the eye and tell that Christ died for them and will give them eternal life for trusting Him for it.

But, Calvinists CANNOT do that, and you know it. Why? Because you don't think Christ died for everyone, right.

And by the way, I'm working on my MASTERS in seminary.... how bout you?

I have a doctorate.

 

[nobdysfool]

here is what I addressed:

So, what did I miss?

The point is, if you want to turn it into a question, is it true? Hint: The answer is "yes"///

That's funny.

Wasn't trying to tickle your funny bone. I have a right to my opinion.

How "original" of you. Yet, you can't find any verse to support your limited doctrines of election and atonement, even though there are plainly stated verses that SAY the opposite of what you CLAIM.

or at least that what you THINK they say. As with other things, opinions vary.

OK, your opinion. I'll put that down.

Thank you,as long as you mean you will make note of that. Otherwise, if your intent is to put down my opinion, you've already been doing that.

Once again, I invite you to cite post # or actual quotes to support your claim here.

Quite a few of them have been documented and others have been alerted. Perhaps you don't realize how you sound to others.

It gets quite obvious from all the charges you and others keep throwing at me, and my request for actual evidence, that none of y'all ever find any.

What is glaringly obvious is that even if such proof were to be provided, it would be summarily dismissed, because you've already decided that you are infallibly correct, and Calvinists are infallibly wrong. So, why waste the effort?