Thanks for that Brother..May I also say I find you and Carbon extremely humble men......I pray I become as humble as you two are.....I still go off at the deep end at times,Lol.
Oh man…I yet have much pride. If it seems different at times, it is due to Christ flowing through me.
Ah you are modest...I know it’s God in you...I see him so much in you.and Carbon...I didn’t mean to embarrass you both, it was on my heart and it had to be said....I’m always watching you two .....such gentlemen.
Keep the posts about the post and not the poster.
They would perish if Christ returned before they had been brought to faith, which is why His return does not occur until they have been brought to faith. That is the reason for what the recipients considered a delay. It has been dealt with---many times over, by several people. It would seem that just not to your satisfaction.
That certainly resonates with my spirit...thank you.
Can we amend that to say the Holy Spirit works in us to eradicate the natural-born hostility, turning us to God, so we can turn do so continually through His enabling?
No.
Show me.
Yep. Scripture states what scripture states, and while I read theology diversely and abundantly, one of the things I have learned is that having letter after one's name does not make one correct. That's just as true of you, me, Calvin, Bavinck, and everyone else.
(not withstanding Calvin, of course 
), comes from the same Dutch-Reformed school of theology as Kuyper and Bavinck, both of whom asked him to teach at their university), and he taught alongside Machen and Warfield at Princeton's school of theology.Let's try to keep the posts about the posts, and not the posters. My satisfaction or lack thereof is just as irrelevant to this discussion as anyone else's.
Jumbo shrimp
Ok, thanks for taking the time to explain.
1) God's purpose is that his elect will not perish.
See my reply to another of your posts.Think it through.
In answer to the question, "What repentance do the elect need?" the answer is the elect who are not yet saved need to repent as a part of the salvation experience. I agree. That is not the problem. The problem occurs when we discuss the matter of perishing. The elect CANNOT perish soteriologically. This is axiomatic to Calvinist soteriology. It does not matter whether they are the already-saved elect, or the not-yet-saved elect. THEY CANNOT PERISH SOTERIOLOGICALLY!!! So, either the clause about God not wanting them to perish is oxymoronic (the potentially perishing imperishables?) or the perishing is not soteriological.
No one here is even remotely addressing that problem.
THE ELECT CANNOT PERISH!
So how can God desire something not happen He knows cannot ontologically happen? If the verse is made out to pertain only to the elect, then the perishing God does not desire is not a soteriological perishing. Conversely, if the perishing is soteriological, then the verse is not limited to the elect because the elect cannot perish.
And I have started to repeat myself so unless and until I read something new, I will be taking my leave of the thread. I stand by what I said at the beginning of my participation in this thread (see Post #84).
For my part, I was not being nasty; it was simply that I perceived a lack of understanding, on the part of the other poster, and said so. If it were not misunderstanding what an oxymoron is, then it would have to be misunderstanding something else, to think that an oxymoron was present. Either way, misunderstanding it was.
That is so not true. He did the work of salvation in HIs first advent. He consumates it in his second. I suggest you read 2 Peter again, and try and understand both what he is saying and what everyone else is agreeing with him on. They are going to be saved because God decided from all eternity to save them----and that is why He had not returned yet when Peter wrote the epistle and why He has not returned yet.
Well, as Josheb would say, It has been gone over countless times, worded and reworded in the hopes of being understood, by many in the thread. It is all in print. I am not going to do that work for you.
Relevance?
Just stating my conclusion. That does not fall under the umbrella of personal remarks about the person. And just for our info: It is very bad form to respond to a post and also report it.
If by that you mean turning, changing one's mind.
And because God decided from eternity they would be saved, his second coming is predicated on the coming to faith of all his elect (2 Pe 3:9)
If there were no second coming, God's plan would obviously have been different. You would throw the whole Ordo Salutis out of wack.
Really Josheb?
Have it, read it.
Yes, it would change the ordo salutis, but it would not "throw it out of wack." We'd still believe, we'd still be regenerated, we'd still be indwelt, still be justified, still be sanctified, still be adopted, and we'd still die and be raised incorruptible and immortal.
Yes. Really. Asked once. Not answered once.Really Josheb?
Then you know the apostle Paul taught an eschatological component to salvation. Nothing I have posted in this thread is new or original.
No. Relevance?
That's not the correct syllogism.
That is correct. The straw man contains no oxymoron.
Now take that to its logically necessary conclusion: the elect cannot soteriologically perish. Everyone whose taken issue with Post #4 has ignored the "perish" of 2 Peter 3:9.
The elect cannot perish. They elect will not perish. The elect cannot perish. God does not desire they perish. God does not desire what is scripturally and logically impossible.
.
