What if God, willing to. . . .

[Josheb]

What do you think the doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity is. It is that the spirit of man is dead at the outset.

A person with a dead spirit is not alive. The idea of "spiritual death" is not found in scripture. It is a concept inferred from being "born anew," or "made alive in the spirit."

All of that rests upon the false belief that the spirit formed in the unborn is dead in Adam's trespass.

It's not a false belief.

Everyone since has been that way.

Including the unborn. Everyone has become that way. I suspect the problem is you think isn is solely a matter of conduct because of 1 John 3:4, but 1 John 3:4 is not the only definition of sin provided in scripture.

Adam who was good and sinless sinned. Everyone since has been good and sinless and sinned.

Prove it.

Provie me with a verse in which scripture explicitly states someone is good and sinless.

By that argument the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity appeal to the extremes.

no. That would be true only if your definition of sin applied to those doctrines, but your definition of sin is incorrect.

Absolute not. Calvinism teaches that God has imputed the sin of Adam into all humans.

Sorta.

Yes, there are Cals that assert the premise of imputation but there is a much more scriptural way of looking at it: Romans 12:5. Transgressional death has come to all people because all will sin. Every single human has been changed by one man's disobedience and some of those changes can be observed being physiologically transferred to our progeny at a cellular level. That is not how God made us.

That is false. Moreover, Calvinism teaches that no one can even intellectually hear and understand God until God first lets that happen.

That is incorrect. A person can hear it but they cannot understand it, nor can the act upon it salvifically. The ability to physically hear the gospel has never been the problem. The ability to understand it and respond salvifically is the problem. I can quote scripture explicitly stating people have heard the gospel and not understood it AND I can provide scripture in which the inability to understand is attributed to God making some of them that way. I am sure you know of what verses I speak. Can you provide a scripture explicitly stating the dead-in-sin sinner can understand and respond salvifically within his own sinful faculties? If so then post it. If not then come right out and post a good, honest and forthcoming, "No, there is no such verse," so that one way or the other we can discuss the implication of scripture's silence and it's explicit report.

Obviously God made Adam corruptible

Yep. And as a consequence of his disobedience sin has entered the world and with it transgressional death. All will sin. There is no one who will not sin.





Two closing observations.

1) You have got to stop ragging on Calvinism. It's blinding you. I have purposefully endeavored to stay firmly couched in scripture, and scripture alone. Other Cals with whom you are trading posts may quote Calvinist theologians, but I will not. There are several reasons for my not doing so but the chief reason is because scripture and only scripture is the one single authority in this conversation. It is my firm belief that if you will accept scripture exactly as written and not be biased by your already-existing volitionalism and biased by an already existing contempt for Calvinism then you and I will be able to agree with scripture together. We've already established some agreement: man was made corruptible, and death has come to all people. Try focusing your questions, doubts, and disagreements on what I have said, not what you think Calvinism teaches. It is demonstrably evident you do not correctly understand Calvinism. I don't mean that as a personal attack; that's simply what the posts show. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have and address all your concerns, which brings me to my second observation.....

2) We have gotten far afield of your original inquiry. I am not chasing you around the thread if you constantly change the discussion from one subject to another to another and another ad nauseam and I do not expect you to tolerate that from me. This digression from the op started with Post 270 in which @Carbon, @Arial, and I were asked about the doctrine of election and the position of the elect not perishing. The specific questions we were asked were...

• Why didn't God, at the outset, just create the elect and "save" them without all the folderal of this physical creation?
• What was or will be accomplished by the creation?
• What purpose will it have served other that putting a few selected individuals in "heaven" and considerably more "selected" individuals in hell?
• Why the creation?

And I have answered those questions. The answers to those questions were ignored and new comments and inquiries were posted. I say this because it now looks like the original questions were asked disingenuously and some other unstated agenda existed (like hijacking the thread to rag on Calvinism as a whole). Maybe I have unwittingly contributed to further digression by posting so much information. I'm addressing that problem now.

So please go back to Post 274 and address the answers provided.

• God did create the elect at the outset. He created good and sinless creatures who became not-good and sinful..... and it was from that group of entirely dead-in-sin people that God chose the elect. He chose them; He did not make them different from others.
• Physical creation is not folderal.
• God's plan was accomplished by creating creation.
• The purpose served by creation is God's glory and He is glorified whether sinner are saved from sin or not. He is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and He is glorified as a gracious God when He chooses to save some from among those who would otherwise be justly destroyed.
• Scripture is silent in answer to the last question so any answer given would be entirely speculative regardless of a person soteriological orientation and view of the elect.

That is what you asked for. All that ragging on Calvinism is unnecessary.

 

[Josheb]

At first you said that God cannot desire to keep from happening what he has already made impossible (in spite of the fact that the impossibility is because of his desire); but, now you are saying that it was God's desire for the elect not to perish that made it impossible, which is exactly what I've been saying all along! Are you trying to gaslight us?

God's desire does not change. His desire, from before the foundation of the world, that his elect would not perish is still his desire today; and it is that eternal desire that leads to God suffering long with his elect, while we are in a state of rebellion and unbelief, until we come to repentance.

God uses means to keep his elect from perishing and one of those means is his long-suffering with the, as yet unsaved, elect. The reason why God suffers long with us, is his eternal desire that none of us would perish.

If God were fickle (like the mythical Greek gods), then we would have no such guarantee that the elect would all be saved; but, it is the immutability of his desire that the elect will not perish that guarantees that we will never perish.

Our repentance is likewise guaranteed, because God suffers long with us, in our state of unbelief, until his chosen time to grant us repentance unto life; and God suffers long with us, because of his eternal desire that we would not perish.

I fully grasp God not wanting the elect to perish. Nothing I have written should ever be construed to say otherwise and every time every single one of you thinks otherwise and makes this discussion about my lack of comprehension you're only showing your own lack of comprehension. I have been patient enduring that nonsense because if I were to treat you the way I have been treated we'd get nowhere, and I'd probably be sanctioned even though I did not start it.

I'm finding hard to see why you are not grasping this.

I do not care. Your difficulty seeing is irrelevant.

Is it because you think that the means God has chosen to use (e.g. his long-suffering) are unnecessary?

No. It is NOT because I think the means God has chosen are unnecessary.



Can God perish?

 

[JIM]

Yes, yes, yes.

Adam and Eve were already mortal, Physical death is not what entered the world when Adam disobeyed God. We KNOW Adam and Eve were mortal because the threat of death would be meaningless to an immortal creature. The word "immortal" means unable to die or not subject to death. Immortal creatures can hear, "Do not eat or you will die," and respond, "Meh, I'm immortal; I cannot die." To believe Adam and Eve were made inherently immortal is to make meaningless God's command and to make God a liar. We KNOW they were mortal because an immortal creature does not need a tree of life. An immortal person could eat from the tree of life and their life would not be extended one second because they are already immortal!!! We know they were made immortal because the author of Hebrews explicitly stated it was apportioned for man to die once (not multiple times = physically dead, dead in sin, dead in Christ, second death, etc.) and then face judgment. We KNOW they were mortal because 1 Corinthians 15 states we are sown mortal and corruptible, not immortal and incorruptible (or immortal and already-corrupted). We KNOW death existed in Eden prior to Genesis 3:7 because God made all the plants and animals to reproduce and for an apple tree or a cucumber to reproduce it must produce seeds that die in the ground and become a new plant that produces more seeds and more plants. Death is inherent in reproduction, but it is not the death of sin. As I mentioned in a previous post..... if Adam was made inherently mortal then the laws of physics would be different. If he were immortal then he could jump or fall off a mile-high cliff and survive the sudden impact at the end of the fall. Nothing could kill him.

Humans were never immortal.

Yes, I agree.

The death to which Paul is referring in Romans 12 is the death of sin. Some people call it "spiritual death," but that phrase is nowhere found in scripture. What scripture calls it is "dead in sin," or "dead in transgression." That is why I used the phrase "transgressional death." It was transgressional death that came to all men, not physical death. Physically, all humans were going to die anyway.

• If a good and sinless person dies physically then s/he physically dies good and sinless can eat of the tree of life and be raised immortal.
• If a person sins then s/he has instantly become dead in sin and if that person physically dies dead in sin, then they will die a third death in the fiery lake. That person has died physically dead in sin. They have not physically died good and sinless.
• If a person sins then s/he instantly becomes dead in sin but if they subsequently believe in Jesus they are made alive again and dead to sin. They are changed. They are changed from dead in sin to dead to sin. They are changed from dead in sin, to dead in Christ and being dead in Christ is what makes one physically immortal, not being made human. Humans are NOT made physically immortal. The only way to be physically immortal is to eat from the tree of life. When that formerly good and sinless person who has become not-good and sinful dies in Christ he will be resurrected and in his resurrect be transformed from mortal and corruptible to immortal and incorruptible. That was the plan from the beginning: it was apportioned for man to die once and then face judgment. If a person has sown to the flesh, they then reap eternal life, but f they have sown to the Spirit then they reap eternal life. No one was born with eternal life.

And I have proven the unborn are indeed and inescapably born dead in sin. Would you like me to repeat that information? If I were to provide convincing information, would you let go of the notion the people are pure and good and sinless before they are born?

Transgressional death, not physical death, entered the world when Adam disobeyed God. That is a form of death that had not previously existed in the world beforehand.

Well yes, the phrase "spiritual death" is found nowhere in Scripture, but also the phrase "transgressional death" is found nowhere in Scripture. I have read and heard plenty of stuff about Original Sin. I really don't need any more. The unborn are not indeed and inescapably born dead in sin. To be dead in sin is a condition of the spirit. The one who has sinned has caused the spirit to become damaged or depraved (though not totally depraved). That is not the condition of the unborn. That is not the condition of the spirit formed in the unborn by God.

Now look at "all men sinned." Is Paul making a statement only about the past, only about those men who lived prior to Romans 12:5?

I assume you meant Romans 5:12.

Or is Paul making a statement that is true of all people, male and female, men and women, young and old, in every generation? We KNOW from Romans 3:23 that all have sinned and fall short of God's glory. That is just as true today as it was when Paul wrote the verse. All have sinned. It isn't just the people that lived before Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, that verse also applies to all the humans born between that time and this one, and it is also true of all the people on earth who will live after you and I have physically died. We also know the wages of sin is death. Transgressional death comes to all who have sinned.

I agree, spiritual death, or if you prefer the phrase transgressional death, comes to all who have sinned. The unborn have not sinned.

Death came to all men because all sinned.

Death, spiritual death or transgressional death, will come to all men who sin because they sin.

Death has [already] come to all men because all men [will sin]. There is only one man who has ever lived a completely sinless life and there is only one man who will ever live a completely life and that man is Jesus, the Son of God. There won't be any other sinless people. He is it; the only one. Sin and sinful death are just as inevitable as physical death. It is just as inevitable of the unborn as it is of the born.

No that is not just as inevitable of the unborn as it is of the born. Some will not even make it to the point of being able to sin, simply because they do not live long enough. Some will never achieve the mental maturity to be able to sin.

That is not the way God originally made humans.

Adam is precisely the way God originally made humans. Adam was given the choice to obey God or not. And that is the way each and every human comes into the world now. Everyone who lives long enough and has the mental capacity to understand the consequences of disobedience to God will be given the choice of whether to obey or not.

 

[Ritajanice]

Our spirit is quickened/ brought Alive by the Holy Spirit/when we become Born Again/ Born Again of imperishable seed....we were dead in trespasses and sins, alienated from the Spirit of God.
..our spirit must be brought Alive in Christ.

KJV
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
AKJV
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

 

[Eleanor]

First physical death is not caused by sin.

Complete failure to deal with the passage.

After having done more than my share of it, I stated to you earlier that I will no longer be doing your homework for you in the word of God written.

 

[Ritajanice]

Whose righteousness are we in.

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

 

[JIM]

Complete failure to deal with the passage.

Complete lack of understanding of what I posted.

 

[JIM]

Whose righteousness are we in.

We aren't IN anyone's righteousness. That is not a biblical understanding of righteousness.

 

[David1701]

I fully grasp God not wanting the elect to perish. Nothing I have written should ever be construed to say otherwise and every time every single one of you thinks otherwise and makes this discussion about my lack of comprehension you're only showing your own lack of comprehension. I have been patient enduring that nonsense because if I were to treat you the way I have been treated we'd get nowhere, and I'd probably be sanctioned even though I did not start it.

No. It is NOT because I think the means God has chosen are unnecessary.



Can God perish?

Josheb, I did not say, or think, that you did not grasp that God does not want his elect to perish. That is not the issue.

Asking whether or not God can perish is completely irrelevant: firstly, because it's a category error (we are talking about God's purpose for his elect, who are created beings); secondly, because the issue is not whether or not the elect can perish, since we all agree that they cannot.

The issue is that you have said that 2 Pet. 3:9 cannot be about the elect not perishing soteriologically; whereas, the others in this thread say that that is exactly what it refers to.

We all agree that the elect cannot perish; but, most of us see no problem with God declaring that it is not his will for us to perish, and that he uses his long-suffering as part of the means to ensure that we don't.

 

[Ritajanice]

We aren't IN anyone's righteousness. That is not a biblical understanding of righteousness.

understanding of what being in the righteousness of Christ mean...that is not a biblical understanding of righteousness ........as you see it....I disagree....with your understanding of righteousness.

I’m in the righteousness of Christ....therefore right before God as a Born Again....our spirit becomes right with God...that’s why we must be Born Of God’s seed...Living seed.

I am the righteousness of God—I have right standing with Him—in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). My body is a temple of the Holy Spirit; I belong to Him (1 Corinthians 6:19). I am the head and not the tail, and I only go up and not down in life as I trust and obey God (Deuteronomy 28:13).

Commentary.

“The Righteous”​

The standard for righteousness is God’s righteousness, and no person is righteous on his or her own. We can’t be righteous on our own because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

However, Scripture calls some people the righteous: these are those whose faith in and love for God causes them to order their lives according to God’s laws (Psalm 1:2; 1 John 3:7); God bestows righteousness on them because he counts faith as righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Philippians 3:9).

In the New Testament, God makes righteous those who put their faith in Jesus. In both Testaments, the righteous aren’t sinless, but when they sin, they seek God’s forgiveness, and God cleanses them of unrighteousness (Psalm 51:9-10; 1 John 1:9).

Beeson Divinity School professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Allen P. Ross puts it this way:

The basic meaning of “righteous” has to do with conforming to the standard; in religious passages that standard is divine revelation. The righteous are people who have entered into covenant with God by faith and seek to live according to his word. The covenant that they have makes them the people of God—God knows them, and because God knows them, they shall never perish. They may do unrighteous things at times, but they know to find forgiveness because they want to do what is right. [1]

In contrast, the wicked are those who live as they see fit. The word translated wickedin Psalm 1 above can refer either to those who simply don’t love God, or to those who reject God’s laws,[2] or to those committed to violence and oppression.

 

[Eleanor]

Complete lack of understanding of what I posted.

See post #345.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I agree.

Good. We have agreement.

Well yes, the phrase "spiritual death" is found nowhere in Scripture, but also the phrase "transgressional death" is found nowhere in Scripture.

Yes, but the latter term is one to which I can point to explicitly stated scripture and support. That is not true of the former term. Humans are dead in sin (except for Jesus). The spirit is not dead. You've more than once said the spirit dead. It is not true. That premise either needs to be ditched in its entirety or qualified so it accurately reflects scripture AND shown how it is a better term that "dead in transgression" or "transgressional death."

You have yet to do either.

You must also provide some relevance to the original questions you asked otherwise this looks like a huge dodge. You asked about the elect. You did not ask about dead spirits.

I have read and heard plenty of stuff about Original Sin.

I do not care. I cannot speak for others, and they cannot speak for me. You asked me about the elect and I answered those questions. You will either discuss my answers to your questions with me or you won't and if you do not then I'll take my leave of the exchnage knowing I answered the questions asked and the answers were ignored.

I really don't need any more.

APPARENTLY, YOU DO!!!

If you'd read AND UNDERSTOOD, then you'd be able to CORRECTLY articulate the Calvinist point of view and you haven't. Your own post prove some lack of comprehension exists. You do need to read some more. I can (and have) articulate and argue the Arminian point of view better than most Arminians. I can do the same with Provisionism. Ask @Carbon and some of the other Cals here because to their occasional chagrin (or amusement ) I have played the proverbial "devil's advocate" (DA) and had the support of many volitionalist (their not realizing I was playing the DA). When I critique volitionalism the volitionalist will say, "That is correct." When you try to critique Calvinism the response is, "That is incorrect." You think Calvinists think God made two completely different types of people. That is a lie from the pit of hell that reflects a gross misunderstanding of Calvinism. You need to read some more. Have the conversation with me you requested.



When Calvinists do say God made the elect they mean He made them from the same lump of sin-adulterated "clay" as everyone else. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. God did NOT make good people and then make them sin. You need to read some more so stop telling me AND yourself you don't. You're wrong. You cannot misrepresent Calvinism and claim to have read it and understood it sufficiently.

The unborn are not indeed and inescapably born dead in sin.

Yes, they are. You do not yet comprehend how and why, and I will gladly prove that to you using scripture and the facts of human physiology alone. I will not need to appeal to a single Calvinist theologian to make that case.

However, you and I will have to first finish the conversation about the elect because 1) you've screwed that up, 2) you don't get to change the subject once you invite me to answer your questions and you ignore them.

No that is not just as inevitable of the unborn as it is of the born.

Then you have contradicted yourself and the implicit logically necessary outcome of that statement is that someone might possibly live a sinless life and not need salvation from. The next logically necessary conclusion following that is that it is possible to come to God apart from Jesus. The sinless person has no need of salvation from sin, no need to Christ's sacrifice, and no need to provide a defense for his good and sinless life.

Tell me @JIM, are you JW, or LDS?

Adam is precisely the way God originally made humans. Adam was given the choice to obey God or not. And that is the way each and every human comes into the world now. Everyone who lives long enough and has the mental capacity to understand the consequences of disobedience to God will be given the choice of whether to obey or not.

No.

Prior to Genesis 3:7 Adam was good, unashamed, and sinless and he had a right relationship with God, himself, others, and the creation. After Genesis 3:7 he was not-good, ashamed, sinful, and all his relationships had irretrievably been changed. This is not an Arm v Cal thing. This is Bible 101 and it's not up for debate. If anyone has this wrong then everything else they buold on that error will, likewise, necessarily be wrong.


And the only relevance this has to the original questions I was asked is that God chose and "made" the elect from sinners. He did NOT make two completely different types of people, one group who would sin, and another group who would not sin. God did not make one group for death and another group for life; He made all men with life, and they've all disobeyed Him by their own volitional and behavioral agency. It was from that group the elect were made. If that has not been correctly grasped, then you need to read more and stop telling me and stop telling yourself you don't.

So please go back to Post 274 and address the answers provided.

• God did create the elect at the outset. He created good and sinless creatures who became not-good and sinful..... and it was from that group of entirely dead-in-sin people that God chose the elect. He chose them; He did not make them different from others prior to their having sinned. [He did it in eternity when, dispositionally all had sinned and fallen short of His glory without His forcing them to do so].
• Physical creation is not folderal.
• God's plan was accomplished by creating creation.
• The purpose served by creation is God's glory and He is glorified whether sinner are saved from sin or not. He is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and He is glorified as a gracious God when He chooses to save some from among those who would otherwise be justly destroyed.
• Scripture is silent in answer to the last question so any answer given would be entirely speculative regardless of a person soteriological orientation and view of the elect.

That is what you asked for.

No more digressions, please.

You've got five points to discuss, each one of them a concise and direct answer to the questions I was asked.

 

[Ritajanice]

understanding of what being in the righteousness of Christ mean...that is not a biblical understanding of righteousness ........as you see it....I disagree....with your understanding of righteousness.

I’m in the righteousness of Christ....therefore right before God as a Born Again....our spirit becomes right with God...that’s why we must be Born Of God’s seed...Living seed.

I am the righteousness of God—I have right standing with Him—in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). My body is a temple of the Holy Spirit; I belong to Him (1 Corinthians 6:19). I am the head and not the tail, and I only go up and not down in life as I trust and obey God (Deuteronomy 28:13).

Commentary.

“The Righteous”​

The standard for righteousness is God’s righteousness, and no person is righteous on his or her own. We can’t be righteous on our own because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

However, Scripture calls some people the righteous: these are those whose faith in and love for God causes them to order their lives according to God’s laws (Psalm 1:2; 1 John 3:7); God bestows righteousness on them because he counts faith as righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Philippians 3:9).

In the New Testament, God makes righteous those who put their faith in Jesus. In both Testaments, the righteous aren’t sinless, but when they sin, they seek God’s forgiveness, and God cleanses them of unrighteousness (Psalm 51:9-10; 1 John 1:9).

Beeson Divinity School professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Allen P. Ross puts it this way:

The basic meaning of “righteous” has to do with conforming to the standard; in religious passages that standard is divine revelation. The righteous are people who have entered into covenant with God by faith and seek to live according to his word. The covenant that they have makes them the people of God—God knows them, and because God knows them, they shall never perish. They may do unrighteous things at times, but they know to find forgiveness because they want to do what is right. [1]

In contrast, the wicked are those who live as they see fit. The word translated wickedin Psalm 1 above can refer either to those who simply don’t love God, or to those who reject God’s laws,[2] or to those committed to violence and oppression.

The Righteousness of Christ Jesus kept the Law perfectly. This is often referred to as his “active obedience” - he kept the Law perfectly and his righteousness is imputed to the Christian by faith. When we become Christians we aren't merely forgiven of our sin, we are clothed in his righteousness.

Jesus says, “Father, I've clothed My beloved ones in My robes of righteousness.They are holy and without blame.”In many ways, in this present age, we relate to God mostly as sons and daughters.

Revelation 19:6–8Reminds Us that We are Clothed in Righteousness. We are clothed in righteousness. Whose righteousness are we clothed in? We're clothed in the righteousness of Jesus.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, I did not say, or think, that you did not grasp that God does not want his elect to perish. That is not the issue.

What you think and what you posted are two different things and, yes, it is the issue. You will either stop posting personal comments about me or I will stop trading posts with you. Two other posters were asked to abide by the same exact metric and refused. They haven't gotten further replies from me. I expect you to expect the same standard from me.

Asking whether or not God can perish is completely irrelevant: firstly, because it's a category error (we are talking about God's purpose for his elect, who are created beings); secondly, because the issue is not whether or not the elect can perish, since we all agree that they cannot.

The issue is that you have said that 2 Pet. 3:9 cannot be about the elect not perishing soteriologically; whereas, the others in this thread say that that is exactly what it refers to.

We all agree that the elect cannot perish; but, most of us see no problem with God declaring that it is not his will for us to perish, and that he uses his long-suffering as part of the means to ensure that we don't.

That's nice but it does not answer the one question I asked you. Am I now going to ask the question again and again and again only to never receive an answer and conclude we're not actually have an equal exchange? I have been unable to persuade the dissent. That's not a secret. Rather than consider themselves missing something everyone has assumed I am the one missing what should be obvious. So I am trying to start over with some of the most basic agreements I can....

...and you've ignored the effort.

Just answer the question asked, please and let's try to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.


Can God perish?


.

 

[Alive]

Just answer the question asked, please and let's try to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.


Can God perish?

Answer: No.

 

[Ritajanice]

Can God perish?

Never!

 

[Josheb]

Never!

Then why would God desire, or not desire, He perish?

 

[Ritajanice]

Then why would God desire, or not desire He perish?

No idea....but he can never stop being God.

I will look up about God perishing as it makes no sense to me.

God says he wants none to perish @Josheb ....well for a start those who are chosen and predestined to become Born Again will never perish....as they have been Born Of God’s seed, they are in Christ.

So. Who are the no ones as in he wants “ no one to perish “ only God knows that truth.

You can voice your opinion on what it means, doesn’t make it the true word of God though.just an opinion.

He wants no one to perish ..who in your opinion are the “ no one’s”?..or the “ any “?

2 Peter 3:8-10​

​

King James Version​

​

​

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[Carbon]

Good. We have agreement.

Yes, but the latter term is one to which I can point to explicitly stated scripture and support. That is not true of the former term. Humans are dead in sin (except for Jesus). The spirit is not dead. You've more than once said the spirit dead. It is not true. That premise either needs to be ditched in its entirety or qualified so it accurately reflects scripture AND shown how it is a better term that "dead in transgression" or "transgressional death."

You have yet to do either.

You must also provide some relevance to the original questions you asked otherwise this looks like a huge dodge. You asked about the elect. You did not ask about dead spirits.

I do not care. I cannot speak for others, and they cannot speak for me. You asked me about the elect and I answered those questions. You will either discuss my answers to your questions with me or you won't and if you do not then I'll take my leave of the exchnage knowing I answered the questions asked and the answers were ignored.

APPARENTLY, YOU DO!!!

If you'd read AND UNDERSTOOD, then you'd be able to CORRECTLY articulate the Calvinist point of view and you haven't. Your own post prove some lack of comprehension exists. You do need to read some more. I can (and have) articulate and argue the Arminian point of view better than most Arminians. I can do the same with Provisionism. Ask @Carbon and some of the other Cals here because to their occasional chagrin (or amusement ) I have played the proverbial "devil's advocate" (DA) and had the support of many volitionalist (their not realizing I was playing the DA). When I critique volitionalism the volitionalist will say, "That is correct." When you try to critique Calvinism the response is, "That is incorrect." You think Calvinists think God made two completely different types of people. That is a lie from the pit of hell that reflects a gross misunderstanding of Calvinism. You need to read some more. Have the conversation with me you requested.



When Calvinists do say God made the elect they mean He made them from the same lump of sin-adulterated "clay" as everyone else. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. God did NOT make good people and then make them sin. You need to read some more so stop telling me AND yourself you don't. You're wrong. You cannot misrepresent Calvinism and claim to have read it and understood it sufficiently.

Yes, they are. You do not yet comprehend how and why, and I will gladly prove that to you using scripture and the facts of human physiology alone. I will not need to appeal to a single Calvinist theologian to make that case.

However, you and I will have to first finish the conversation about the elect because 1) you've screwed that up, 2) you don't get to change the subject once you invite me to answer your questions and you ignore them.

Then you have contradicted yourself and the implicit logically necessary outcome of that statement is that someone might possibly live a sinless life and not need salvation from. The next logically necessary conclusion following that is that it is possible to come to God apart from Jesus. The sinless person has no need of salvation from sin, no need to Christ's sacrifice, and no need to provide a defense for his good and sinless life.

Tell me @JIM, are you JW, or LDS?

No.

Prior to Genesis 3:7 Adam was good, unashamed, and sinless and he had a right relationship with God, himself, others, and the creation. After Genesis 3:7 he was not-good, ashamed, sinful, and all his relationships had irretrievably been changed. This is not an Arm v Cal thing. This is Bible 101 and it's not up for debate. If anyone has this wrong then everything else they buold on that error will, likewise, necessarily be wrong.


And the only relevance this has to the original questions I was asked is that God chose and "made" the elect from sinners. He did NOT make two completely different types of people, one group who would sin, and another group who would not sin. God did not make one group for death and another group for life; He made all men with life, and they've all disobeyed Him by their own volitional and behavioral agency. It was from that group the elect were made. If that has not been correctly grasped, then you need to read more and stop telling me and stop telling yourself you don't.

No more digressions, please.

You've got five points to discuss, each one of them a concise and direct answer to the questions I was asked.

Why don’t you keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

 

[Josheb]

No idea....

Is that placation, or am I to understand Post 358 as an acknowledgment the answer to the question asked is genuinely not known and understood?

I will look up about God perishing as it makes no sense to me.

Good. Do that. It makes no sense to me, either, so you let me know what you discover. Until then, my answer to the question asked has already been posted multiple times. God neither desires nor does not desire He perish because to do so would be nonsensical. He cannot perish. Since He cannot perish and already knows He cannot perish, why would He desire, or not desire, He would perish?

God says he wants none to perish @Josheb ....well for a start those who are chosen and predestined to become Born Again will never perish....as they have been Born Of God’s seed, they are in Christ.

Yep. None of that is or has ever been in dispute and if you post already covered content a lot I'll stop trading posts with you, too. Further the conversation. Do not unnecessarily repeat already well-established content.

You can voice your opinion on what it means, doesn’t make it the true word of God though. just an opinion.

Non sequitur. That statement applies to everyone in the thread, whether their opinions be correct or not, that's already been covered and it's a red herring because we're not simply discussing opinions; we're endeavoring to establish God's truth, not our opinions.

He wants no one to perish ..who in your opinion are the “ no one’s”?

Would you please read through the thread? Would you also please not ask me questions I have already answered (especially not one's I have answered multiple times)? If the op is read and then Post 84, then the nature of the disagreement will be better understood, as well as all the content already covered. Post 84 is where my views were first posted and where the dissent with my views began.

Can God perish?

Never!

Then why would God desire, or not desire, He perish?

No idea..

Well then I invite you to figure it out because I have other really, really basic questions to ask and won't do anyone any good if they're not answered.