FreeGrace

Thank you for your wisdom in saying this. I've been trying to encourage those who disagree with me to do that, but they only keep repeating their theological talking points. No verses.

Just more of your unbiblical talking points. Every human being is born unregenerate. Since the Bible teaches very clearly that mankind is ACCOUNTABLE, proves that all of humanity CAN believe the gospel promise, but are free to either believe or refuse to believe. Not only the Bible teaches this, but it is just obviously common sense. Maybe it's just Calvinists who are so blinded by their theology that they can't see the truth. All of your responses are just talking points. No verses that support any of them. I have provided verses that plainly SAY what I SAY. Meaning, I agree with the Bible.

Your own REFUSAL to believe the truth of Scripture is beyond amazing. But I understand your theology. It is the puppeteer who pulls all the strings, and even chooses which puppets to do what he wants. You know this is exactly how Calvinists think, and you demonstrate it in every one of your posts.

All your talking points are not biblical, or where are the verses that clearly teach this? Huh? I've proven that that unregenerates REFUSE to believe, proving that they CAN believe.

So much talking points, but no truth at all in any of them. Or you would have shown me them by now. The gospel is a trust issue. Do you believe that God exists and that He promises eternal life to those who believe that Jesus died for their sins on the cross. That isn't a "spiritual issue". Spiritual issues deal with how to be filled with the Spirit, how to restore fellowship with God after you've sinned, what it means to grieve (Eph 4:30) or quench (1 Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit. And yes, unbelievers cannot understand any of these issues. But the gospel is clearly a trust issue. Do you believe that Christ died for your sins and will save you from the LOF if you trust Him to do that? I will repeat as long as it takes: believing and REFUSING to believe are choices that all of humanity is able to do.

Those verses to NOT support your talking points, which are unbiblical. Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved (masculine gender), through faith (feminine gender)—and this is not from yourselves, it is (masculine gender) the gift of God— In the Greek, the gender of words match. So here, we see that salvation and "it is the gift of God" are masculine, while faith is feminine. This proves that the verse DOES NOT SAY that faith is a gift of God. But, you are free to REFUSE to believe the truth. You may confirm this on biblehub.com or ask any Greek scholar.

Your REFUSAL to accept the CLEAR TRUTH is amazing. You've been check-mated but REFUSE to acknowledge it. You're stuck on the talking points, which are not taught in Scripture. Or, if they were, where are they?

No one is able to regenerate themselves, so your comment is totally false. Not even Calvinists are able to regenerate themselves. Are you really unaware of Titus 3:5 - he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, Regeneration is God's work alone. You get no credit for it. I've proven from Eph 2:5 and 8 that faith precedes both salvation and regeneration. One has to disbelieve these verses to make this claim. Just another talking point of Calvinism. None of it is biblical. Or you would have fed the verses to me by now. Rather, the Bible teaches that men REFUSE to believe, proving that they ARE CAPABLE of believing, since both are free choices. And you are free to REFUSE to believe the truth.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe but the Bible is very clear about those who will be cast into the LOF. They will "be tormented day and night, for ever and ever". I guess you just don't believe that. One cannot be "tormented day and night for ever and ever" IF IF IF they cease to exist. So you have some explaining to do. What verse or verses informs your opinions? Really? I'd much rather get my facts from the Bible. Do you know how many different kinds of "death" are in the Bible? Or is it one 'one' to you? I can point to at least 4 different kinds. Your question in bold doesn't fit the verse quoted below it. I wish you'd taken my advise and give book titles and chapter numbers along with the verse numbers. I have no idea what verses you are quoting and you never indicate what verse. Just giving the verse # is unhelpful. Why not just leave out that # as well? You have verses numbered: 7, 3, 13, 1, 11. Not even in order. Maybe not even in the same book. I'll wait for more clarity. Then I'll be able to answer your question.

Nice try, but no dice. You're not going to get away with the "problem of the dead human spirit". Everyone is born with that. And we KNOW from Eph 2:5 that Paul equated regeneration with salvation. Then, in v.8 Paul said that we are saved by grace, through faith. That word "through" means that faith precedes salvation. Argument is futile and only shows that one doesn't really understand what word mean and how they are used. The word "through" can be translated as "by means of". Does that help? It should. This is all irrelevant since the Bible says that man 'refuses to believe' in Acts 14:2 and 19:9. This proves that man IS ABLE TO BELIEVE, since are choices. If one is UNABLE to do something, he can't legitimately say that he refuses to do something. That doesn't even make sense. If one is unable to do something, he is UNABLE to refuse to do it, just as he is UNABLE to do it. This isn't the argument. I agree with this. What I strongly disagree with is the claim that God must regenerate the poor 'ol unregenerate so that he CAN believe. That isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Of course. Like saying, "one is wrong until one is right". Obviously. But I'm proving that the unregenerate CAN choose to believe the gospel just as the unregenerate CAN choose to refuse to believe. You're talking in circles here. Since the Bible SAYS that men refuse to believe, obviously they would be unregenerate, so their refusal is a choice, just as believing is a choice. That's just a very tired and erroneous abuse of James 2:18. James' point is that just because YOU (his audience) were Jewish and believed that "God is One" (Trinity) so do the demons believe that. What? That God is One. Why do they believe it? All demons are fallen angels and were IN heaven until they rebelled and joined Satan. So they believe based on FACTS. Believing the gospel for humans requires trust. The demons don't "trust" that God is One. They KNOW it from personal experience. Humans have to "take God at His word", which means to TRUST what He says. Irrelevant. You can't prove your claim and I have proved my claim from Eph 2:5 and 8. How about addressing those 2 verses and show me where I'm wrong about what they SAY? God's choosing is never unconditional. Judas was a scoundrel, an opportunist and thief. Since God knew that he would do what he did, given the opportunity, God chose him to do it, knowing he would. So you see, Judas was chosen for service. Not salvation. Made very clear in John 6:71. How can you say that with a straight face?? How about choosing the very best ONE and quoting it to me, so I can see what you are reading. I've been through EVERY verse with the noun, verb and adjective regarding election and NONE of them say that. So I'm curious why you think "all the verses clearly . . .". Nonsense. You know better than that. You haven't even been through every election verse in the NT. Or you would have said so and KNOWN that I am right. You're missing the point. Eph 2:8 plainly states we are saved by grace. When the whole counsel is considered, we don't make such mistakes. Just like the Trinity, which doesn't occur in the Bible, but the concept clearly does, since The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all called God. That proves the Trinity even though the word doesn't occur in the Bible. You don't know whether any of His choices are unconditional. He draws those who have listened and learned. ie: paid attention. Yet, you still haven't quoted even one verse that states that God chooses for salvation. btw, the Calvinist doctrine of election, when boiled down to its basic concept is this: God unconditionally chooses who will believe. That is the real meaning of the doctrine of election per Calvinists. Per the real bottom line of Calvinist theology, faith is merely a by product of election. So faith seems to be always minimized. No verse says that God chooses anyone for salvation, and v.10 is clearly about service. Do you really understand the Greek word "kletos" translated "calling"? It means to INVITE. Titus 2:11 advances on that idea by saying that the GRACE of God offers salvation to everyone. Can you show me any verse that calls faith a gift of God? I don't believe you. Got news f0r you. The gospel isn't "spiritual things". It is a trust issue. There is a big difference. You keep trying to prove that unregenerate people cannot believe but the Bible proves Calvinism wrong 0n that, because men choose to refuse to believe, which means they can do the opposite; to believe. If you can't follow that line of reasoning, it's because the Calvinist bias is too great and won't let truth through. Of course. Everyone is born with a dead human spirit, so that is why everyone needs to be born again, or regenerated. This is a Calvinist talking point with NO support from Scripture. What clear and straightforward verse says what you say? The Bible says plainly that "men refused to believe". And they also heard the gospel. Seems you think anyone who hears the gospel will believe. Not true. Can you explain to me why I "must" hate the verse? I have no idea why I should. OK, I'll bite. What is so "clear" about it? Where is the proof? Judas was never saved because he never believed, yet Jesus SAID that He CHOSE him. So your claim is untrue. The basic error is thinking of "some" unbelievers walking around who "are elect" because God chose them to believe. That is foreign to the Bible.

My verses are called "plain language", meaning so obvious (clear) that the sentence doesn't need to be "interpreted". If your car ran out of gas, and you called you wife and said, "My car ran out of gas, so I'll be late coming home." does that need to be "interpreted", or is it clear enough to be fully understood as is? Actually, it's not. One does have to find clear and plain (straight forward) verses that SAY what you say (believe). Are you aware of the Bereans? Acts 17:11 - Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. iow, the red words mean they checked to make sure that what Paul said was what the Bible said. So, as I've said, I have researched every occurrence of "elect/chose" in the NT, by noun, verb and adjective. And there are NO verses that SAY election is to salvation. The verses that include the purpose in that particular election ALL show that election is to service. Excellent example is 1 Cor 1:27,28 27 - But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 - God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not —to nullify the things that are, In each verse, the red phrases tell us who God has chosen. The blue phrases state the PURPOSE in that election/choosing. These verses certainly are not about salvation, but rather God choosing believers of various characteristics to service for Him. Actually, everyone does believe what they believe. But I never said that. In fact, I've been careful to avoid even the suggestion of specific wording. I ask about verses that "teach . . .". That doesn't require specific wording. The 'atonement' is what Christ did on the cross; dying for people. The scope is "all". There aren't any verses that plainly teach that He died ONLY for SOME, or that He didn't die for everyone. Just the opposite, many say just that He died for all. I dismiss the arguments that don't make your point. Aren't you aware that "all thy children" refers to the NATION of Israel, and not just the saved ones? Read the chapter. It's about God blessing the land and people. Not just specific ones. And again, as I pointed out earlier, teaching a classroom doesn't guarantee that all students in the classroom will learn. And the very clear point of John 6:45 is those who have "listened and learned from the Father". Not every listens and learns. For some reason, it seems you want to ignore that FACT. This verse backs up what Rom 1:19,20 says. Creation reveals the very nature of God, or as Isa 11;9 says, the "full knowledge of the Lord".

All I'm doing is responding to your posts. I take one point/paragraph at a time. And it does take some time because your posts aren't brief. I think you're getting off track. I wasn't about this "broader scope", which is really a smokescreen. I wanted you to directly address the word "all" in both verses, and what do they refer to? Real simple, just address the word "all". Well, you totally ignored both "and"'s. Which was the focus of my question. In essence, you moved the goal posts. Could you get back to the word "all" and explain how it can't refer to all of humanity? All of this is totally irrelevant. You know why? They DON'T refer back to "all" in v.9. v.10 begins a new paragraph, which means the author has switched gears and subject matter. Yes, v.10 speaks of Jesus "bringing many sons to glory", but that doesn't involve who He died for. I understand why Calvinists think so, because they believe the dead of Christ is what actually saves people. Even though the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. I've already addressed the issue. There are many verses that don't include "man" after "all". Of course "all men" can mean "all kinds of men", but there are many verses that just have "all", all by itself. And you just skipped right over them. Like 2 Cor 5;14,15 and Heb 2:9. Are you going to claim in those 3 verses you read them as "all kinds of"? Then, all kinds of what? The author didn't state "kinds" of anything. Both authors just said that "Christ died for all", and you still haven't faced the music on those verses. I love when Calvinists do this; quote John 6:44 and ignore v.45, which explains specifically WHO will come to Jesus. v.45 - It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. First point in red: everyone will be taught by God. This most likely refers to Romans 1:19,20, in which creation reveals the existence of God AND His divine attributes. Second point in blue: refers to those who have "listened and learned from the Father". Remember God will teach everyone. But only some listen and learn. Third point in orange: result of paying attention to the teaching by God. They respond to the gospel. An excellent example of this is Cornelius, in Acts 10.

But, within His absolute sovereignty, God created humanity with a conscience, which is how God holds humanity accountable for the choices they make. Rom 2:14,15 Since the Bible says that "men REFUSE to believe" in Acts 14:2 and 19:9, we KNOW that man is able to REFUSE, and the opposite, TO believe. Unregenerate man is fully able to believe the gospel, just as much as he is able to REFUSE to believe the gospel. If unregenerate man is unable to believe, then man has NO accountability before God, since it would be God choosing who will believe or not. Rather than address each verse, I'll just summarize. NONE of them say in plain clear words that God chooses people to salvation. Period. But there are a lot of verses that plainly identify the PURPOSE of God's choice, and it's always to service. You've seen the verses. Where are the words that would make this choice unconditional? Rom 11:32 tells us that: "For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Again, there are no words that indicate that this choice is unconditional. One has to add the concept of unconditional here. How about John 6:44? “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. Now, what about the next verse, v.45? It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. v.45 tells us exactly WHO will come to Jesus: those who have "listened and learned" from the Father, who has taught everyone. The point is: not everyone pays attention in class. Many day dreamers, doodlers, and sleepers. What about John 6:70 - Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 - (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) These verses clearly show that Jesus chose Judas as the betrayer, which is a service, and certainly not to salvation. Thanks for another verse that is about service, and this verse plainly tells us what service His 11 disciples/apostles were chosen for: to bear fruit. The Greek word here translated "calls" means to invite. Not chosen unconditionally. 1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Rom 10:10 says that man believes from his heart. If God was regenerating people so that they WOULD believe, this verse isn't being honest. It would say, "man believes from his regeneration. God ADDS those who are believing the gospel "to their number". Nothing about unconditional election. Greek grammar includes active, middle and passive voice. It helps to understand the relationship between the subject and action of the verb. active voice - the subject produces the action. middle voice - subject acts on self. passive voice - outside agent acts on subject. Calvinist theology claims the verb tasso is passive voice, meaning God "appointed" or "ordained" the Gentiles to eternal life. But that is merely an assumption, since God isn't mentioned as the agent. Also, the particular form of tasso in v.48 is the SAME in the middle AND passive voice. So the only way to determine which voice the author meant is by the context. The meaning of tasso: Strong's Lexicon tassó: To arrange, to appoint, to order, to ordain Original Word: τάσσω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: tassó Pronunciation: TAS-so Phonetic Spelling: (tas'-so) Definition: To arrange, to appoint, to order, to ordain Meaning: (a) I assign, arrange, (b) I determine; mid: I appoint. Word Origin: A primary verb Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The Hebrew equivalent often associated with "tassó" is the verb "סָדַר" (sadar), which means to arrange or set in order. Lexicons typically order the various semantic meanings from the most common to the least common. Here, we see that "to arrange" comes up as the most common. And, we have clear evidence in v.44 that supports the FACT that the Gentiles arranged themselves to hear the preaching about eternal life. v.44 - On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. So, think about it. When "almost the whole city gathered" to hear Paul, no doubt the crowds had to "arrange themselves" in order to fit where ever Paul was preaching. No mention of unconditional election here. btw, not even "election" itself. The key is found in the very first verse, v.5. Sure, chosen by grace. Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— Same principle here: we are saved by grace. AND . . . that salvation is THROUGH FAITH. I always find it interesting how little Calvinists even mention faith, but that is because in their theology, faith is but a mere by product of election. When the Bible strongly teaches that faith is THE basis for everything in God's plan. Thanks for another verse that clearly states the PURPOSE of election, and in this verse, the purpose is "to be holy and blameless", which refers to a holy lifestyle. btw, the word "us" in v.4 is clearly defined in v.19 as "by us who BELIEVE". Believing is a choice, just as REFUSING to believe is a free choice, and the Bible SAYS that "men REFUSED to believe" in Acts 14:2 and 19:9. So we know that unregenerate man CAN believe, just as much as he can REFUSE to believe. Just 2 sides of the same coin. No mention of election, much less of unconditional election. This verse states the purpose God had in creating a new creation (2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: The old has gone, the new is here!). And what is the purpose in this creation: "for good works". Again, this is about a holy sanctified lifestyle, which is just another way for saying WORKS. No mention of uncondional election. And v.12 is about the present tense salvation. Past tense salvation: justification Present tense salvation: sanctification Future tense salvation: glorification So Paul is referring to spiritual growth in v.12, which takes work. Certainly salvation is NOT of works, lest any man can boast. Eph 2:8,9 Where is any mention of unconditional anything? Paul frequently used "salvation" in the sense of deliverance from danger in life. Most of the uses of "salvation" in Romans are in that sense. When Paul referred to soul salvation, he used the word "justification". Thanks for again quoting a verse that supports the PURPOSE in what God chooses. In v.13 most Calvinists stop quoting at "salvation". They only read "God chose you to be saved." They leave off the rest of the verse. But the rest of the verse tells us about WHAT God has chosen. And that is "salvation through sanctifiation by the Spirit and BELIEF in the truth". The conjunction "and" is frequently translated as "even", which would equate "sanctification by the Spirit" with "belief in the truth". That is sensible. But regardless, what God is choosing in v.13 isn't unconditional salvation for anyone, but rather, the MEANS or METHOD of salvation of people, which is belief in the truth. To the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved, in Acts 16:30, Paul's answer was very clear, in v31 - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Thanks again for a verse that supports my view rather than yours. OK, in v.1 Peter acknowledges he was writing to "the elect". In v.2, he clearly says "according to the foreknowledge of God". This refers to the FACT that God has always known who would believe. There is NO mention of unconditional election to salvation here. Thanks for more verses that support my view. And you chose a translation that uses "prepared" in both verses, 22-23. Check out a lexicon and in v.22, the Greek word is 'katartizo', which is used elsewhere in the NT for "disciples mending their nets" or "restoring". What v.22 doesn't teach is that God prepares anyone for wrath. Thanks again!! In v.5 Paul equates "made us alive with Christ" with "you have been saved". That means they go together. iow, you can't have one without the other and the Bible never describes anyone having only 1 and not the other Since you left off v.8, which ties it all together, here it is: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— For salvation to be "through faith" means that faith must PRECEDE salvation, which is contrary to Calvinist theology, who claims the opposite. Since v.5 equates regeneration and salvation, v.8 plainly states that both salvation and regeneration are through faith. Faith precedes both of them, plainly stated. Pay attention to v.9. God "saved us" AND "called us to a holy calling". Bingo! Another verse about believers being invited (chosen in Eph 1:4) to a holy lifestyle. It's all about service. And the Bible TELLS US PLAINLY who God will have mercy on. Isa 55:7 - Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. The red words are a choice made by the wicked. And when the wicked DO "forsake their ways/thoughts, and then turn to the Lord" what is the result? God "will have mercy on them". Not true. Since the Bible SAYS that men REFUSE to believe, that proves that men CAN believe, because refusal is a choice. So is believing. All the emphasis in the Bible about salvation is on faith, believing, trusting. All of these are choices that WE make, and that doesn't mean anyone boasts. Let me give you an example. If a person was in deep water and began drowning, and a lifeguard threw a buoy to the person, and the person grabbed it and held on while the lifeguard pulled the person to shore or the side of a pool, could the person boast that he/she saved themselves by holding on to the buoy? Of course not. That would be idiotic. And, btw, I've NEVER heard anyone ever make such a claim; that they "came to faith on their own". That is a false claim that too many Calvinists make over and over. This is what the Bible says in 2 Tim 3:15 - and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. iow, The Scripture, are what "makes you wise for salvation". It's not that anyone is intellectually smarter and believes because of their IQ; another false claim by Calvinists. I've heard them all. When a person hears the gospel, that information is ENOUGH to "make them wise to salvation". That proves that unregenerate man is fully ABLE to believe the gospel that he either hears or reads. And none of your verses even come close to supporting anything Calvinist. Most had no mention of salvation, let alone unconditional. Or election to salvation. Many actually noted the purpose in election was to some kind of service. Now, having specifically addressing the vast majority of all the verses you quoted in your post, would you do me the favor of addressing the verses I quote? It's a bit frustrating to quote verses that plainly say what I believe just to have them all ignored. I address your verses and point out the truth. I would appreciate your dealing with the verses I quote. If I'm wrong, and your theology is correct, it should be easy to show me where I am in error. Truth always trumps lies and errors. So please, prove me wrong if I am. I don't want to be wrong any more than I know you don't either.

Rather than just lower yourself to these cheap shots, why not rather SHOW me what I've left out? I certainly won't include all the verses full of metaphors, figures of speech and symbolism, because ONLY the writer really knows what was in his mind when he wrote. And I KNOW that you cannot read the minds of either dead or living persons. So please don't pretend that you can. We have all we need from the plain language verses for learning. But all you seem to use are verses and chapters just chock full of symbolism, metaphors and figures of speech, which you have informed your opinions. Where did I say that? I do know all that has been clearly stated. Obviously I leave all the symbolism, metaphors and figures of speech alone because I don't need to understand them. All of that will become clear when they unfold. I may not even survive the Trib long enough to see the majority of them. I disagree with your opinion. When I say "plain language" I clearly mean words that cannot be twisted to "mean" something other or opposite of the actual words. That is why I don't take much stock in the verses with symbolism, metaphors and figures of speech. No one can possibly know what the author was thinking when he wrote them. I never said anything was mandatory. I SAID no one can read the mind of the writers of Scripture and understand all that was meant by all the symbolism, metaphors and figures of speech. They all will become very clear WHEN they unfold. Such details are not needed beforehand. Not sure what your sentence means. This verse doesn't refer to the "rapture", though many pre-tribbers use it that way. Just as God protected the Israelites from the 10 plagues in Egypt WHILE they were STILL in Egypt, God is just as able today to do the same thing. The important thing is that God left the Jews IN Egypt while He was pouring out the plagues ON Egypt, all the while protecting them from the plagues. Yes, you WILL HAVE TO WAIT to understand all the symbolism, metaphors and figures of speech in Rev 7 and 14 and everywhere else in Revelation. If you live long enough. When these things happen, that will be the confirmation of the truth of Scripture. And it will be very clear to the observants of the events. Such as the number "666". Greek letters all have numerical values, so WHEN the beast shows up, and THEN his name will be know, applying the numerical values to the Greek letters will add up to "666". No one can predict the beast's name now. I think you are misreading the verse. John wasn't referring to "the endurance of Jesus" but his own endurance "in Jesus". Your comment doesn't make sense. The issue has never been "the Lord's endurance", but rather our own endurance. 2 Tim 2:12 - if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us; Please explain what this verse teaches. Still missing the point. Our daily trials are to teach us TO HAVE endurance. No they won't. 1 Cor 15:23 doesn't permit that thought. Believers learn endurance from God's Word. The ONLY source for spiritual endurance. No such resurrection. There will be only 1 for the saved. Dan 12:2, John 5:29, Acts 24:15, and 1 Cor 15:23. Jesus Christ, the King of kings. I don't agree with your conclusions, since the Bible very plainly refutes multiple resurrections.

Oh, excuse me, but you never proved that. In fact, I proved that it does regarding the atonement. NONE of your examples were about the atonement. I scanned the entire post and thanks for AGAIN ignoring the verses I gave where "all" most certainly DOES refer to everyone. I asked you to explain 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9, just 3 verses that refer to Christ's atonement and the word 'all' was used in all 3. Can you do it? This is just all irrelevant to the issue of the use of "all" in regard to the atonement. Look ahead to the next verse, for context. you still need to explain 2 Cor 5:14,15 and heb 2:9. I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. Please stop ignoring the verses I share. Here, obviously, Paul is speaking of believers, those who HAVE ALREADY believed. Yes, Jesus died for believers. But where that phantom verse that SAYS Jesus died ONLY for believers. You believe that but there are no verses that say that. The clear summary is that in all verses concerning the scope of the atonement, the word "all" cannot be abridged to mean "less than everyone". And you haven't shown otherwise. I love this verse, because it CLEARLY explains who Paul meant in v.4 by "us". In v.19 Paul clarified, "us who BELIEVE". And I've already proven that both believing and REFUSING to believe are choices that man makes. Nice try, but no dice. Here, Paul is clearly referring to the human race, since "His promise" is found in Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. This verse totally refutes the Calvinist claim that salvation is by unconditional election. This is one of the few verses what includes "man". In most of them, that word is NOT used. Just "all", as in 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9, which I've asked you to explain. I respond to your verses. Why don't you respond to mine? That's up for debate. If this this true, then you should have no problem proving that the "all" in 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9 CANNOT mean all of humanity. Hint: the verses say that He "died for all" and there is NO CONTEXT by which to conclude the writer was referring any subgroup of humanity.

So which baptism is in Eph 4:5? So, you're STILL thinking being dunked in water then? I explained how 'bapto' was used in the ancient world, and how it began to be used for IDENTIFICATION. And I gave verses that SUPPORT that usage. Why don't you EVER address my points and verses? All you do is gloss over them and ignore them. You don't understand metaphors, obviously. Read John 6. Jesus talked about EATING Him and DRINKING Him. Do you think He was teaching cannibalism? There is NO connection between drinking and either being immersed in water or identified with someone. You are way off track here. I'm sorry that you have no understanding of metaphors. Please don't read John 6, or you will probably try cannibalism. It seems all this just way over your head. In EVERY case, it refers to the FACT that the indwelling Holy Spirit IDENTIFIES the believer as being IN CHRIST. Eph 1:13 and 2 Cor 5:17 reflect this. John the baptizer said the same thing in Mark 1:8. He was differentiating being immersed in water (what he did) with being IDENTIFIED with Christ (what Jesus does with the Holy Spirit by placing Him in the believer when they believe. The baptism of/with/in the Holy Spirit does NOT involve any water at any time. When they believed, they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit. That IDENTIFIED them as being IN CHRIST. No. The baptism of/in/with the Holy Spirit take place EVERY time a person believes in Christ. Irrelevant to the discussion.

The context is obvious. Jesus Christ clearly does have power over EVERYTHING, flesh included. And v.10 teaches that what Jesus own, the Father owns. You sure miss the point I gave. I said context matters. And I gave several verses where there is NO context that allows a scope less than the entire human race. How's this: ALL who have believed in Him. That's what it means. Clearly, you need to. Please explain 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9. Why do you ask such silly questions. The verse itself explains the SCOPE of "all". It is ALL of those who obey Him. Why would anyone claim the "all" here refers to the whole world? No one would. Actually, yes. All unbelievers will clearly understand WHY they have been cast into the LOF. Without a doubt. Do you really think unbelievers will spend eternity in the LOF and not know WHY they ended up there?? Maybe ding dong would be apropos. In the first "all", the scope IS the entire human race. And in the second "all", the scope IS ALL who are in Christ. If you can't see the obvious scope in this verse, you're having reading issues. No one in their right mind would think that. The key there is "in Christ", and obviously that wouldn't include the whole world. Since you have so embarrassed yourself with all the lame examples where the context in each example was clear enough to NOT assume 'the whole world', I'm not even interested in your last example. Why don't you research the verse in biblehub.com, ALL (exhaustive) 32 ENGLISH translations of the word, and see what comes up. Since none of the rest of your examples proved anything, AND proved my point about context, let me know what you find with Luke 20:38.

Stop all your erroneous conclusions, or maybe its just being dramatic. By the time all believers have been through the Bema, ALL reward will definitely be eternal, because at that time, all believers will be in a resurrection (eternal) immortal body. This has nothing to with end times. Or there would be clear and plain wording in at least some of the resurrection passages. But no. There is still only 1 resurrection. Sure. Show me the verse. Show me the verse.

I'm simply stating the facts as presented in Scripture. Why would I be in despair? I'm not worried at all. When everything comes down, things will become quite clear, I have no doubt. Far fetched and wrong example.

And what does that have to do with 1 Cor 15:23? Nothing.

Your "conclusion" is wrong. I do care and I understand the order of things because of the clear verses throughout the NT. But the symbols, etc will become very clear when the actions begin to unfold. Until then, everyone has a different opinion. The best understanding are the verses using plain language. For symbolic, metaphors and figures of speech, only the author can really explain them. Everyone else just guesses. If you live through the Tribulation, you'll have some idea of how accurate you were.

Nothing to prove. I never said he went to heaven. He went to Hades, but to a different compartment than the rich man. He went to where ALL OT saints went; Paradise, or Abraham's bosom. There is also a compartment called "torments" where the rich man went. It's all there in Luke 16. There's more. All OT saints went to Paradise in Hades. But after Jesus' resurrection, He went to Hades, "preached to the spirits in prison" and then took all the OT saints up to heaven. And from that time, all saints go directly to heaven at death. Correct. Then you disagree with what Paul wrote, in 2 Cor 5:6 - Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 8 - We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. Your confusion on where all believers go at death may be what drives your view that in Rev 6 and others those in heaven "must have been raptured" to get there. Paul made very clear that a believer is either physically alive, which means away from the Lord (v.6) or away from the body (dead) and "at home with the Lord" (in heaven). Or, do you think Jesus has been staying in Hades all this time? Listen to Acts 3:21 - Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. I have the previous edition of the NIV, which says, He must STAY in heaven until . . " The Greek word means to "retain/contain". So basically both are saying the same thing: Jesus stays in heaven until the restoration, which obviously refers to the Second Advent when Jesus returns to earth. So the Bible tells us that Jesus is IN heaven and will be until the Second Advent. Even this verse refutes the idea that Jesus "comes to the clouds" ANY time before the Second Advent and takes resurrected believers to heaven. Nope. He stays there until the time for the King to "restore everything". So there are NO believers left in Hades. The only ones still there are all unbelievers who have died, plus fallen angels in a compartment called "Tartarus". "proved"?? No, the Bible plainly says so. Nothing to prove. I actually proved from Scripture where all the dead have gone. In the OT, before the resurrection of Jesus, all souls went to Hades, believers to Paradise and unbelievers to Torments. And the imprisoned fallen angels to Tartarus. When Jesus resurrected, He went to Hades, preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19 - by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison), and then took all the OT saints with Him to heaven. Eph 4:8-10 I just proved from Scripture that ALL dead saints are with the Lord in heaven. Your timing is WAY OFF. Jesus took ALL OT saints to heaven with Him when He ascended. You have the verses. There is nothing here about resurrection or rapture. Nope. They are ALL the dead saints in human history. Awaiting their resurrection when the King returns to earth at the Second Advent. 1 Cor 15:23 proves it. Along with 1 Thess 4:13-17. Keep reading the chapter. From v.1-10 are all the dead saints, first praising God (v.1-5) and then preparing for the wedding supper (v.6-10). Then, from v.11-16 these believers follow the King to earth, for the battle of Armageddon, and then to receive their resurrection bodies. I see that you don't properly understand what "one baptism" even means. If you are thinking of being dunked in water, you are way off again. The Greek word was originally to describe a cloth being immersed in a vat of dye and coming out with a NEW identity (color). Over time, the word began to be used in that sense, of either a new identity, or being identified with someone/thing. So, in Eph 4:5, one Lord means one Savior, one faith means one "textbook", the Bible, and one baptism means our identification with Christ at the moment of faith in Christ. So it is technical for one way to be saved, which is described well in Eph 1:13 - And in Him, having heard and believed the word of truth—the gospel of your salvation—you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, So it should be obvious that being "sealed with the Holy Spirit" gives the believer a NEW identity and the believer is identified with Christ. Paul described it this way in 2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! Yes, heaven will be emptied of all humans at the Second advent. There will be NO REASON for any human to either stay in heaven or go back there. And the Bible is totally silent on any trips to heaven. You never proved this. Your claim is not evidence. I HAVE evidence from Scripture. You haven't proved this either. There are NO verses that describe Jesus taking resurrected believers to heaven. So your view has NO evidence. Only in the fantasy that there will be multiple raptures, when there will be NONE, as the Bible says NOTHING about any resurrected believers taking a trip to heaven. Just more conjecture. No evidence. God is never contradictory, or inconsistent. EVERY mention in the Bible of resurrection is in the singular, and 1 Cor 15:23 is so clear as to completely refute all your conjectures. Yes sir!! Only one resurrection, for ALL believers (those who are Christ's) at His Second Advent. Could not be said any more clear. This verse alone refutes all your claims. And there are many more.

That is my point; if one is annihilated and ceases to exist, there is NO MORE condemnation, NO MORE existence, NO MORE experience. That is good and relieves any sense of consequences for one's life. An escapism kind of idea. And Rev 20:10 clearly teaches that the beast, false prophet and satan will be tormented (experience) day and night, for ever and ever. Atheists believe that all ceases at physical death. No doubt every one of them will be surprised when they remain conscious after they die, and are in a real place, and they are experiencing what the rich man experienced when he died, per Luke 16. So the teaching of annihilation would have some appeal to atheists. It would lend support to their fantasy.

This is very weak defense. It is ALWAYS context that determines the scope of the word. It is common for Calvinists to claim that "all men" only means "all KINDS OF men", and quote 1 Tim 2:3 as an example. However, in most of the verses about the scope of the atonement, there NO mention of "men". Just "all". So obviously Jesus didn't die for "all KINDS OF". That doesn't even make sense. 2 Cor 5:14 - For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 - And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. Heb 2:9 - But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. These are just 3 examples of verses that speak to the scope of who Christ died for, and NONE of them include the word 'men'. Just the word for 'all' is used in all 3. And there are a number of other such verses. And the biggest FACT: there are NO verses that specifically and clearly state that Christ didn't die for all or that He died ONLY FOR SOME, which is the Calvinist belief. Just accept the fact that the Bible SAYS He died for all, with NO context to show the word means "all of some kind". Or "all kinds of..." Of your "many examples" where "all" isn't "all inclusive", none of them are about the scope of Christ's atonement.

Oh, you bet there's more. And I was intending to GO THERE. That statement is totally delusional!! It tells us no such thing. Are you even reading v.27 and 28? I've color coded the verses for ease of understanding. The red words are what God chooses. The blue words refer to the PURPOSE of what He has chosen, and ain't NONE of them that include salvation. Once again, 2 Thess 2:13 is about the METHOD God has chosen to save people: sanctification of the Spirit and (even) belief in the truth. So even in a verse you think supports your theology actually supports mine. I suggest that you read a lot more slowly and much more carefully. btw, the ONLY reason God has a universal call is because salvation is offered to everyone, just as Titus 2:11 SAYS in plain language. In none of these citations do you read about God choosing anyone unconditionally for salvation. You are kidding yourself. There are just more talking points without a shred of Scriptural evidence. Where does the Bible say we are "chosen in Christ"? No where. Or prove me wrong. Please. I don't want to be wrong any more than you do. Or, do you actually WANT to be wrong? I sure don't.