ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Cross Reference said:
At best, it is a convoluted fairy tale made so partly by your denial man's God given freewill.
Click to expand...

Yep, you are right. I deny Adam or any of mankind ever possessed a "free" will that matched or equalled the free will of God.

Man is a willful creature, but limited to subjecting his will to the sovereign will of God, according to commands (Law).

That cannot be called an autonomous will, nor FREE to do as man pleases. (Which proves to be only wicked and sinful.)
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
Nang said:
Yep, you are right. I deny Adam or any of mankind ever possessed a "free" will that matched or equalled the free will of God.

Man is a willful creature, but limited to subjecting his will to the sovereign will of God, according to commands (Law).

That cannot be called an autonomous will, nor FREE to do as man pleases. (Which proves to be only wicked and sinful.)
Click to expand...

In Spiritual matters, man's will is stronger than God's. Made so by God's "Sovereign will" for reasons of Love to Him, not rejection of Him. That is why God was always pleading with man to ""seek Him" while I may be found".. That is also why there are the many contingencies placed upon man's relationship with Him; the many "If you will, I will's " and 'if you won't, you will pay the price'. Open your Bible and read them?
 
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Nang said:
Actually, my Supra view (which is not a cookie-cutter version) agrees with your exegesis.

God purposed to create while determining to redeem the limited creatures He willed to create . . before He created time.

IOW's God did not choose to save souls according to foreknowledge of what they would choose to do, but according to what He knew, before creation, they would be unable to do, as limited creatures.

Different, I know, but it is far more honoring to Godly Truth, than the
Arminian and Infralapsarian views that believers are "elected" in time only because God foreknew who would "accept Him" after the fall.

Foreknowledge is not Election.

Election IS divine and sovereign Determinism to save sinful creatures. This accords with the bolded above, IMO.
Click to expand...

Infralapsarianism is impossible.

Arminianism is Pelagianism in pajamas.

Synergism denies God's Incommunicable Attribute of Necessity.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Cross Reference said:
In Spiritual matters, man's will is stronger than God's. Made so by God's "Sovereign will" for reasons of Love to Him, not rejection of Him.
Click to expand...

Same message: The will of man to reject God is stronger than God's will to save men.

Conclusion: False message.

Mankinds' rejection of God is not stronger than God's will to save a remnant of undeserving, rebellious, unbelieving, sinners!

Thereby, is Godly Grace truly defined.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
Infralapsarianism is impossible.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And unbiblical.

Arminianism is Pelagianism in pajamas.
Click to expand...

Full-blown, ignited, ugly pajamas!

Synergism denies God's Incommunicable Attribute of Necessity.
Click to expand...

Yes, but "secondary and necessary moral agency" was communicated from God to Adam by the giving of holy commands . . thus Adam, was designated as being humanly responsible and accountable before God to obediently submit his creaturely will to the Sovereign will of God.

For such reason, I believe factoring in the legalities of the commands, the terrible legal breach, and the forensic remedy, is vital to the discussion of Godly Grace.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Sonnet said:
Can you back this statement up?
Click to expand...

The Greek article was originally a weak demonstrative pronoun ("this/that"); and is extremely articular compared to its English counterpart, with layers of designation.

That passage uses the articular for each reference to "many", but uses the anarthrous for each reference to "all". It's a matter of it being anarthrous, which points to quality, character, and activity for the noun/substantive. Anarthrous is "aspectal".

It would be the article that would need attention to determine minutiae and nuance of meaning, but it's not articular. It's anarthrous. And BOTH "alls" are anarthrous; sinners and righteous.
 
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
The Greek article was originally a weak demonstrative pronoun ("this/that"); and is extremely articular compared to its English counterpart, with layers of designation.

That passage uses the articular for each reference to "many", but uses the anarthrous for each reference to "all". It's a matter of it being anarthrous, which points to quality, character, and activity for the noun/substantive. Anarthrous is "aspectal".

It would be the article that would need attention to determine minutiae and nuance of meaning, but it's not articular. It's anarthrous. And BOTH "alls" are anarthrous; sinners and righteous.
Click to expand...

So an example of quantitative 'all' would be?
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
This would be tied to the v15 references to polus (many) articular, and to the v18 references to pas (all) anarthrous.

"The many" is a multitude. "All" is not articular, so it refers to a qualitative all rather than a quantitative all. This stands in antithesis to Universalism.

Also in v19, "made" is not poieo, but kathistemi (technically, katestathesan, aorist passive indicative as sinners; katestathesontai, future passive indicative as righteous). Of persons, to set, constitute, to place anywhere in an office, in a condition.

So not only is kathistemi not poieo, it is also not the other synonym ginomai; to become, or, in this case, to make. To have used this latter word would have actually meant that God is responsible for making transgressors.

Kathistemi used in this regard means that God has set or placed man in a definite place or position - that of the transgressor - but He did not make him a transgressor. The resonsibility is entirely man's.

This speaks somewhat against Supralapsarianism and a time-based "before" for election.
Click to expand...

This is where you and I cannot find common ground.

God created sinners.(get over it)

Him and his son make men in their image.

This cannot be dispelled by time concepts.

Or a lack there of.

I see somebody's ouisa creeping out.
 
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Sonnet said:
Jesus didn't lie, but we do know that Judas chose to spurn the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, so what's your point?

The Corinthian verse pertains to mature believers but in no way precludes unbelievers understanding the simple Gospel preached as Paul states in vv.1-5. So why didn't you make that careful distinction?
Click to expand...

If you believed what Jesus said, you wouldn't be asking about what I didn't say.
 
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. (Romans 5:18)

This verse should be enough to silence those who claim Jesus did not did for all.

v.17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Obvious, 'abundant' is a reference to the universality of provision (all men without exception) and not the degree of the atonement itself (since such atonement is a binary - an either or).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top