Are we just referring to man and animals?. What about plants and the insect category? For instance, when Adam and Eve walked around they never stepped on an ant, caterpillar, or some living organism. Doesn't human cells die? Just how do we understand there being no death prior to the Fall?

What biblical passage are you basing your question on? Have you looked carefully at the near and larger context?

You have evidently found no information about this question in Scripture, correct? Ans. Deut 29:29.

What is written is that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23).

Rom 5:12 "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--" Thus, death is the RESULT of sin and not inherent in man from creation. Again, nothing is mentioned in regard to animals, plants, etc. What we are told is that Adam's sin brought a corruption of the entire creation which will be eradicated and made perfect on the New Heaven and New Earth.

I have had the same question come to my mind often too, the only way I can rationalize it is to say I think 'the whole of creation groans' and 'by sin death entered the world (kosmos)' are two different things-the latter a subset of the former. I think the meaning of 'kosmos' may be pivotal- 'God so loved the world ('kosmos'). I do not think God so loved plants and insects that he gave his Son but I think he so loved the 'sea of unsaved souls' is what kosmos is referring to A spiritual realm reference.. Likewise by sin death entered this 'sea of unsaved souls'. Do plants and insects and our individual cells die? i define death as the spirit leaving the body, so, then it can only experienced by 'nephesh chayyah' creatures which plants, insects and our cellular components are not?.

Death passed upon all men only and not animals any other part of the created world. When God told Adam that the very day should he eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would surely die . The result of Adam's sin is the corruption of the entire world/planet. This corruption is the RESULT not a subset of Adam's transgression; aka: cause and effect.

1. The word [kosmos] has 7 different meanings in Scripture. In John 3:16 "world" [kosmos] it's meaning cannot mean anything but all whom God had set His determination (election) to save throughout the entire world; Jews and Gentiles, i.e. the elect. I'll repeat here which I have provided myriad times here and elsewhere. A literal translation of John 3:16 according to the Greek is: For in this manner God loved His own whom He set His affection from all eternity in the sending of His Son so that the believing ones (the elect) would not perish but have eternal life. For a thorough examination and exegesis of John 3:16 see the following:
The 'World' of John 3:16 Does Not Mean 'All Men Without Exception'
An Exposition of John 3:16

2. The penalty of "death" promised by God Adam as a consequence of disobedience was 3-fold; spiritual, physical, and eternal. The 'spiritual' occurred immediately, the 'physical' death occurred over a period of time and the 'eternal' was future and the finality of the punishment due to those outside of Christ. That being true, it is also true that the entire created order suffered residually at the Fall of man where ALL of the living creation experienced physical death in common with man. This cataclysmic event is this evident to all mankind as a reminder that something horrible had occurred in which they are also affected and guilty before God.

That could well be right about not being a subset, but in Gap Theory, of which i am a passionate advocate, the first Earth also groaned with death and carnivory but no man was around, see my first post for 'undeniable proof of gap theory'- I look forward very much to your comments on that, btw. Also there is plenty of evidence of death and carnivory throughout The Paleozoic Era and the Mesozoic Era with absolutely no evidence of man.

I have read your link through article and found it very provocative and I enjoyed it and your style of delivery immensely.. It sounds like you are saying that God only loved the elect. Did nt He love the others? In the English, at any rate, it sounds like the 'his own' and the 'believing ones' are essentially synonyms in your translation whereas it sounds, in the KJV 'the world' is all inclusive and the 'believers' a subset of it. It would seem repetitive then to add the 'whosoever believeth in him'. because that is his 'elect' anyway. Why the qualification then?

The foundation of the world?(FOTW) Which, I suggest, is the time of The Abrahamic Covenant. How do you square that with your definition? Well before Christ's time , so there was a kosmos then? were they the elect? The FOTW also sounds like a 'kosmos' was broken down (katabole') first to form a new 'kosmos'?

To answer your article?
1. John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Did Christ by His death take away the sin of all men without exception? If He did, all men without exception shall be saved
Answer: A finite amount of suffering to takeaway every sin that could have ever been committed past and present and future.The text does not seem to say they all have to accept it. But He has done enough for them all to do so would seem to be an acceptable interpretation to me.

2.- John 6:33: "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Does Jesus give life (not, ineffectually offer life, but, efficaciously give life) to all men without exception? If He does, all men without exception have eternal life.
Answer: I think this verse is consistent with your position. But also, if 'kosmos' is the 'whole of the unsaved' then it still logically makes sense. He gives life to the 'sea' of unsaved, logically there seems to be no need to give it to everyone in that 'sea'?

3.- John 17:9: "I (Jesus) pray not for the world." Does Jesus refuse to pray for all men without exception?
Answer: this would seem to directly contradict your position? The preceding words state in the KJV

'I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thin'e'

That Jesus prays for the 'elect-them' and not for the 'world-kosmos' meaning the elect and the kosmos are different? this seems more consistent with kosmos meaning the 'sea of unsaved souls' or maybe both saved and unsaved. You site a different meaning of kosmos to refute this. Why? I would like to use the same meanings for both. Here is our difference, I suggest that the more I study scripture then I am reminded about a Robin Bullock quote, 'we are dealing with God here and He may mean many or all different translations at the same time'.So we both maybe part right?
The 'father of lights' loved those lights-his offspring before they came to Earth, i think he still loved them after they sinned and also after they were saved.

You have 'dumped' far too much to give adequate answers to each and every statement/question you have made... sorry! However, I can direct you to the entire section on The Highway website that I'm confident addresses your statements and questions.

Go here: The Atonement.

1. Nowhere in Scripture is the teaching that God "loves everybody". To show this is patently an incorrect statement all one need to provide is a statement that God doesn't love but actually hates one individual. Fortunately, there are many such statements that clearly state that God hates an individual and even the majority of mankind, e.g.,. Ps 5:5; 11:5; Prov 6:16-19; Mal 1:1-3; Matt 7:21-23 ("I never knew you=I never loved you), et al. God is benevolent to all but His love=grace=salvation is decidedly restricted to only those whom from all eternity He ordained/chose/predestined to be redeemed by the LORD Christ.

2. see here: Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?

You have 'dumped' far too much to give adequate answers to each and every statement/question you have made.
Answer:I will dump on you less now :;)

1. Nowhere in Scripture is the teaching that God "loves everybody"
answer: Jesus and the Father are one (John 10 30) Jesus says on numerous occasions to love 'one another' as He has, Himself therefor, God loves as does Jesus and loves everyone, including those that hate him.

To show this is patently an incorrect statement all one need to provide is a statement that God doesn't love but actually hates one individual
Answer, I do not follow this logic, especially when applied to God. It seems possible to do both? I would not limit God. The passages you quote: Ps 5:5; 11:5; Prov 6:16-19; Mal 1:1-3; all of these actions (except Esau) could be performed by the saved, Does God hate those too? and not still love them?

The plain text meaning of John 316 is the 'whosoever believeth in him is a subset of the 'world'. Your interpretation could be written as 'for God so loved the elect,,..., that the elect would not die but have eternal life. Why would God use synonymous terms?.
John 17 9 ' I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine' the them is the elect. So that could be written 'I pray for the kosmos,, i pray not for the kosmos', Why change the meaning? John 17 19 could be read as a direct contradiction of your position. Is it not equally legitimate to translate 'kosmos' as the whole of the unsaved
("I never knew (ginosko) you=I never loved you), Why? Agape is 'love' in John 3 16 and 'ginosko' (knew) I interpret as the indwelling knowledge.

Are you suggesting that God is not subject to logic and thus He is illogical? The passages I provided are perspicuous on their face, i.e., in every instance it is written that God HATES individuals. None have nothing to do with humans hating other humans. Lets take the first reference as an example: Psalms 5:5 (ASV) "5 The arrogant shall not stand in thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity." The "Thou" is God who hates "all workers of iniquity", which FYI, is the text which Jesus uses toward those who boast that they have been His disciples. Thus when Jesus tells them to depart and "I never knew you, ye that work iniquity" He professes He never "loved them". It cannot mean that He never had any knowledge about them, for He being
God knew them from all eternity and ordained every facet of their lives. Each of the referenced texts equally and truly state that God hates the respect objects of His wrath. I'm going to have to assume that you didn't read any of the articles I provided links for, correct? Dr. John Gerstners article, "Does God Love the Sinner and Hate ONLY His Sin?" should have sufficed by itself.

Sorry, but I can't follow your point. To obtain the proper understanding of words it is essential that they be taken IN CONTEXT. For a text out of context is nothing less than pretext. As I stated to you in my previous reply, the word "world" (kosmos) has 7 different meanings in Scripture. The context of John 3:16 needs to be ascertained in order to properly discover the correct definition of "world" used. This and quite a number of various reasons why "world" in that passage does not and cannot mean, every individual who ever was, is and ever shall be without discrimination, are provided in the article also referenced THE ‘WORLD’ OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN ‘ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION’

The Puritan, John Owen in his treatise "The Death of Death of Christ" takes great pains in addressing this passage and the infinite discriminatingly love of God which has never been refuted by anyone in over 350 years. In that work he makes the following statement which should at least pique your interest:


To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 2. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21.

If the Second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?

You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.

If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?

If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

You did not answer the apparent conflict that Jesus and the father are one and God is in Jesus yet Jesus seems to love everyone including the unsaved eg Mark 10: 21, and instructs us to do the same. And as we are one body His is still doing the same too. Yet your position seems to be God wont really love him/them as he/they i/are not/will not be saved.

"Are you suggesting that God is not subject to logic and thus He is illogical?"
Answer: I did not say God was illogical that is an unjustified extrapolation, I said your idea that if it says 'God hated someone then he must not love them' does not make sense to me. In my opinion God could previously have loved/still be loving/ will in the future love someone he currently hates.

I often tithe to many local and worldwide Christian causes. So , I can say I give to the body of Christ. It does not mean I tithe to everyone in it. When i give to an individual within a collective, i can say I give to the collective. With this in mind, you say::

"- John 6:33: "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Does Jesus give life (not, ineffectually offer life, but, efficaciously give life) to all men without exception? If He does, all men without exception have eternal life"

Why does it apply to the whole of the 'kosmos', If it does apply to the whole of the individuals within the kosmos why does it mean they have all accepted this gift?

"I'm going to have to assume that you didn't read any of the articles I provided links for, correct?"
Answer: This is a strange assumption as i quote and reference the links so I must have read them! Im going to assume you did not read my answers then, correct?

I believe the bible describes God loving all mankind in John 3:16. You contradict this stance by narrowing down 'world/kosmos' to mean just the saved. 'Kosmos' is used 186 time in the Bible and I am struggling to find even concrete case that it applies to just the saved. There are, however, many examples of it clearly applying to just the unsaved and I want to discuss these with you further if you are up for it? Your decision to give 'kosmos' the meaning the elect seems, thus, unjustified. What are your reasons? Is it just John 1 29 and John 6 33 or are there others? See below.

I would like to answer some of your assertions with more reference to scripture . Can I have your permission to copy your THE ‘WORLD’ OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN ‘ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION’ and answer all your assertions-every single one-on a separate web page. I will be able to do this more elegantly with mouse over biblical references, to save it from becoming too bulky, which i cannot do here. It will be linked to from this thread and so not available to the public.

One further point is I believe that 10 x used expression. (so very important then ?), 'the Foundation of The World (kosmos)' refers to the the Abrahamic Covenant, so is consistent with your view that Kosmos can mean, at least in part, the elect (kosmos) '- they being able to come into existence by this covenant. Hence the Foundation of the World. Do you agree?

I did provide an answer by repeating the absolute truth, nowhere is it written that God loves every individual that was/is/will be. Nor is there one single text that Jesus loves "all men" without exception. Thus the Father and the Son are one which eliminates any possibility that there is any contradiction within the Godhead. Now, let's briefly take your unfounded premise that Jesus loved all men and put it to the LOGICAL and Scripture test which you admittedly are incapable of grasping, i.e. IF God and/or Jesus hate even one person, then the "all" cannot mean "all" without exception. So, we have the inspired passage in Mark 4:10-12 in which Jesus answers His disciples' question as to why He taught in parables:

How do you reconcile the fact that the Lord Christ preached in parables so that [Grk hina; in order that, purpose] they should not be saved... except to those whom it is given to see, hear and comprehend the Gospel.? In Matthew we have the same truth expressed in another way:

Yes, the Father and the Son are one and there is no contradiction between them. Do these passages support that God loves all men without exception? The Father deliberately withholds the means of grace from the overwhelming majority of mankind and Jesus the Son teaches in parables in order that what the Father has ordained comes to pass. Before Jacob and Esau where born, in eternity it is written that God loved Jacob and hated [Grk: miseo Esau. The reason given why God loved the one and hated the other is so His election (unto salvation) would come to pass. So... are you going to maintain that God loved Esau who God says He hated and predestined that he, Esau, would be cast into hell and eternal punishment? In Eph 1:4-6 it is written that God from all eternity set His love upon the elect (predestination) in Christ unto the adoption of sons. God's love is incomprehensible for the very reason that it is discriminatory. Likewise, grace given is salvation infallibly applied to those whom God loved from all eternity. And, Jesus was sent to redeem all those whom the Father gave Him... NOT "for the world" = every man, woman and child who has ever lived, is living or will live in the future. They question you are in need of asking is not "How could God hate anyone?", but rather, "How could God love anyone?" And once the Spirit of God Who is one with the Father and the Son has revealed to you how odious you are in the nostrils of Almighty God, you will then undoubtfully ask, "How could God ever set His love upon me?"

You would have to seek permission to publish the article by Dr. David Engelsma; THE ‘WORLD’ OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN ‘ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION’.

My views are those held by the Reformers and Puritans and which are found in the great Confessions and Catechisms of the Protestant Reformation. They are not unique to me. I was 'taught' what you believe at present but rather quickly dismissed them after reading the Bible over and over again, comparing Scripture with Scripture; aka: The Analogy of Faith". And, I learned one of the most foundational axioms of biblical hermeneutics..... CONTEXT determines the meaning of words.

No The "foundation of the world" typically refers to the creation of the physical earth. Where do you get the idea that it refers to the Abrahamic Covenant???

No The "foundation of the world" typically refers to the creation of the physical earth. Where do you get the idea that it refers to the Abrahamic Covenant???

Answer: the bible. I completely disagree with your position, You seem to think it means the same as the foundation of the earth,a completely different construct. And i also believe it always refers to the same time period. The Foundation of the world (FOTW) occurs 10 times, three times i refers to before this time and seven times after. Each before reference is to Jesus in heaven, the after references refer to man or Jesus as a man (any bells ringing?)
Hebrews 9 25-26, These two verses speculate how much more often Jesus would have had to have suffered if he (like a priest who had to enter the holy place yearly) also had to suffer yearly for us too but did in fact only do it just once and had victory over sin once and for all. this brings the Abrahamic Covenant/Mosaic Covenant clearly into focus. i.e once a covenant is in place to do so. Further study reveals it to be the Abrahamic. this adds weight to my stance that the term kosmos refers to the 'sea' of spiritual life on earth saved and unsaved, and contradicts your stance about it only referring to the elect. A quick search through the use of kosmos in the bible confirms pretty much every use of it can be considered 'what adorns the earth' physically and spiritually or both.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you disagree with my view seeing you are enamored by this "Gap Theory" that you have unfortunately embraced and thus interpret Scripture through its 'glasses'. Again, the word 'kosmos' world has seven different meanings in Scripture. And John 3:16 uses "world" to mean in a general sense, i.e., Jews AND Gentiles, there is no distinction between them in regard to the need of being saved by the work of the Lord Christ. And one other small point is the typical translation of "whosoever believeth" is horribly wrong. That phrase in the Greek is (pas ho pisteuwn) = all the believing ones. Pisteuon is a present participle and cannot be translated in any other way. There is nothing in the original text, whether you choose the TR or Westcott Hort, it's exactly the same. The Son came by the Father to take on human flesh to save believers in the world so that they would not perish. It's that simple. Arthur W. Pink put it this way:

A challenge to you interpretation of predestined:
Romans 8 :29- For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren 30 'Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified'
Your stance being that whoever he predestined to become saved will be and that if he does not predestine themtthey wont be. Everyone.
But wait a minute what about 'many are called few are chosen' Matt 22 14. Although i appreciate the two greek words are different..
This would seem to put a sifting process in the cascade. so not everyone called is saved? So not everyone predestined is saved. How can this be? Has God failed in his predestination?
Maybe you have misunderstood this Predestined?
From above 'Whom he did' for know (i suggest this is everybody) he also did preddestine (everyone to be saved?) but then comes called, not everybody called is saved. Your definition does not hold
I suggest God just predestined everybody to get to the stage of being called after that it is down to human choice, This fits in with my view of God and goes yours- the discriminatory lover of some men and not others This ties in with God wanting everyone saved. (1 Tim. 2:3–4), (2 Peter 3:9).

He loves me, He loves me not
You say Yes, the Father and the Son are one and there is no contradiction between them. Do these passages support that God loves all men without exception? Answer yes they are consistent with it

You say How do you reconcile the fact that the Lord Christ preached in parables so that in order that, purpose] they should not be saved... except to those whom it is given to see, hear and comprehend the Gospel.? In Matthew we have the same truth expressed in another way
Answer: are you saying that because these were not on God's good list so they were spoken to in parables? So before that everyone in the crowd must have been on his 'elect' list. This is a judgment reaction , the default is always love. this parallels how God treats us now , Drawing us all in but removing that if we sin too much. How do you equate this with (1 Tim. 2:3–4), (2 Peter 3:9). Should the prodigal son have brackets around it saying 'not applicable if you are on God's death list

I think God loves everybody and I think the word agape encompasses all God s love from the benevolent a patient love for the sinner, the intimate love for the saved and the even more intimate love for some 'elite' of the saved. Daniel and John both loved by God and both given the most spectacular visions, John 3 16 refer to all of these loves and I believe that Jesus died for all of us, he would do it again, he would do it just for one us whether we accepted it or not
I think God loved me before my salvation, may have hated me when i was working iniquity, but still loved me and loves me more now. The discriminatory God you describe would have put me off; You may well be misrepresenting God
i am glad you brought up Gap theory. You have a habit of not answering my questions about 7 now unanswered. i do not thin I have proven my views to you here but i have , at least introduced the possibility you are wrong, but I have stated that I have proved the Gap Theory beyond any doubt, about 30 mins read here:
https://worldsapartbiblically.com/genesis_similitudes.html,
answer that one at least?

Wriggle room
You say The word [kosmos] has 7 different meanings in Scripture. In John 3:16 "world" [kosmos] it's meaning cannot mean anything but all whom God had set His determination (election) to save throughout the entire world; Jews and Gentiles, i.e. the elect

You then say . And John 3:16 uses "world" to mean in a general sense, i.e., Jews AND Gentiles, there is no distinction between them in regard to the need of being saved by the work of the Lord Christ

This is a total contradiction of yourself!!1 The second statement, I agree, I think we have made good progress.
It also means, of course, that it is and it does state clearly God and Jesus loves everyone?

Mr. Parsonage,

May I respectfully suggest that you study the Attributes of God, perhaps starting with the work by that title by A.W. Pink?

To best know God, one must know *about* Him, and to know about Him, one must be willing to acquaint one's self with as much as possible about His nature, character, attributes, purpose, and works.

I'm one among many who can say that Pink's work has helped me to do that, in spite of many influences to the contrary.

Really? The truth is I say, "NO!" The Father from eternity decreed to save a remnant out of Adam's fallen race and give them to the Son. He thus chose each by name and predestined them to salvation in Christ. The Son, being one with the Father agreed to become man and give Himself as a vicarious substitute for them in order to accomplish their salvation. This is historically known as the "Covenant of Redemption" which was formed in eternity. Also, the Holy Spirit, being one with the Father and Son agreed to work regeneration in the elect through the Gospel, bring them to Christ working faith in them and preserving them in that faith, and sanctifying them throughout their appointed time on earth. (Ps 2; Isa 53:10-12; John 5:17-31, 36-37, 43; 6:37-40, 57; 7:28-29, 38-39; 8:16-19, 26-29, 38, 42, 49-54; 9:4; 10:14-18, 25-30, 36-38; 12:23-28, 44-50; 13:3, 20, 31-32; 14:9-14, 16-20, 24-26; 15:8-15, 24-27; 16:7-16, 27-28; 17).

I have already provided clear passages of Scripture that incontrovertibly show that God loves some whom He chose to save and that He hates others. He is angry with the wicked day and night and has prepared Hell for them, the Devil and the fallen angels. Christ came and died for those whom the Father gave Him... NOT for all men, else salvation would be universal, which clearly Scripture teaches it is not.

The text, Mark 4:10-12 is more than perspicuous revealing that Christ taught in parables so that the hearers would not be saved, i.e., they would remain in their God-hating sinful state and under the just judgment of God (cf. John 12:37-41; Matt 11:25-27). There is no "God's good list" for their is "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;" (Rom 3:10,11). Can you give one single passage that shows that God "draws us all"? Again, all is needed is one instance where God only draws some and your presupposition is false: see John 6:44, (cf. Jh 6:39; 11:7,9,11,24).

A thought I hope might be helpful in cases like these.

I rarely argue with Catholics specifically about Mary or Communion or the Papacy, because these issues are all secondary to a grossly insufficient view of the Word of God. Arguing just means hurt feelings. What is needed is generally the Gospel, and prayer. That the person in question would be saved, or, if he or she already is, then for spiritual growth, such that they would understand that the Word of God is infinitely superior to the word of sinful man. Then, but only then, will they likely be open to sound Biblical teaching.

It is very much the same thing IMO when dealing with Arminians or semi-Pelagians. Like Catholics, they trust in a "gospel" that is subtlely, and hence dangerously, inadequate. Arguing about the Solas or TULIP or even the attributes of God rarely works. But the Gospel, and prayer, might. As for anyone else, these are means by which God saves and then grows His children. And like Catholics, Arminians must learn that the Word of God is infinitely superior to the word of man. But I think they can only learn this from the Holy Spirit, and not from arguments about things that, though important, are secondary to knowing Him as He truly Is.

Once a person is committed to knowing, loving, and serving God, as He really and truly Is (not the false "gods" of Rome or Pelagius), the rest should follow naturally. A person so committed will be willing to learn. It will then be a joy, and not a struggle, to introduce them to those important truths that we in the Biblical, Protestant, and Reformed tradition hold dear.

My I suggest that apologetics is no less a means which God has ordained to stand against all errors and evil which the Church and its members are daily assaulted with. The Five Solas or TULIP are fundamental truths of the Gospel and I believe worthy of being defended for no one comes to Christ through false gospels, nor believing in a false christ in those counterfeit gospels. Continue in my Word and you know the truth and the truth will set you free (Jh 8:31).

No question that apologetics and the Doctrines of Grace are vital. I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. I would not know how to explain the Gospel to anyone, much less to a worshipper of an un-sovereign, powerless "god" to be found nowhere in Scripture, without those doctrines.

My point, which I probably didn't make clearly, was that in many if not most cases, the person with a low view of Grace has a low view of Scripture, and hence a low view of its Author, and hence probably is either very new or weak in the Faith, or unregenerate. Hence, the immediate need is most likely conversion.

Apologetics, and the proclamation of sound doctrine, certainly are instruments God can use to draw a person to Himself.

But the goal can't be to win an argument, much as I'd often like to. It must be that God's sovereign will might be done with respect to the individual in question. Hopefully that person's conversion; although in the end it is in God's hands; yet, He ordains the means, as well as the ends.

I'm sorry if I'm still not being entirely clear. I used to be an awful lot better at this.

Gotcha! Yes, it is God whose will is accomplished through our faithful proclamation of the Gospel and all truth, whether to harden the heart or by the Spirit's work to enlighten the mind and heart in the sanctification of the saints or to efficaciously call the elect unto justification and the love of God and the Lord Christ.

Yousay: I have already provided clear passages of Scripture that incontrovertibly show that God loves some whom He chose to save and that He hates others.
Answer: no you have not, Every single passage you link is, I respectfully suggest. usually floored logic or it shows God hates some for their behavior not an underlying hatred no matter what the individual does. Is that how you want to portray God?. This is our fundamental difference, I believe that God has an underlying love for all (the kosmos) but can hate some of them for their behavior but still loves them. There is also a clear and obvious a lack of decency/love/fairness in the God you portray.

You say:He is angry with the wicked day and night and has prepared Hell for them, the Devil and the fallen angels.
Answer: yes the key word being wicked i.e their behavior. He has an underlying merciful benevolent love at the same time. Wanting all to be saved

You say:Christ came and died for those whom the Father gave Him... NOT for all men, else salvation would be universal, which clearly Scripture teaches it is not.
Answer: I respectfully suggest, floored logic again, Christ did enough, a finite amount, hence he said 'it is finished. There is revelation on this from modern day prophet Kat Kerr. 'Christ died for every sin that could possibly be committed'. So if Christ died for all sins does that mean I am saying all would be saved. NO, of course not, we still have to chose and some may not but he has done enough for all

John 6 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day
I respectfully suggest, more floored logic: You suggest this means the Father does not draw all men. I think it does not embrace how many are drawn at all but all of those who are saved are drawn. It might be 1% of the total number of humans or 100%.
You also reference joh 6 39-40, you seem to link 'those he predestined' to 'those he gave me'. I think there are several steps between these two groups, namely 'many are called few are chosen'. I think God gives absolutely everyone who lives up to an age of accountability multiple chances of salvation. Those he foreknew (absolutely everybody) he predsetined,and those ,he called. So everyone predestined to be called only, not saved.

absolutely agree

Really? Romans 9:11-13 (ASV) 11 "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, 12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." And, all your "not fair" protests are based upon YOUR idea what is fairness; not God's fairness which is His divine right. The salient arguments which all men bring forth against God choosing some to be saved in Christ and choosing the rest to eternal punishment are answered by the Spirit through the Apostle Paul from vss. 14 ff.

Your objections are typically grounded in two fundamental errors (sem-Pelagianism); 1. A false view of the Sovereign God who is sovereign in both power and authority. In short, God has the divine right to do as HE pleases with His creation!!

Romans 9:20-21 (ASV) "20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? 21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

Isaiah 46:9-11 (ASV) "9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and there is none like me; 10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not [yet] done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; 11 calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it."

Psalms 135:5-6 (ASV) "5 For I know that Jehovah is great, And that our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath he done, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps;"

2. A false view and denial of the condition of man after the Fall, i.e., Original Sin. Scripture teaches that ALL men (mankind; men, women, children) are born spiritually dead, not sick, not terminally ill, but DEAD! By nature, the natural man hates God and all that is good.

John 3:19-20 (ASV) "19 And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved."

Romans 3:9-18 (ASV) "9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin; 10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; 12 They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one: 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways; 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Ephesians 2:1-5 (ASV) "1 And you [did he make alive,] when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, 2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; 3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-- 4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),"

Ephesians 4:17-19 (ASV) "17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart; 19 who being past feeling gave themselves up to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness."

The late Gordon Girod gives an adequate, albeit short summary of this biblical doctrine here: Total Depravity

John Owen makes your view of the atonement null and void when he wrote:
To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 2. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21.

If the Second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?

You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.

If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?

If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will."

Mr. Parsonage,

I'm not sure we have much common ground here.

The Bible is correct, complete, and final. It may be neither subtracted from, nor added to. The apostolic gifts ceased once Scripture was complete and they were no longer needed. The contrary view (Montanism) has been soundly rejected by Bible-believing Christians since shortly after it appeared in the late 2nd century. To elevate reason, tradition, experience, emotionalism, or false teachers or "prophets" over the Word of God, is to deny that Word, and, hence, its Author. None of us are perfect on this or any other point; however, denial of the Word should not be a habit, it should not be on purpose, it should not be blatant, and we should be open to biblical correction, at any time, on this or any other subject.

You have been rejecting biblical arguments, making emotional arguments instead, and even going so far as to appeal to a false modern-day "prophetess" for the specific purpose of rejecting biblical doctrine. This says to me that you are seeking not to learn from God or His people, but rather to justify your own position, which I think even you recognize at this point to be contrary to Scripture.

I will pray that God will reveal Himself to you, that you will come to know Him as He really and truly Is, and that you will grow in knowledge of the written Word (as well as the Incarnate Word) for all of your days.

I also encourage you to strongly and prayerfully consider 2 Tim. 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I honestly don't know how else to respond. Others here might. But I will pray for you.

Hi journeyman, thanks for the reply, and the prays. Appreciated and received and your love of the Lord shines through. I feel in the same team as you, though, strangely, I do not think you do of me?
I would like to go more reductionist in my approach to this thread

You say: 'position, which I think even you recognize at this point to be contrary to Scripture'
Answer: Really, do i?? could you please point out which bit of my position is contrary to scripture, just one bit and no more to start please.

thanks
alan.

Not gonna argue with you. I don't that will help you or anyone else. I will pray for you. And I continue to encourage you to learn about the attributes of God, and also what God's Word says about its own authority and finality.

OK journeyman, position accepted, but iron sharpens iron you know? I too, have the same love, reverence and give absolute authority to scripture as do you but your reluctance to discuss it leads me to believe you hold similar high views of your own interpretation of it. Not what the Bereans did, btw.

I thank you and accept your prayers for Revelation on scripture. I will always accept them. You are not clear as to what your views are but I am assuming you share the same view as my protagonist throughout this thread. This position greatly worries me as I believe, you are in danger of misrepresenting The Father.

I plead with you both to say the following prayer: 'I ask for revelation in your Word on man choosing and/or God choosing who is saved. I receive it'.

Also your dismissal of 'Kat Kerr false prophetess' is not what 1 Corinthians 14 29 tells you you should do. and Psalm 105 15 likewise.

It is easy to see if Kerr is false as she along with several others are predicting Trump back in (in this term not 2024) and Biden out. If she is wrong she is done. Watch.

QUESTION: Do you REALLY believe that salvation is by grace ALONE?... through faith by grace and not of works; any work whatsoever?

See this little diagramed test here: Grace Alone?

OK journeyman, position accepted, but iron sharpens iron you know? I too, have the same love, reverence and give absolute authority to scripture as do you but your reluctance to discuss it leads me to believe you hold similar high views of your own interpretation of it. Not what the Bereans did, btw.

I thank you and accept your prayers for Revelation on scripture. I will always accept them. You are not clear as to what your views are but I am assuming you share the same view as my protagonist throughout this thread. This position greatly worries me as I believe, you are in danger of misrepresenting The Father.

I plead with you both to say the following prayer: 'I ask for revelation in your Word on man choosing and/or God choosing who is saved. I receive it'.

Also your dismissal of 'Kat Kerr false prophetess' is not what 1 Corinthians 14 29 tells you you should do. and Psalm 105 15 likewise.

It is easy to see if Kerr is false as she along with several others are predicting Trump back in (in this term not 2024) and Biden out. If she is wrong she is done. Watch.

CONTEXT... Paul is addressing the "church" at Corinth and giving protocol regarding those who speak in tongues and prophesy.
1 Corinthians 14:27-29 (ASV) "27 If any man speaketh in a tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most three, and [that] in turn; and let one interpret: 28 but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 And let the prophets speak [by] two or three, and let the others discern."

Psalms 105:15 (ASV) "15 [Saying], Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my prophets no harm."
What authentication can you site that would confirm that Kat Kerr is in fact God's prophet?

This is what Scripture thinks of false prophets:
Soooooo, be extremely careful when you or anyone claims to be God's prophet for the true prophets always spoke what God commanded them to speak. And when a true prophet speaks the words spoken are God's words and thus they are to be embraced and obeyed as appropriate.

absolutely

You say: Soooooo, be extremely careful when you or anyone claims to be God's prophet

Firstly, i do not claim to be a prophet, and i take your good advice completely as I have been fooled by false prophets before too and have studied a lot of them. Many are false, no very many. I am certainly very careful. She's more a revelator than a prophet.

This is what she claims is a quote directly from God's Holy Spirit 'You choose to be chosen'
This is what she claims is a quote directly from God The Father 'I do not send anyone to Hell, they send themselves there by rejecting my Son' (added by me, to reject Christ you must be offered him),
Do these make her not a TULIP? Im not sure I really know what TULIP means anymore? Over to you?
Her revelation on James 1:17, Acts 17 28, will I believe greatly challenge you and especially your interpretation of Romans 8 29-30. Those 'he did foreknow' now has other possible meanings you could not have considered.

YOU SAY What authentication can you site that would confirm that Kat Kerr is in fact God's prophet?
Heres a link to my web site where I give 4 reasons to validate Kerr.
https://worldsapartbiblically.com/kerr_2.html (its still getting proof read so apologies for typos)

Also add to that list-Her revelations formed a base by which , I believe, I am able to prove Gap theory.undeniably from scripture and even provide a paradigm model that answers many questions that far superior minds than mine cannot with their own models

You choose prophet or liar?
There is , I believe, a prophetic movement by God with several prophets 'coming through' at the same time.They are different. Kerr say the 'Kingdom Age' is upon us. Robin Bullock is another worthy of looking at.

1. I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever that Kat Kerr does not believe anything close to "T.U.L.I.P". You can read this biblically faithfully explanation of what TULIP is here: TULIP by John H. Gerstner.

2. Since I hold to Cessationism, I de facto reject any suggestion that Kat Kerr or anyone else is a "prophet" to whom God speaks directly. The canon of Scripture is closed and no further direct revelation from God exists... nor is that necessary. All that is necessary for faith and practice is contained in the supernatural, inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God; the Bible.

3. Rom 8:28-30 is clear enough to understand correctly to those who have been given to know by the Holy Spirit.

You say:Rom 8:28-30 is clear enough to understand correctly to those who have been given to know by the Holy Spirit.

I ask what does 'who he did foreknow' refer to? Who is in this category?
What tenses are being used and what time frame are these sentences referring to?

Context is so important and that's why I have included v. 28 which determines the reason for vv. 29 and 30. Paul had been telling the Roman Christians that despite the corruption of the entire world which began when Adam disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, they are not to despair for the Spirit is working in them and interceding for them in their prayers to God who is bringing all things to their final purpose, which is primarily for His own glory and their personal good. In v. 28 Paul reminds them that to those who love God, i.e., those whom God has called (Grk the called), the elect all things work for good according to HIS purpose. Now, beginning in v. 29 Paul, by inspiration of the Spirit, reveals in more detail what that purpose consists in regard to His working all things for the believers' good.

1. Foreknew For whom, not "what" He foreknew indicates a) whom God had set His love upon and b) from all eternity.
- the word "know" [Grk: ginoskow; proginoskow] is not to be understood only as knowledge or prescience. For the Bible uses this term to mean much more, e.g., "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,". It would be irrational, never mind illogical to interpret this text to mean that Adam knew things about Eve and consequently she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. Adam intimately loved his wife and thus a child was born. Another example can be found in Matt 7:23 "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt 7:23" Here are many other passages where "know" means not knowledge about, but rather loved, affection for, etc. (Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Jh 10:14,28; 2Tim 2:19; Ps 1:6; Amos 3:2; Hos 13:5; 1Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9; 1Jh 3:1; Rom 11:2).

2. Having "foreloved" a people out of Adam's fallen race, He/God, foreordained/predestined, i.e., God decreed; to make certain, to ordain the end, these individuals to be "conformed to the image of His Son". These chosen ones will be perfectly transformed to be like unto Christ, so that Christ who is their Head, will have all the preeminence over all creation both in this world and in the new world to come.

3. v. 30 And now Paul expands on this "purpose" of God by revealing how this glorious plan is going to work out, i.e, specifically for those who are beloved of God. This foreordination was from all eternity, being presently brought to pass and will continue to the end (telos). Thus the first step in His working in and for the saints is: "them He called". Again, it must be emphasized that words rarely have one meaning. Context is what will determine how they are understood. The question you asked before is re: calling. For this particular purpose let's say that "calling" in Scripture in regard to salvation has two distinct meanings: 1) The indiscriminate proclamation of the Gospel throughout the world. This we term the "outward calling" of all men to repentance and faith in the Lord Christ for the remission of sins and reconciliation to God. 2) The sovereign and effectual calling of the elect whereby the Holy Spirit, working in conjunction with the Word of God, regenerates a sinner thus recreating the once spiritually dead soul, bringing deep conviction of sin and the inability to do anything to rectify their guilt and corruption, and granting repentance and creating a saving faith in Christ within them. (cf. Eph 2:1-10; et al) We need only to go back to the first chapter of Romans and read Paul's salutation to grasp what this "calling" found in 9:30 is. "to all in Rome who are beloved of God, saints by virtue of having been called..." This the same construction "beloved" [known] by God and "called" to be saints. See here: The Call that Brings a Response.

4. And thus those whom God set His love and foreordained that they should be conformed to the image of Christ are effectually called through the working of the Spirit, they are infallibly justified, and finally infallibly ordained to be glorified, i.e., fully conformed to the image of Christ, which the Spirit works in them throughout their lives to that end, i.e., sanctification.

alanparsonage, It is clear to me that you have not read the articles that Pilgrim so graciously posted in this lengthy thread. Please go back to each one and read every word. Look up all of the scriptures referenced and pray that God will enlighten you to the truth of His Word.




I totally agree.

HI pilgrim head honcho. Thanks for the reply, which flowed nicely and i could follow and understand it and you even answered one of the q's you previously did not. Now we are cooking! I do agree with much of what you say but:

The whole of your stance seems to stand of fall on your interpretation of 'foreknow' as an 'elect' who God loved and loved God. This does not stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. You point out that God describes man and women becoming one flesh (genesis 2:24) and also describes the same act as 'knew'.You conclude that 'knew ' means thus a deeper love. I completely agree that this insight is correct to link the two but my conclusion is different.Note the way in Genesis 2:24 God had to add the term flesh. I think two can become one spiritually too. (not humans)
I think if God had meant love he would have used love (agape) and not knew. I think it is more literal, I think If God has an 'indwelling relationship of any kind' he says he' Knew' them. (there may well be deeper love involved too btw)

You use Jesus' quote .. 'that I never new you'...mat 7:23.and say that it means he never loved you. Again I think God would use agape if he meant agape. My stance is that Jesus is referring to the fact that he was not born again with an indwelling Christ fits better with the surrounding text which describes the damnation of someone who was not'known' so not born again and so cursed. This is what we would expect.

Acts 17 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring
Acts seems to be describing man having an existence before Christ's time. A' being' not a thought or concept.There is much evidence to support the view that our spirits were created sometime before the Earth. To save you from scrolling to and from your Bible I have prepared a Small web page, just for you, with all the links and my thinking here. Click on the bible links and they appear as a light box for you. Hold on to your hat.
https://worldsapartbiblically.com/for_head_honcho.html

Once established that God foreknew everybody, then Romans 8 ;27-30 take on a completely different meaning
God foreordained everybody to be changed into the image of Christ, but this predestinaton is not a prophecy but an availability for all but there are some t & c s. You must repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. From Romans 8:27-30 text, I see no reason that God predestining us to be conformed into being like Christ is unconditional, but I can see how its availability to all is unconditional. The text says God predestined us to be changed-we have to ok the change. This sound s more like the God I know.

Man can step away form this predestined availability and God confirms this as 'many are called but few are chosen. matt 22 14

Hi tulip not a daisy.

you say:alanparsonage, It is clear to me that you have not read the articles that Pilgrim so graciously posted in this lengthy thread. Please go back to each one and read every word. Look up all of the scriptures referenced and pray that God will enlighten you to the truth of His Word

i say: I read much of them and all the scripture quotes actually, I just disagree with the interpretations passionately (know means love ???!!!) and I can back up my disagreement with scripture. Many of the links were to a voluminous nmuber of articles and many were repetitive I did not read all of those.
I invite you to answer my last posting too btw on what 'foreknown' means.

Why do you think God enlightens you to the truth of his word and not me? are your herneneutics beyond failing? Should we not be iron sharpening iron?

Give me your best quote of scripture which I 'obviously must not have read'/understood-just one to start?

Unfortunately you are incorrect but again. 1) My 'stance' does not stand or fall on my interpretation of 'foreknow'. My point to YOU is that, which you seem to either totally fail to comprehend or that you totally reject the premise of biblical hermeneutics, substituting the Bible's hermeneutic for one which is sometimes called a "Psycho-Statistical-Mean" hermeneutic. Simply put, one derives at a meaning of any particular word by it's common/popular understanding at a particular time in a particular social structure. I've explained this phenomena in great detail elsewhere so I'll provide you with only the "Cliff Notes" version. If you went around your neighborhood and asked each household what the word "run" means and recorded the answers and then added up the various responses, the one with the most 'votes' would be the definition used everywhere it appears. It appears that in this particular case, you have opted to define "know" as data about, a composite of information perceived, etc. I have incontrovertibly showed you for myriad biblical passages that this is totally incorrect. Again, a few pointed examples: Jer 1:5;Matt 7:21-23; Rom 9:11-13. Perhaps you have never studied in depth not only what 'foreknowledge' is but even more importantly, how it exists? Biblically, foreknowledge is the fruit of God's determinate council; His decree(s). God is Omniscient; He knows ALL THINGS because He has determined ALL THINGS according to His good pleasure. There is NOTHING which happens nor exists that God hasn't ordained from eternity. An architect can look at a blank lot and describe what a future building will look like down to the minutest detail. Why? Because he is the creator, the author of that building. His 'knowledge' of that building is the fruit, the result of his idea that first resided in his mind. See here: The Foreknowledge of God by A.W. Pink. 2) You have inserted something which I never wrote nor implied. In fact I categorically deny the statement that the definition of '[the]elect' is as you wrote: "who God loved and loved God". Nowhere is there even the slightest hint in Scripture that God elected anyone to salvation on the basis that they loved God. And how would that even be possible??? Before anything ever existed, God's election of a remnant of Adam's fallen race was based upon nothing other than God's good pleasure apart from anything whatsoever to do with the future recipient's of His mercy and grace. The Scripture teaches an "UNCONDITIONAL Election". There is and never was ANYTHING in regard to man which could have commended even one individual to God in order to be favored by Him. Among the myriad passages in Scripture that teach this, one that immediately stands out for me is Ephesians 1:1-14.

Thanks for this for it illustrates perfectly an example of the "Psycho-Statistical-Mean" hermeneutic you labor under. It is also a clear example of Eisogesis, i.e., inserting something into a text that doesn't exist. And thirdly, it demonstrates your arrogance and a despising of God and His Spirit for the Bible. Every jot and tittle is authored by God Himself and to even suggest that God should have written "agape" vs "gnosko" in Matt 7:23 if His intent was to convey that Jesus never 'loved' the workers of iniquity. Clearly the text as written says that Jesus never 'knew' them... which one cannot conclude that He 'knew' them, as you have admitted, i.e., He knew they were not born again . For He, Jesus knew everything about them; every thought, word and deed and thus called them "ye that work iniquity" which in Jh 6:44 are described as being the offspring of the Devil. So, the 'I never knew you' in this text cannot mean a 'knowledge about' but rather a 'love for'. It is those who work iniquity that God hates and will cast into the Lake of Fire.

1) Paul's statement at Mars' hill was addressed to the contemporary philosophers gathered there and making note to them he noticed the alter where upon it was written: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. What he explained to them was there is a known God and that He is the creator of all things, even themselves. And because even their own poets recognized that their existence was to admit that they were God's "offspring", then it was more than foolish to offer worship to their idols made of stone, gold, silver which are the musings of man's silly mental fabrications. Where you get any notion that this shows that 'our spirits were created sometime before the earth' is dumbfounding. Jesus in confrontation by the Pharisees told them that Abraham rejoiced to see my day... and expectedly they ridiculed Him since Jesus wasn't even 50 years old. His response was: [before Abraham was [Grk: genesthai = existed, came into being], I AM [Grk: ego eimi = eternal, the everlasting eternal GOD] (cf. Ex 3:14; Isa 43:13, 44:6, 48:12; Rev 1:8). This statement was to reveal and confess that this Jesus of Nazareth was not just a man but rather God existing in the person of the man Jesus. The infinity and eternity spoken of was of the Son; God the Son and not of the human person Jesus. One must never confuse the two individual natures of Jesus; man and Divine, albeit they being inseparable. See here: The Creed of Chalcedon. Why do you think that by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Apostle Paul calls the incarnate Son of God the "firstborn of every creature" (cf. Eph 1:15,18; Rom 8:29)? Since the Son created all things, how could there be humans existing before the One who created all mankind? (cf. Jh 1:1; Col 1:15-17)

Lets go one at a time:
You say:Where you get any notion that this shows that 'our spirits were created sometime before the earth' is dumbfounding.Read the link , there is plenty of evidence.
Specifically' For in him we live, and move, and have our being' as you rightly point out is talking about a time in the past. So in who? How did we move? and how did we exist? in this previous time?

Well, well, head honcho, it seems that your oft self proclaimed high standard of hermeneutic understanding has deserted you. I still wait your answer to Acts 17:28 which has a clear and obvious plain text meaning to me. Here are the Qs again.
Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being' as you rightly point out is talking about a time in the past. So in who? How did we move? and how did we exist? in this previous time?

In a perhaps not so coincidental coincidence Kat Kerr herself, yesterday, discusses this verse. I recommend that you take an hour to see what these prophets 'who do not exist today' sound like. Find out how big Heaven is at the same time too. http://e.elijahlistmail.com/t/26880067/272362924/213718/253/

Once established that we (our spirit only) preexisted our birth on earth it becomes clear that all the scripture you quote to back up your position can and should be interpreted differently in that God loved everybody and predestined all to be saved but we had to choose to be saved along the way.The default was saved, but we had to answer the call.
Please give me your best piece of scripture to confirm otherwise, You quote Ephesians 1 but I quote the same back at you to back up my position note how
verse 4 describes our pre-existence
verse 13 describes us believing and trusting as part of the process
There is nothing throughout that contradicts my stance that God purposed all to be saved but some rejected the offer.

Lets do the verses together, one at a time.

1. Your sarcasm will gain you nothing here.
2. Acts 17:28 simply understood is that in contradistinction to the pagan idols which the residents held as their gods and which Paul told them was nothing short of foolishness for these idols were made by men... the one true God created all things and rules sovereignly over ever facet of the lives of men. There is nothing whatsoever in the passage about pre-existent souls. To suggest such a thing is ridiculous.
3. As stated before along with links to my article(s) and others, salvation is NOT, to use Billy Graham's statement from his book How to be Born Again "God has done everything He can to save you. Now, it's up to you." Salvation is of the LORD (Jonah 2:9). It is ALL of grace and not of works, including the fantasy of man's "free-will" which makes God a servant of the creature and an idol of man's fallen nature and quest for autonomy.

That's all I shall say to you. And I withdraw and adopt jta's position that what is needed at this point is a clear understanding of the Gospel by you and prayer for your soul.

The Qs on acts 17 28 were specific and yet again you ignore them,. 'In him we live and move and have our being' is about as unambiguous as is possible to be as describing an indwelling, yet you define it as 'ludicrous'.. Denial of the obvious, Much more evidence on the link too. denial, denial and not at all like a Berean.
You do well do drop out of the argument as the path it is taking is clear.
I also suggest your cessstionism stance is about to be challenged too and soon, as Kerr has prophesied Biden out, and Trump reinstated along with a social media company collapse ( (I think facebook) and a MSM big name going too. All totally unpredictable by man. What will you do if these come true?

Blessings to you head honcho, i hope you come to know the truth and I plead with you again not to publish anything that paints God as unloving and that would deter the unsaved, I have at least shown you how your biblical interpretations are not necessarily; correct.

I really do not want to interrupt your conversation with Pilgrim. However, it seems to me (among other things) that if your understanding of John 3:16 is correct, it contradicts other verses and passages such a John 6:37.


This verse touches on the question of predestination—the idea that God is the one who ultimately decides which persons are saved and which are not. See also John 6:44 & 65.

Tom

Hi tom, thanks for the reply, you quote john 6:7 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." and that this contradicts my stance on John 3:16. I do not see any conflict. I think you seem to be equating 'give' happening at the same time as' predestinate' ?, I see no evidence that the two are the same other than to satisfy the TULIP doctrine,

In the chain of events foreknew-predestined-image of christ and predestined-called-justified-glorified. (romans 8 29-30). Where does 'give' belong in this chain. I suggest it applies to when we are born again in christ. Thats why we are given to him then at this point, we are a part of the body then.. Likewise, when does 'drawing'(john 6:44) happen- i am not sure- I suggest it is around and may be associated with 'calling'.
So, absolutely all who are saved have to be drawn but that statement does not necessitate all drawn/called are saved. We know from Mat 22:14 that not all called are chosen. The same for john 6 65.
There is no conflict for me For God so loved (the entire world-everyone) that whosoever believed ( a sub group within 'everyone') will have eternal life.

To repeat I think the TULIP doctrine struggles once it is established that our spirit component pre-exsited our birth on earth. There is much evidence to support this for which i produced a web page just for this forum with over 20 scriptural references that support this view.
https://worldsapartbiblically.com/for_head_honcho.html

I have also just added a, probably clumsy, allegory that may explain my stance better called 'Earthsville' which starts the page.
As i have answered your questions could you now please answer mine? when I ask this question your peers seem to want to stop the debate and start praying for me but lets see what you do?

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being' as you rightly point out is talking about a time in the past. So in who? How did we move? and how did we exist? in this previous time?

Allan

I noticed an issue that I believe is more important than the issue of the correct interpretation of John 3:16 or John 6:37. That is Kat Kerr, the supposed prophetess.
I am not even interested in discussing Kat Kerr here and even if I did, I am not sure Pilgrim wants it discussed here.

Tom

anyway Tom, back to my questions?