Why can't it be both? His ways are higher than ours and some things we were not meant to understand. Also, as Christians we shouldn't bicker about non essentials. Love you guys.
The use of ALL MEN is used to refute the Jewish belief that God is only the God of the Jews as most Jews of that day believed.In the O.T.Gentiles could not be saved as Gentiles,they had to become Jews.Jesus still only came for HIS ISRAEL,the mystery revealed in the N.T.was that God's ISRAEL are all of God's elect,Gentiles and Jews.Here is just one verse explaining the old Jewish belief and how now God is granting repentance to Gentiles too,thus the real meaning of ALL MEN.. Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received: that Christ died for OUR sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. If "OUR" sins includes "the world" and "the elect" Calvinists are clearly teaching another gospel. John clears up any confusion: 1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for OUR sins, AND NOT FOR OURS ONLY but also for the sins of the whole world.
All are not saved, so your interpretation is incorrect. Because Christ is a substitute, His sacrifice is for particular people. Otherwise, we'd have to believe Christ's sacrifice failed in some measure, which of course is false. Jesus says multiple times that His sheep hear His voice. In John 17 He stated He is not praying for the world but for His own.
The idea of Limited Atonement is based on the underlying doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Penal Substitution was based on the idea that God is perfectly holy and as such must punish sin so that God's justice is satisfied. Because God truly loves the elect God pours His wrath out on Jesus so that God is able to forgive sinners without compromising His holy standard of justice. Limited Atonement is a logical outgrowth of Penal Substitution. In this video it is interesting that these men never point out that Penal Substitution was a total invention of the Reformers. The Reformers took Anselm's satisfaction view of the atonement developed in the 11th century and came up with the theory of Penal Substitution. No Christians for over a thousand years believed in a Penal Substitution theory as developed by the Reformers. The early church believed that Christ was our substitute. They did not mean in any way that Christ substitution was Penal in it's nature simply because this doctrine did not exist.. In this sense the Reformers invented something completely new. J. I. Packer admits that Penal Substitution is an invention of the Reformers. J I Packer Says, “…Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it (my emphasis)… What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).” Here are some problems with Penal Substitution. This doctrine puts a rift in the Trinity. Penal substitution makes the offense of sin only against God the Father. But my sin is also against Christ and the Holy Spirit. What about satisfaction of the wrath of Christ?. Or the wrath of the Holy Spirit? Are not both the Son and the Holy Spirit also equally God? Why would Christ and the Holy Spirit not also need a Penal satisfaction for sin? With PSA God is bound by necessity. If God's justice demands that He punish sin, then their is a higher force than God--Necessity--which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinist will be quick to argue that justice is an aspect of God's nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature. The problem here is If I do "A" then God must do "B" If I sin then God must punish. God does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God's actions are controlled by something outside Himself, ie, MY ACTIONS.This even becomes even more problematic when you consider the notion that God forordained my sinful actions thus forcing Him to respond to my actions. Reformed theologians argue that God does not have to save anyone. On the other hand He does have to punish my sin. It is interesting that the Reformed notion of God's justice becomes the defining Characteristic of God rather than love.Justice forces God to respond to our actions but love does not. Penal Substitution misunderstands the Old Testament Sacrifices. The Old Testament sacrificial system was not a picture of penal substitution. God was not pouring out His wrath on the animals in place of the Israelites. He didn’t vent His righteous judgment on the animals, sending them to hell in place of the Israelites. On the contrary, they were killed honorably and as painlessly as possible. Their life (i.e. their blood) was offered to God as a sweet smelling aroma. The resulting meat was good and holy-not just worthless carrion fit for dogs and vultures. Such is also the case with Christ’s sacrifice: it is a holy offering of blood to the Father, not a means whereby God can vent His wrath. Penal substitution misunderstands the word “justice” A quick perusal of the psalms and prophets will reveal that the word “justice” is usually coupled with “mercy.” Justice really means to show kindness and deliverance to the oppressed, and to right the wrongs done to them. True justice is destroying our oppressors-sin, death, and Satan-not punishing us for the sins to which we are in bondage. Penal substitution misunderstands the word “propitiation” Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments-the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.) With penal substitution, God does not truly forgive. With penal substitution, the debt is not really forgiven; it’s just transferred. But we are commanded to forgive as God forgave us. If my brother offends me, should I demand justice and vent my wrath on someone else? Should I beat myself up? No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense. Penal substitution makes the resurrection unnecessary. According to penal substitution, salvation is made possible only by a legal exchange. We are counted “just” and “forgiven” only because god’s wrath has been poured out on Christ instead. Since hell is said to be a punishment for sins, and since our sins have already been punished in Christ, we are free to go to heaven. The resurrection then becomes simply a nice bonus, nothing more than a “proof” that Christ is divine. Penal substitution makes the incarnation unnecessary. Was it Christ’s physical suffering or spiritual suffering which atoned for our sins (according to penal substitution)? If physical, then anyone who has suffered physically more than Christ (and there have been plenty in the history of our race), is exempt from hell, since they already paid for their own sins. If it was Christ’s spiritual suffering that counts, then He didn’t need to be incarnate. (After all, the demons will be punished without needing bodies.) The incarnation becomes just an “add-on” to help us out a little more. One person cannot be punished for another. Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can- not be punished for another. each one shall die for his own sins: In those days they shall say no more:But every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jer 31:29-30) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20) Penal substitution undermines union with Christ. If death is a punishment for sin rather than a result of sin (continuing with the last point), then it makes little sense to speak of being united with Christ. St. Paul says that we were united together in the likeness of His death (Rom 6:5). He also says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20) .If death is a punishment, then St. Paul is saying, “Christ and I have been punished together.” But again, why would two people be punished for one person’s sins? Perhaps it makes more sense to say that Christ, in union with our humanity, experienced the consequence of death, and through His death, defeated death for all of us. Besides, if we really believe that Christ defeated death, then we certainly can’t say that death is a punishment sent from god, or else we’d be forced to say that Christ defeated something that god willed for us. But Christ and His Father are not at war with each other. on the other hand, I will certainly confess that there is a substitution as well. Christ experienced the consequence of sin (i.e. death), as a substitute for us, so that we don’t have to experience the ultimate consequence sin (i.e. eternal death). But note that Christ is taking on the consequence of sin in our place, rather than the punishment for sin in our place. Penal substitution makes death a punishment rather than a result. God said, “In the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). He did not say “I will kill you” but rather “you will die.” To walk away from God (i.e. to sin) is by definition, death. death is the realm of “Not God.” likewise, if I pull the plug on my own life support system, the result is death. No one else is killing me. If I jump off the roof, after being warned by my mother not to, and I end up breaking my leg, does that mean that my mother broke my leg? No, that was simply the result of my own choice. Christ gave Himself up to death. If death is an active punishment from God, then Christ was punished by His Father (per penal substitution). But if death is the result of sin, then it is an outside enemy, and not God’s own wrath. There are many more problems with this doctrine. But the Reformed faith and it's inventions come from the western schools of scholasticism. The western inventions are based on a wooden hard literalism that the early church never used as it's methods of reading scripture. Without Penal Substitution Limited Atonement cannot be sustained as a belief.
Depends on how you use the word "propitiation". If you use it in the pagan sense you define the word as a satisfaction. If you define it as the mercy seat you have a covering based on the free mercy of God.
Really? But I like them, that is what I believe Bible teaches, Looks like you have a bit different opinion. What could I say? Pray and truth will be revealed to you )
God commended his love TOWARD US. Belief is the qualification for salvation. Why are you teaching what JESUS never said? God never told you to teach tulip. Why do you invent words like "saving faith". The gospel was preached to them as unto us but didn't profit them being NOT MIXED WITH FAITH...
bible4truth Explain then at least this couple passages for yourself first : “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day". AND "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls-she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory"
Gene Mintz John 12:32 (KJV) 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw **all men unto me**. And, think for yourself, how can a person blaspheme the Holy Spirit, if the Spirit isn't drawing them in the first place? John 16:8-9 (KJV) 8 And when he is come, **he will reprove the world of sin**, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 **Of sin**, **because they believe not on me**; OK...tell me. Is the Holy Spirit reproving only some people of sin? And what is the sin? HINT: "Unbelief" because Jesus fulfilled the law, NOW the sin is not believing ON JESUS (the gospel)... But wait!...How could the Holy Spirit reprove the "non elect" of the sin of unbelief on Jesus, if Jesus didn't die for their sins???? Remember, the sin is not believing on Jesus, who fulfilled the commandment, by which NO MAN can be saved, because all are guilty, but Jesus. Regarding Jacob and Essau...I will ask you a question: When you believe on Jesus to save you, he gives you ETERNAL LIFE. Think for yourself: When does ETERNAL LIFE, which is given to all who believe, begin? And, is the ETERNAL LIFE there, before your carnal life? Answer these questions please.
It's not about deserving a second chance false teacher; it is what the Bible teaches. And to say Jesus didn't die for everyone is to try and steal his glory.
If a person abandons or disagrees with TULIP he/she disagrees with scripture and the mind of God and therefore is lost because they've rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. The false gospel of "free will" makes an idol out of self and denies the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of God is basic to an understanding of salvation.
I disagree. I think you can have faulty view of how our wills work and still be saved. I think God’s grace and power to save is so strong that He can even save people without them understanding what’s happening. That’s what happened to me. Part of sanctification is figuring that out not justification.
Thank you Lord for your love and grace
Why can't it be both? His ways are higher than ours and some things we were not meant to understand. Also, as Christians we shouldn't bicker about non essentials. Love you guys.
John 1:9-13
Terrible audio, good program.
The use of ALL MEN is used to refute the Jewish belief that God is only the God of the Jews as most Jews of that day believed.In the O.T.Gentiles could not be saved as Gentiles,they had to become Jews.Jesus still only came for HIS ISRAEL,the mystery revealed in the N.T.was that God's ISRAEL are all of God's elect,Gentiles and Jews.Here is just one verse explaining the old Jewish belief and how now God is granting repentance to Gentiles too,thus the real meaning of ALL MEN..
Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For I delivered to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received: that Christ died for OUR sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
If "OUR" sins includes "the world" and "the elect" Calvinists are clearly teaching another gospel.
John clears up any confusion:
1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for OUR sins, AND NOT FOR OURS ONLY but also for the sins of the whole world.
All are not saved, so your interpretation is incorrect. Because Christ is a substitute, His sacrifice is for particular people. Otherwise, we'd have to believe Christ's sacrifice failed in some measure, which of course is false. Jesus says multiple times that His sheep hear His voice. In John 17 He stated He is not praying for the world but for His own.
The idea of Limited Atonement is based on the underlying doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Penal Substitution was based on the idea that God is perfectly holy and as such must punish sin so that God's justice is satisfied. Because God truly loves the elect God pours His wrath out on Jesus so that God is able to forgive sinners without compromising His holy standard of justice. Limited Atonement is a logical outgrowth of Penal Substitution. In this video it is interesting that these men never point out that Penal Substitution was a total invention of the Reformers. The Reformers took Anselm's satisfaction view of the atonement developed in the 11th century and came up with the theory of Penal Substitution. No Christians for over a thousand years believed in a Penal Substitution theory as developed by the Reformers. The early church believed that Christ was our substitute. They did not mean in any way that Christ substitution was Penal in it's nature simply because this doctrine did not exist.. In this sense the Reformers invented something completely new. J. I. Packer admits that Penal Substitution is an invention of the Reformers. J I Packer Says,
“…Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it (my emphasis)… What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).”
Here are some problems with Penal Substitution.
This doctrine puts a rift in the Trinity. Penal substitution makes the offense of sin only against God the Father. But my sin is also against Christ and the Holy Spirit. What about satisfaction of the wrath of Christ?. Or the wrath of the Holy Spirit? Are not both the Son and the Holy Spirit also equally God? Why would Christ and the Holy Spirit not also need a Penal satisfaction for sin?
With PSA God is bound by necessity. If God's justice demands that He punish sin, then their is a higher force than God--Necessity--which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinist will be quick to argue that justice is an aspect of God's nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature. The problem here is If I do "A" then God must do "B" If I sin then God must punish. God does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God's actions are controlled by something outside Himself, ie, MY ACTIONS.This even becomes even more problematic when you consider the notion that God forordained my sinful actions thus forcing Him to respond to my actions. Reformed theologians argue that God does not have to save anyone. On the other hand He does have to punish my sin. It is interesting that the Reformed notion of God's justice becomes the defining Characteristic of God rather than love.Justice forces God to respond to our actions but love does not.
Penal Substitution misunderstands the Old Testament Sacrifices. The Old Testament sacrificial system was not a picture of penal substitution. God was not pouring out His wrath on the animals in place of the Israelites. He didn’t vent His righteous judgment on the animals, sending them to hell in place of the Israelites. On the contrary, they were killed honorably and as painlessly as possible. Their life (i.e. their blood) was offered to God as a sweet smelling aroma. The resulting meat was good and holy-not just worthless carrion fit for dogs and vultures. Such is also the case with Christ’s sacrifice: it is a holy offering of blood to the Father, not a means whereby God can vent His wrath.
Penal substitution misunderstands the word “justice” A quick perusal of the psalms and prophets will reveal that the word “justice” is usually coupled with “mercy.” Justice really means to show kindness and deliverance to the oppressed, and to right the wrongs done to them. True justice is destroying our oppressors-sin, death, and Satan-not punishing us for the sins to which we are in bondage.
Penal substitution misunderstands the word “propitiation” Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments-the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
With penal substitution, God does not truly forgive. With penal substitution, the debt is not really forgiven; it’s just transferred. But we are commanded to forgive as God forgave us. If my brother offends me, should I demand justice and vent my wrath on someone else? Should I beat myself up? No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense.
Penal substitution makes the resurrection unnecessary. According to penal substitution, salvation is made possible only by a legal exchange. We are counted “just” and “forgiven” only because god’s wrath has been poured out on Christ instead. Since hell is said to be a punishment for sins, and since our sins have already been punished in Christ, we are free to go to heaven. The resurrection then becomes simply a nice bonus, nothing more than a “proof” that Christ is divine.
Penal substitution makes the incarnation unnecessary. Was it Christ’s physical suffering or spiritual suffering which atoned for our sins (according to penal substitution)? If physical, then anyone who has suffered physically more than Christ (and there have been plenty in the history of our race), is exempt from hell, since they already paid for their own sins. If it was Christ’s spiritual suffering that counts, then He didn’t need to be incarnate. (After all, the demons will be punished without needing bodies.) The incarnation becomes just an “add-on” to help us out a little more.
One person cannot be punished for another. Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can- not be punished for another. each one shall die for his own sins: In those days they shall say no more:But every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jer 31:29-30) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)
Penal substitution undermines union with Christ. If death is a punishment for sin rather than a result of sin (continuing with the last point), then it makes little sense to speak of being united with Christ. St. Paul says that we were united together in the likeness of His death (Rom 6:5). He also says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20) .If death is a punishment, then St. Paul is saying, “Christ and I have been punished together.” But again, why would two people be punished for one person’s sins? Perhaps it makes more sense to say that Christ, in union with our humanity, experienced the consequence of death, and through His death, defeated death for all of us. Besides, if we really believe that Christ defeated death, then we certainly can’t say that death is a punishment sent from god, or else we’d be forced to say that Christ defeated something that god willed for us. But Christ and His Father are not at war with each other. on the other hand, I will certainly confess that there is a substitution as well. Christ experienced the consequence of sin (i.e. death), as a substitute for us, so that we don’t have to experience the ultimate consequence sin (i.e. eternal death). But note that Christ is taking on the consequence of sin in our place, rather than the punishment for sin in our place.
Penal substitution makes death a punishment rather than a result. God said, “In the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). He did not say “I will kill you” but rather “you will die.” To walk away from God (i.e. to sin) is by definition, death. death is the realm of “Not God.” likewise, if I pull the plug on my own life support system, the result is death. No one else is killing me. If I jump off the roof, after being warned by my mother not to, and I end up breaking my leg, does that mean that my mother broke my leg? No, that was simply the result of my own choice. Christ gave Himself up to death. If death is an active punishment from God, then Christ was punished by His Father (per penal substitution). But if death is the result of sin, then it is an outside enemy, and not God’s own wrath.
There are many more problems with this doctrine. But the Reformed faith and it's inventions come from the western schools of scholasticism. The western inventions are based on a wooden hard literalism that the early church never used as it's methods of reading scripture. Without Penal Substitution Limited Atonement cannot be sustained as a belief.
Randy Churchill oh brother. I guess he really wasn't a propitiation for our sins huh?
Depends on how you use the word "propitiation". If you use it in the pagan sense you define the word as a satisfaction. If you define it as the mercy seat you have a covering based on the free mercy of God.
Randy Churchill oh brother. the heresy goes deeper!
What heresy is that?
you denying what propitiation means biblically
Sorry to say, but... pretty poor sound quality, hardly can hear and understand one fifth of what was said
If you can't understand then thst is probably a good thing because these guys are reprobate false teachers
Really? But I like them, that is what I believe Bible teaches, Looks like you have a bit different opinion. What could I say? Pray and truth will be revealed to you )
sad man...@@bible4truth
God commended his love TOWARD US. Belief is the qualification for salvation. Why are you teaching what JESUS never said? God never told you to teach tulip. Why do you invent words like "saving faith".
The gospel was preached to them as unto us but didn't profit them being NOT MIXED WITH FAITH...
bible4truth Explain then at least this couple passages for yourself first : “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day". AND "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls-she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory"
Gene Mintz
John 12:32 (KJV)
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw **all men unto me**.
And, think for yourself, how can a person blaspheme the Holy Spirit, if the Spirit isn't drawing them in the first place?
John 16:8-9 (KJV)
8 And when he is come, **he will reprove the world of sin**, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 **Of sin**, **because they believe not on me**;
OK...tell me. Is the Holy Spirit reproving only some people of sin? And what is the sin? HINT: "Unbelief" because Jesus fulfilled the law, NOW the sin is not believing ON JESUS (the gospel)...
But wait!...How could the Holy Spirit reprove the "non elect" of the sin of unbelief on Jesus, if Jesus didn't die for their sins???? Remember, the sin is not believing on Jesus, who fulfilled the commandment, by which NO MAN can be saved, because all are guilty, but Jesus.
Regarding Jacob and Essau...I will ask you a question:
When you believe on Jesus to save you, he gives you ETERNAL LIFE.
Think for yourself:
When does ETERNAL LIFE, which is given to all who believe, begin?
And, is the ETERNAL LIFE there, before your carnal life?
Answer these questions please.
It's not about deserving a second chance false teacher; it is what the Bible teaches. And to say Jesus didn't die for everyone is to try and steal his glory.
It is appointed to men once to die and after that the judgment.
If a person abandons or disagrees with TULIP he/she disagrees with scripture and the mind of God and therefore is lost because they've rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. The false gospel of "free will" makes an idol out of self and denies the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of God is basic to an understanding of salvation.
I disagree. I think you can have faulty view of how our wills work and still be saved. I think God’s grace and power to save is so strong that He can even save people without them understanding what’s happening. That’s what happened to me. Part of sanctification is figuring that out not justification.