God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@Ryft

Thanks for answering my questions on the way you understand, read, and interpret the Bible.

... It is inerrant with respect to its theological content as God's self-revelation to mankind about the plan, purpose, order, and history of salvation in Christ and covenant. Although the Bible makes claims that might be scientifically erroneous, for example—like the sky being a solid dome over a world that is a circular disc—that does not constitute an error because it was not making a scientific statement in the first place but rather a theological one, such that creation is described in terms of a cosmic temple (which is simply self-consistent because the Bible is saturated in the temple motif, beginning at Genesis with a cosmic temple and ending at Revelation the same way).

I actually started thread a few weeks ago discussing problems in interpreting scripture in such a way.The discussion mostly centered on whether you’re interpreting scripture really the way it was intended to be interpreted or if you’re just falling into this fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...al-fallacy

That discussion isn’t relevant for what we we’re debating now but if you wish you can find it and continue the discussion here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-12501.html

You have made it clear several times that Christ has died only for some:

“I said that the gospel is a means of grace by which God reaches those for whom Christ died and will give eternal life.”
...
Again, "If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day.
...

The reason why God commands us to preach the word of Christ is because that is the instrument through which his saving power does its work. "Those he predestined, he also called" (Rom 8:30; emphasis mine).

The sheep symbolize those who the Father gives to the Son (elect), while the goats symbolize everyone else (non-elect).

To summarize, you seem to understand that God as only died to those he intended save. And he only calls those he died for. Basically only those he intended to save, died for and calls will be saved.

I must ask then, what is the difference between people he did not decide to die for and call and those he did (aside from the fact he chose them of course)? Why did he select the ones that he did select? What’s so special about them?

Also, why did he not select all human beings? Why did he not die for all and then call them all to him? Why did only die for some human beings?

This is what I was getting at when I said:

“It appears completely unjust for God to allow those Christ did not die for to go into eternal torment. They can’t help it! That’s just the way they are.”

You replied thusly:

They can't help it? Who said? That is not what biblical Christianity teaches, Tegh. They willingly choose to sin, so it is just for God to condemn them to hell.

When you that say “they” (the non-elect) willingly choose to sin, does that mean that the elect do not sin, or at least, do not willingly sin? If you say, no, both groups willingly sin, then what’s the difference between the elect and non-elect?

God apparently decided to save one group of sinners and leave the rest of the sinners to burn in hell for eternal torment. If both groups are willful sinners, then the only reason the non-elect went to hell, is because they were non-elect. They never got the opportunity for Christ to die for them, and they were never called. So I still affirm that they “can’t help it.” If you again say “they willingly choose to sin” therefore they’re justified for being grilled then you have to show how that differentiates them from the elect if the elect also willingly sin.

However, if you were to say that the chosen elect do not “willingly” sin (I guess as opposed to unintentionally sinning?) then I must ask, why is that they do not “willingly” sin? Is it because God chose, died, and called them? In other words, is God the cause of their not “willingly” sinning? If you say yes, then why could not God had caused all men to not want to sin?

Anyway I picture it in your view, it appears that God, not man’s fault, is the ultimate reason that they go to heaven or hell. If a person goes to hell, they can blame God for it because really they had nothing to do with it.

One last question, do all people God died for respond to God’s call? Are there some he died for that do not respond to his call? If that’s true, what happens to those he died for but did not respond to his calling? However, if it is true that everyone he died for will respond to his call, and they (the elect) all go to heaven, that seems to make witnessing pointless (back to that point I’m afraid). God’s call will always end up getting to the elect person somehow if one does not witness to a person. If you don’t witness to someone, it’s inevitable that someone else will later down the road. Or if all else fails, perhaps something miraculous will happen like a Bible “coincidentally” falling off the shelf, smacking the called person on the head and landing on the floor open to John 3:16. God will always find a way to get his elect called. So, this goes back to my original point. The sun will always rise!