Another of Calvinism's many errors is that God gives two calls: a sincere call and a hypocritical call. The doctrine is that God makes it impossible for man to respond, then He commands man to respond, and then He condemns men for not responding.
Vince, your style of writing is so very much like your theology. Both lack grace. It makes it so very difficult not to respond as uncharitably as you write about your doctrine of human merit. I must admit I am amazed at the similarities between your theology and that of Pelagius. I am curious if you believe anything actually happened in the fall of Adam?
Also, it is noticeable in your post that you cannot deal with correction of the errors in Deuteronomy. Typical of people of your persuasion, they are not willing to discuss the scriptural objections, but just jump to a different verse like they can only believe the half the bible they mistakenly feel supports their tradition.
It seem typical of people of your persuasion to create a straw man. I notice the emotionally charged term "hypocritical call." Of course no Calvinist would use such a term. There are in fact two calls, but you completely misrepresent the distinction. One call is Gods statement of human responsibility, the call to repentance. All men are responsible to repent. This is the call you misrepresent as the "hypocritical call." Your assumption here is that God is obligated to give all men an equal chance. So then, you call human responsibility "hypocrisy!" That is a statement that is rather blasphemous.
John 1:9 says "That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world." Folks, I looked up John 1:9 in the Greek, and it is translated correctly. Jesus is the true light that enlightens every man that comes into the world. The Words "light" and "lighten" mean to illuminate, to shine (with the emphasis on rays), to brighten.
I cannot make this verse any clearer than God did. If a person says that "enlighten" does not mean "enlighten," "every man" does not mean "every man," or "the world" does not mean "the world," then I cannot go any farther. I can quote other Scriptures showing the same things, but eventually, a person has to accept God's Word over Calvin's philosophy, and I cannot make a person do that.
Let me first post the verse.... Since you implied that you can read greek....
9 ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει
παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον
Your assumption is that the word panta must always refer to all men without exception. Lets see if you will be consistent in your error throughout the context.
Pantes is found in verse 7.
7 ουτος ηλθεν εις μαρτυριαν ινα μαρτυρηση περι του φωτος ινα
παντες πιστευσωσιν δι αυτου
The clause is "παντες πιστευσωσιν δι αυτου"
If you take the word pantes as "all men without exception" then faith comes to all men without exception. Of course that is a doctrine called universalism. Someone should be asking you the question if you are a universalist. Are you?
Of course, talk to many right in these threads. There are many athiests, many non-believers. It would be an absurdity to claim all men have faith.
16 οτι εκ του πληρωματος αυτου ημεις
παντες ελαβομεν και χαριν αντι χαριτος
Of course the key clause here is "εκ του πληρωματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβομεν"
So has each and every person without exception received the fulness of Christ? The final clause refer to grace. Do you believe all men have received Grace? If you are a universalist, I am sure you will answer yes. Are you a universalist?
There are of course many contexts where the word "pas" cannot mean "all men without exception." In Luke, did Ceasar send a decree that pasan the word will be taxed. How much taxes did they collect from the Yucatan? Or outer mongolia? Of course the term refers to the Romans world. It is not all men without exception.
This could go on an on. "all" Judea and Jerusalam came to see John preaching... Does this mean all men without exception in Jerusalem and Judea? Not a man woman or child or elderly person was left in Jerusalem or Judea? The houses were all empty?
Anyone who reads greek should be familiar with the semantic range of the term "pas." Only someone ignorant of the meaning of the term would make claims like you do.
