The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[Hitch]

Francis, I cannot help but suspect that you are not grasping reformed theology. Your statement, taken at face value would not be an issue with Reformed people. I understand that behind your statement you are assuming that man is not totally depraved and can choose God.

I am guessing most Reformed would agree with your statement but in their minds would say "yes, and when God regenerates the heart, that person wants to be united with God.

Well said.

 

[Free]

Free, the only one of the verses you posted that I can't answer to is John 3:17. I have heard people who believe as I do give answers to that, but I consider them lackluster answers that don't satisfy. With that said, nothing else you've posted indicates in any way that Christ died for all.

Please note what I said: "Jesus did die for everyone. This is why everyone isn't saved." This was a direct answer to your question, which I had quoted: "If Christ died for everyone, why isn't everyone saved?"

There certainly are better passages that show Jesus died for everyone but my point with these was to show just why it is that everyone isn't saved. The fact that everyone isn't saved in no way whatsoever means that Christ didn't die for everyone. The verses I posted show that those who aren't saved have so decided to not believe in Jesus and his name.

If He died for someone who never believes in Him, then their sins were paid for on the cross, so at that point, why would God send them to hell? Just because they didn't believe? Well, yes, that's a sin. But then, by your reasoning, Jesus has already covered that sin by His work on the cross.

No, He can't have died for everyone, because by definition, everyone would be saved. ALL sin would already have been punished when Christ hung on the cross, and God, being just, COULDN'T punish an innocent person.

TG

I honestly can't believe that several of you cannot understand just what it is that John makes clear. Jesus died that salvation could be made available for everyone but it is only those that believe--"to those who believe in His name;" "so that everyone who believes in Him will have eternal life;" "so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life;" "but that the world might be saved through Him;"--that will be saved. As for the rest--"but anyone who does not believe is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God."

There is clearly an act of the will, a decision to be made, by each person as to whether or not they will repent and follow Christ. This in no way diminishes Christ's work on the cross. It is an offer of salvation by the grace of God and we must each choose which path we tread.

To deny this is to make John a liar. How could God "so love the world" that he was willing to give His Son, that "everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life," if, as it is being argued, His Son didn't actually die for everyone?

And then of course comes Paul's words in 1Ti 2:4, "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

If Jesus didn't die for everyone, if salvation isn't available for everyone, then it cannot be said that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

If Reformed theology says such, then I will not have anything to do with it.

 

[Free]

Your question was that if we are working with the unsaved, and we tell them Jesus died for them, would we be lying to them?

I think we could well be, and that's why I wouldn't say that to anyone.

I honestly can't believe I just read that.

 

[Free]

All verses are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated:

Joh 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Joh 4:42 Then they said to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

Joh 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

Joh 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Joh 12:46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.
Joh 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

Act 2:21 AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.'

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Rom 10:13 For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED."

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

 

[Tailgunner]

So, we lie to people when we tell them the gospel truth that Jesus died for them so that they could live forever?

Now you're not responding to everything I said, only the part that looks inflammatory when taken separately and out of context. I qualified that sentence by telling you what I would say to them.

TG

 

[Hitch]

Now you're not responding to everything I said, only the part that looks inflammatory when taken separately and out of context. I qualified that sentence by telling you what I would say to them.

TG

7Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

I wonder if they said 'smile Jesus loves you ?"

17How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
19Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: 24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting

 

[Tailgunner]

There is clearly an act of the will, a decision to be made, by each person as to whether or not they will repent and follow Christ. This in no way diminishes Christ's work on the cross. It is an offer of salvation by the grace of God and we must each choose which path we tread.

So what you're saying is that salvation is a cooperative effort between you and God. Am I right in this? Because if so, then you have something to boast of.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works so that no one may boast." (ESV - emphasis mine)

So then, faith is a gift of God, and since we know that not everyone has faith, we may conclude that God doesn't give it to everyone. Jesus died on the cross for His sheep, to secure their salvation unto Himself. That doesn't stop our efforts to bring people to Christ, though, because we don't know who God intends to save, only He knows that.

TG

 

[Alabaster]

Now you're not responding to everything I said, only the part that looks inflammatory when taken separately and out of context. I qualified that sentence by telling you what I would say to them.

TG

So, when you spread the gospel message to people and they decline Jesus' salvation, you believe that it's OK because Jesus obviously didn't die for them?

That is what I get from what underlies your posts, and I can hardly believe it. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Tailgunner]

So, when you spread the gospel message to people and they decline Jesus' salvation, you believe that it's OK because Jesus obviously didn't die for them?

That is what I get from what underlies your posts, and I can hardly believe it. I hope I am wrong.

Yes, you're very wrong if you're making that assumption about me. Tell me, Alabaster, have you ever prayed for anyone to be saved? Perhaps a family member or a close friend?

TG

 

[Alabaster]

Yes, you're very wrong if you're making that assumption about me. Tell me, Alabaster, have you ever prayed for anyone to be saved? Perhaps a family member or a close friend?

TG

Alright, I accept I had the wrong idea, so what is your reason for this post? Can you explain why you think this?

You're absolutely right. Jesus died for His own, and not for ANYONE else. Lest anyone think otherwise, consider this: If Christ died for everyone, why isn't everyone saved?

Found here: http://www.christianforums.net/f17/...thout-exception-31816/index43.html#post495683

 

[Tailgunner]

Alright, I accept I had the wrong idea, so what is your reason for this post? Can you explain why you think this?

My reason for this post is to show that God is sovereign, and to clarify just how salvation DOES come about. It's not to show you what a hard-hearted jerk I am, because I really don't want you to think that. Alabaster, I really apologize if I've given you that impression about myself, but I am adamant about giving ALL the glory to God. For my salvation, for everything He has blessed me with, well, for everything in general.

As for the link you included, it only went to my first post in this thread. Not sure what you meant by that...

TG

 

[mondar]

So, when you spread the gospel message to people and they decline Jesus' salvation, you believe that it's OK because Jesus obviously didn't die for them?

That is what I get from what underlies your posts, and I can hardly believe it. I hope I am wrong.

I am not trying to "pile on" here, but election took place in eternity past. We evangelize the entire world for several reasons, one of them is that we obviously don't know who the elect are.

On the other hand, there is a sense in which it is OK for people to go to hell. I think one of the assumptions of non-Calvinism is that everyone deserves an equal chance. I don't agree. No one deserves any chance at all. If God gave us what we deserve, we would all go to hell. I don't see the injustice of God sending any or all people to hell, the surprise is that he would save any of us.

 

[Elijah674]

Re: The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

Originally Posted by Free
There is clearly an act of the will, a decision to be made, by each person as to whether or not they will repent and follow Christ. This in no way diminishes Christ's work on the cross. It is an offer of salvation by the grace of God and we must each choose which path we tread.
_________



So what you're saying is that salvation is a cooperative effort between you and God. Am I right in this? Because if so, then you have something to boast of.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works so that no one may boast." (ESV - emphasis mine)

So then, faith is a gift of God, and since we know that not everyone has faith, we may conclude that God doesn't give it to everyone. Jesus died on the cross for His sheep, to secure their salvation unto Himself. That doesn't stop our efforts to bring people to Christ, though, because we don't know who God intends to save, only He knows that.

TG
________

Free has it correct! But it is even more than belief & acceptance. Man will (works) Lovingly obey after knowledge comes. And 'boast'?? Hardly! Acts 5:32 & John 3:3's Love works obedience as seen in Phil. 4:13 & 2 Cor. 12:9.

In Gen. 4:7 the Truth is CLEAR/CUT of what Cain became, even after God spoke directly to him, and even gave him another chance.
Yet, what some folks miss, is that Cain was a mature man who had been faithful up to this mature time of his life in the Masters REQUIRED OBEDIENCE.

--Elijah
​

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, I cannot help but suspect that you are not grasping reformed theology. Your statement, taken at face value would not be an issue with Reformed people. I understand that behind your statement you are assuming that man is not totally depraved and can choose God.

I am guessing most Reformed would agree with your statement but in their minds would say "yes, and when God regenerates the heart, that person wants to be united with God.

Mondar,

I am not making a statement about "reformed theology" in my post (which, I am finding, is like nailing jello to a tree...). I am pointing out from the human experience that forcing someone into a relationship that they don't want to be in is not a "good thing", nor is it "heaven"...

You are correct, I do not see man as totally depraved - but from that, do not assume that I, ALONE, can work my way back to God. I do believe in the statements made at the Second Council of Orange. However, note that the context of Orange is against Pelagius. To get the full understanding of this issue, one must ALSO consider the other side of the coin. Orange is defending against ONE extreme, not both, so it doesn't address the opposite (where Calvinism treads water), except in Innocent's "appendix" on double predestination, apparently added to prevent the opposite extreme from being taken. If one only read Orange, one COULD take that extreme, thinking they are within the Great Tradition of the Church on this matter.

When God regenerates someone, it is not done unwillingly to the man. It is done in fits and starts, bits and pieces. This is not a mathematical formula, we don't know at what point the "bucket tips", but we do know that God does not save man without man. We know that God provides sufficient graces to all men to seek Him out, but not all is efficient. What makes sufficient become efficient is dependent, in SOME way, upon man.

The elect, those called to the Church, are foreordained by God from before creation. Yes, we believe in predestination. But as I said before to you, there are a variety of acceptable Catholic positions on man's side of the story. (Molinism, Augustinism, Thomism, Congruentism, perhaps others). Because the Church has such a wide flexibility on this explanation of the "formula", it wouldn't be wise to make definitive statements here. We have wandered into "theological opinions"

This is where we can honestly say "It's a mystery".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I am not trying to "pile on" here, but election took place in eternity past. We evangelize the entire world for several reasons, one of them is that we obviously don't know who the elect are.

Mondar, election was foreordained in eternity - but there is no "past" in eternity. Thus, one should be more careful with the the contradictory terms "eternity past". Eternity is the past and future in the present now.

You are correct, we don't know who the elect will be before they take their rightful place in praising God. Of course, we are called for that VERY REASON. We are set apart as a People TO proclaim God's praises and in manifesting God's work within the Church, us. That is the role of the Church - to evangelize, spread the Good News and to praise God by this. (1 Peter 2)

On the other hand, there is a sense in which it is OK for people to go to hell. I think one of the assumptions of non-Calvinism is that everyone deserves an equal chance. I don't agree. No one deserves any chance at all.

You are speaking of merit - that one has earned a chance. When I (at least) think of "deserve an equal chance", I think that God is impartial towards men (Romans) and that He created ALL of us in His image. He did not create some of us in His image, and only those have a hope of salvation. Thus, He desires all men to be saved. From that point of view, all men are treated "equally" in that we are part of "all men" and "made in God's image".

If God gave us what we deserve, we would all go to hell.

That is presuming that God operates under human ideas of justice, which we KNOW He doesn't. Given that Reformed men think men is completely unable to obey God, we have a case of Injustice attributed to God, since there is no justice punishing someone unable to obey a command.

I don't see the injustice of God sending any or all people to hell, the surprise is that he would save any of us.

I don't see the injustice of giving the reprobate what they desire, either. I do not view God in the same way you do to come up with that final conclusion. God is a God of Love and it is "fitting" that He would save men. God foresaw the fall and created, just the same. Thus, it follows that He WOULD do something to aid fallen men, even if only some responded to that aid...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So what you're saying is that salvation is a cooperative effort between you and God. Am I right in this? Because if so, then you have something to boast of.


Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works so that no one may boast." (ESV - emphasis mine)

First, it is out of context. This verse is spoken to Judaizers who want to boast in their circumcision. Keep reading to v 11-12...

Secondly, it doesn't follow that receiving God's help means we have room to boast. I could not do the task AT ALL without God's aid, God moving my will and my heart to seek Him out. But it is indeed me working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12-13)

Boasting can only come about when one does something alone. Boasting expects a payment. Being moved by God to seek Him out is not something to boast about, since He moves us to begin with. Read my signature line, a quote from my patron saint...

So then, faith is a gift of God, and since we know that not everyone has faith, we may conclude that God doesn't give it to everyone.

This is begging the question. You presume a priori that God does everything and we do absolutely nothing. Thus, if someone has no faith, it is because God never gave it. The correct answer is that God grants grace to all men, but some refuse His gifts. Some grieve the Holy Spirit. Some refuse to seek Him out, even though THEY KNOW GOD EXISTS (Romans 1).

Jesus died on the cross for His sheep, to secure their salvation unto Himself.

Nowhere does the bible say "Jesus died ONLY for His sheep/elect/the future saved" or anything to that effect. Jesus died for sinners - the "sin of the world". We all sinned, and just as Adam's sin was universal to mankind, so is Jesus' sacrifice universal (Romans 5). His Life was sufficient cause to merit forgiveness for all men, not just for some men. However, God makes forgiveness conditional - we must ask for it.

Regards

 

[mondar]

First, it is out of context. This verse is spoken to Judaizers who want to boast in their circumcision. Keep reading to v 11-12...

I will have to express my support for what TG said. Verses 11-12 do not refer to Judiazers. It simply refers to the Jews themselves. But that is not the point. Even if the verses actually do refer to the Judiazers, the principle that salvation is not by the cooperation of human works and divine righteousness is a correct reading of the verses. It applies do Judiazers, Gentiles, Jews, and everyone.

Secondly, it doesn't follow that receiving God's help means we have room to boast. I could not do the task AT ALL without God's aid, God moving my will and my heart to seek Him out. But it is indeed me working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12-13)

Francis, do you think you might have offered a canard here? I am certain you did not mean to offer a canard, but it is so easy for Roman Catholics and the Reformed to talk right past each other.

You are speaking of the necessity of Grace. I don't see TG as denying the necessity of Grace. It seems to me that TG is asserting the sufficiency of Grace. If one asserts the sufficiency of Grace in and of itself, that does not deny the necessity of Grace.

Concerning boasting.... If God's grace is not totally sufficient and irresistibly leads to faith, and if Gods grace is merely given equally to the whole world, then I can brag that at least I cooperated with the grace of God in salvation. When I get to heaven, and stand next the the person who is not allowed into heaven, I can "boast" that at least I worked with the grace of God and did not resist it. Where as the poor fool next to me that resisted God's grace deserves whtat he gets. I don't deserve Gods wrath because I cooperated with his grace.
----------Actually, you know we will not "boast." We will all recognize that we did not cooperate. There is boasting in cooperation.

Francis, while I disagree with your comments, I will express that I recognize that they are at least based on a prevenient (but universal) grace. I appreciate that at least Grace is included, this is unlike too many in protestantism, but I cannot agree with a universal prevenient grace.

Boasting can only come about when one does something alone. Boasting expects a payment. Being moved by God to seek Him out is not something to boast about, since He moves us to begin with. Read my signature line, a quote from my patron saint...

Boasting can be in a group. Have you ever heard "our team is the best?" Same thing as God and I did it!

This is begging the question. You presume a priori that God does everything and we do absolutely nothing. Thus, if someone has no faith, it is because God never gave it. The correct answer is that God grants grace to all men, but some refuse His gifts. Some grieve the Holy Spirit. Some refuse to seek Him out, even though THEY KNOW GOD EXISTS (Romans 1).

I have no idea if TG assumed what he wrote "a Priori." I doubt it because many who take a position on the "sufficiency of Grace" do so on an exegetical basis. The Reformed teaching seems unnatural, against intuition, and if anything it is opposite an "a priori" assumption. Not all Reformed come to that opinion based upon exegesis of scriptures, but many do.

Nowhere does the bible say "Jesus died ONLY for His sheep/elect/the future saved" or anything to that effect. Jesus died for sinners - the "sin of the world". We all sinned, and just as Adam's sin was universal to mankind, so is Jesus' sacrifice universal (Romans 5). His Life was sufficient cause to merit forgiveness for all men, not just for some men. However, God makes forgiveness conditional - we must ask for it.

Regards

First the reference to the sheep, and the a few additions. Excuse the listing of verses, I hope it is appropriate here.
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Hebrews 9:28 "so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; "
Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her "

I have to go, but there are many more verses that speak of a limit to the extent of the crosswork of Christ.

 

[Drew]

I am not trying to "pile on" here, but election took place in eternity past. We evangelize the entire world for several reasons, one of them is that we obviously don't know who the elect are.

As you know, we have disagreed about this in the past. I am going to repost an argument that purports to show the incoherence of the "we do not know who the elect are" argument. You, or somebody else perhaps, challenged this argument and I think the matter just drifted. So please, tell me where the error is in the following argument:

The following argument “A” is often advanced to justify preaching the gospel in a world where some have been pre-destined by God unto ultimate salvation (in the strong “determinative” sense, not in the “pre-destined in virtue of foreknowledge” sense):

1. Some people are pre-destined to salvation;

2. We do not know who has been pre-destined to salvation;

3. We know that even those who have been pre-destined must hear the gospel in order for that salvation to be actualized;

4. Therefore we need to preach the gospel to all people.

Here is why A fails. Let's speculate about a person "Fred" who has been pre-destined by God unto salvation. By the very meaning of the concept of pre-destination, there is nothing that human beings can do (or fail to do) that will cause Fred to not end up in Heaven.

But note term 3 of A - even the pre-destined must hear the gospel in order to be ultimately saved. There are two possibilities in respect to term 3:

a. God has not pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel;
b. God has pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel.

Consider (a). If God has not pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then the possibility exists that no one will tell Fred the gospel. But this cannot be, since we know Fred is pre-destined to salvation and that he must, in virtue of item 3, hear the gospel to have that destiny actualized.

Now consider (b). If God has pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then there is no necessity to instruct us to tell the gospel - the gospel will most certainly be told to Fred. No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur. Does God "tell" somebody to tell the apple to fall to ground at 32 feet per second per second? Probably not, precisely because the apple is "pre-destined" to fall at that rate through the action of the laws of physics.

This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

 

[mondar]

(To any possible readers... refer to post 678 in this thread for the full post by Drew)


Now consider (b). If God has pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then there is no necessity to instruct us to tell the gospel - the gospel will most certainly be told to Fred. No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur. Does God "tell" somebody to tell the apple to fall to ground at 32 feet per second per second? Probably not, precisely because the apple is "pre-destined" to fall at that rate through the action of the laws of physics.

This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

Drew, I remember the exchange. I don't recall where it happened, I do remember replying but do not remember what I said. This puts my in the anxious position of hoping that my replies will be consistent.

I think your illustration accurately reflects both the sovereignty of God.... I agree that God does not need anyone to preach the gospel. If God so chose, he could make donkey's or some little birds, or even rocks preach the gospel. Or he could just save men without any indirect instrument at all. God can save as he chooses and has complete freedom in salvation.

You also accurately represent that God can decree the means. Fred will be saved when the messenger is sent. You question seems related to means. If God decreed that Fred will be saved, and then decreed that a certain preacher will witness to Fred, then why the command to preach to the all men everywhere. Of course the answer is again in the decree of God, God decreed human responsibility. So then, you have the sovereignty of God correct in the illustration, but your question assumes that God did not decree human responsibility. In fact your question does not seem to allow for God to decree human responsibility. This of course is in opposition to Romans 10. How can they hear without a preacher.

So then, you are correct that the command to world evangelism is not needed for God to save Fred, but in the sovereignty of God, he also decreed human responsibility.

I guess your question makes me realize that I was wrong in how I represented Reformed theology. I skipped over mans responsibility. God is sovereign not only over salvation, but also over man's responsibility, and I should have balanced the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man. In other words, we do not preach the gospel to all men because we do not "we do not know who the elect are" but because we have been commanded to preach the gospel to all men. It is an issue of human responsibility.

I would also raise the same question you presented me to non-Calvinists. Is God free to save whomever he wants? Or does he need a preacher to save Fred? Of course if God needs the preacher because of mans free will, then how is God really sovereign?

 

[francisdesales]

I will have to express my support for what TG said. Verses 11-12 do not refer to Judiazers. It simply refers to the Jews themselves. But that is not the point. Even if the verses actually do refer to the Judiazers, the principle that salvation is not by the cooperation of human works and divine righteousness is a correct reading of the verses. It applies do Judiazers, Gentiles, Jews, and everyone.

The comparison is with Judaizers, that is perfectly clear. Paul is comparing the circumised with the uncircumcised. The point is that THAT ACT THAT THEY BOAST does not save.

But be that as it may, the correct reading says nothing about cooperation, it talks about boasting in ONE'S OWN WORK. Nothing is said about the level of synergism in an action. You are reading your theology into the text (which I earlier called "a priori" presumption.)

Francis, do you think you might have offered a canard here? I am certain you did not mean to offer a canard, but it is so easy for Roman Catholics and the Reformed to talk right past each other.

That is true, we do, and I have often stated that...

You are speaking of the necessity of Grace. I don't see TG as denying the necessity of Grace. It seems to me that TG is asserting the sufficiency of Grace. If one asserts the sufficiency of Grace in and of itself, that does not deny the necessity of Grace.

I am not sure what you mean by "necessity of grace". Grace is not "necessary", since it is a freely given gift.

Concerning boasting.... If God's grace is not totally sufficient and irresistibly leads to faith, and if Gods grace is merely given equally to the whole world, then I can brag that at least I cooperated with the grace of God in salvation. When I get to heaven, and stand next the the person who is not allowed into heaven, I can "boast" that at least I worked with the grace of God and did not resist it. Where as the poor fool next to me that resisted God's grace deserves whtat he gets.

I never said God's grace is given "equally". I said in each case, it was sufficient. Maybe I have "5 units" and you have "10 units" of grace. But in every case, it is sufficient to save. Otherwise, we have a God who unjustly condemns, since we know that merit does not earn heaven. Boasting is not always a bad thing, since Paul also speaks of boasting, being in Christ. The meaning of "in Christ" clearly implies a human-divine action at work, since Paul constantly provides warnings to Christians not to fall away from their calling and REMAIN in Christ. This must then be a human choice at some level, no doubt aided by God.

Boasting can be in a group. Have you ever heard "our team is the best?" Same thing as God and I did it!

Paul does the same thing, boasting of being on "Jesus' team"... He apparently chooses to remain in Christ, noting that if he doesn't, he'll be disqualified.

I have no idea if TG assumed what he wrote "a Priori." I doubt it because many who take a position on the "sufficiency of Grace" do so on an exegetical basis.

That remains begging the question, because the point of "a priori" presumption is that one reads a particular idea into the text that is not there. The text, alone, does not definitively state "x only" or "x, not y". You and I can read the exact same text and come to a different conclusion, based upon our background, traditions, and so forth. Thus, my comment on Ephesians 2 towards Tailgunner. One does not HAVE to interpret those Scriptures in that manner. ESPECIALLY if the verses say nothing about human cooperation moved by God. They speak of boasting in one's OWN works.

The Reformed teaching seems unnatural, against intuition, and if anything it is opposite an "a priori" assumption.

You are confusing what the idea of "a priori" means. You read the Scriptures through the lense of Calvin's anthropology, which establishes the background for your reading of Ephesians 2. Nowhere does it say that man does not cooperate with God, it says we cannot boast, it is not entirely our doing where we can obligate God. I cannot make God owe me because I circumcised myself (v. 11-12)

First the reference to the sheep, and the a few additions. Excuse the listing of verses, I hope it is appropriate here.
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Yet again, your "a priori" presumptions force you to insert the word "ONLY" into the above statement.

Hebrews 9:28 "so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;

"Polous" here does not give a definitive indication that the number is limited. Verse 27 should give you a clue that it isn't, though, since it is part of the same sentence, and all men will die and be judged, so it would appear the context would again refer to all men... "Many" can just refer to "a lot" without comment on limitation.

Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her "

Again, a priori addition of "ONLY". Conducting an exegesis of this passage does not necessitate inserting "only", does it...?

We DO have a variety of verses that say that Christ's death was for the sake of redemption of all of mankind. Thus, to remain true to the analogy of the faith, the entire Scriptures, we cannot add words to passages and ignore others when conducting theology.

Regards