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

[Drew]

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: -
***** The text is not saying "through one man sins entered into the world." It is saying that by one man sin entered. This speaks of the nature of man. After the fall, we were rebels by nature. Part of Adams curse was that when he did the first of the sins, he would die. So as death is passed to all mankind, so also the sn nature is passed to all mankind.

I agree entirely.

Rom 5:15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
***** The gift does not abound to all, but to the many. It abounds to all "in Christ" but that is not all mankind.

I do not think this argument really works. In fact, I think if anything, this text works against the position that I understand you as holding. You have, correctly in my view, argued that through Adam, the taint of sin is extended to all mankind. So since we agree on this, when Paul then refers to the "many" dying through what Adam did, we have to read "many" here as "all humanity". Right?

Well if that is how we read "many" on one side of the equation that is also how we should read "many" on the other side - the grace side. So if Paul uses "the many" to denote all mankind in their state of sin, does it make sense to believe he has used the word "many" in this same universal sense when he writes about grace abounding to the many?

 

[mondar]

Would you like to set your agreement with sbg57, that any believer/denomination who does not believe like 'you guys' are going to hell forever???

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SIZE]

By all means, show your cards.

!!??

Ahh, he just got a little emotional and over stated things. I will say this. The doctrine of non-saving universalism is a mixture of grace and a denial of grace. It is not consistent and does include some human merit. I am aware that many non-Calvinist opponents would affirm "grace alone" (sola gratia) but they do so on an inconsistent basis. Only 3 or 4 years ago I was arminian. I was arminian out of ignorance because I had not studied the issues in the scriptures. I was inconsistent. I would have affirmed sola gratia, but then turn around and questioned limited atonement. It was just inconsistency.

I will admit that many of my non-Calvinist friends go pretty far in their denial of Gods sovereignty and grace. It sometimes bothers me. Its like they are putting one foot on each side of the fence concerning God's grace. I sometimes wonder which foot they are putting their weight on. I think when we get to heaven, we will all find out that we were all very inconsistent. I believe that my friends are very inconsistent, but I also think they depend upon the shed blood of Christ completely for their salvation. They just do not see that only Calvinist doctrine is 100% pure grace, and that their doctrine is falling short.

Now maybe time will tell.

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

Some might depart into outright heresy. They will leave the fold. But this will only manifest which foot they were putting the pressure on. Outright defection will show that they were never really "of us."

 

[HisSheep]

So have ALL mankind sinned? Or just the 'elect', the 'chosen' ones of God?

All have sinned. Rom 3:23

All deserve Hell. Rom 6:23

Many will say that it is not "fair" of God to decide eternal destiny according to anything other than works. Man likes a works based system. But the bible is very clear that justification is not by works, but faith, and according to God's purpose. Rom 9:16.

Works naturaly follow salvation, being a consequence of faith. Eph 2:10

Really, the "unfair" part is that He saves any of us at all.

-HisSheep

 

[smaller]

Ahh, he just got a little emotional and over stated things. I will say this.

The statements seem rather CLEAR to me. You are welcome to AGREE or DENY.

Or, let's see where you wanna try and spin it?

The doctrine of non-saving universalism is a mixture of grace and a denial of grace. It is not consistent and does include some human merit. I am aware that many non-Calvinist opponents would affirm "grace alone" (sola gratia) but they do so on an inconsistent basis. Only 3 or 4 years ago I was arminian. I was arminian out of ignorance because I had not studied the issues in the scriptures. I was inconsistent. I would have affirmed sola gratia, but then turn around and questioned limited atonement. It was just inconsistency.

OK?

I will admit that many of my non-Calvinist friends go pretty far in their denial of Gods sovereignty and grace.

OR we may see that CALVIN was not The Divine Sovereign?

It sometimes bothers me. Its like they are putting one foot on each side of the fence concerning God's grace. I sometimes wonder which foot they are putting their weight on. I think when we get to heaven, we will all find out that we were all very inconsistent. I believe that my friends are very inconsistent, but I also think they depend upon the shed blood of Christ completely for their salvation. They just do not see that only Calvinist doctrine is 100% pure grace, and that their doctrine is falling short.

A definite MAYBE then from YOU? Yeah, that's an answer.

I believe that any determinist that sits in GODS ETERNAL JUDGMENT SEAT has exceeded their pants full.

Glad to see you have not quite ascended that far YET.

Some long term determinists from my experience are some of the HARDEST HEARTS I have witnessed on planet earth, OPENLY tossing for example, BABIES into HELL without remorse or concern.

Many 'believers' have issues with those ['un'] kind of measures for some odd reason and see that type of faith as not even containing the most BASIC kind of love.

Now maybe time will tell.

I will say that MAY BE [emphasis on MAY BE] just waffling in public, and that behind closed doors you'd probably jump right in with Mr. sbg57?

Some might depart into outright heresy. They will leave the fold. But this will only manifest which foot they were putting the pressure on. Outright defection will show that they were never really "of us."

Oh, you mean 'your fold?'

yeah, left that nonsense quite far behind.

When an ordinary unbeliever on the street has more heart than me, I KNEW I was in trouble with the most basic axiom of FAITH.

Faith WORKS BY LOVE.

doi!

smaller

 

[Nathan]

Man, you can take things out of context all you want, and build upon them all you want. That is fine. But why do you not answer my questions?

Are Christs sheep in the Old Covenant entered into the book of life any different than the sheep of the New Covenant?

And, you say that all mankind were made to sin. I believe that all mankind choose to sin, we were confined, God does not 'make' us sin because that would be sinful. "woe to those who put a stumbling block before others". But under the law all are 'confined' in sin.

But what say you about Romans chapter 3?

Rom 3:19-25 "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."

So you are going to say that the all Paul is referring to is just the ones chosen in Christ? The ones chosen to sin, and then chosen for redemption? So then what about those 'not chosen'? Did they sin? So then would they not be included into the "all"?

 

[Nathan]

All have sinned. Rom 3:23

All deserve Hell. Rom 6:23

Many will say that it is not "fair" of God to decide eternal destiny according to anything other than works. Man likes a works based system. But the bible is very clear that justification is not by works, but faith, and according to God's purpose. Rom 9:16.

Works naturaly follow salvation, being a consequence of faith. Eph 2:10

Really, the "unfair" part is that He saves any of us at all.

-HisSheep

True indeed!!!

But do you know what follows that particular 'snippet' of verse 23?

and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

So all have sinned.....but not all have been justified? So the Bible is wrong in Romans chapter 3?

 

[Nathan]

Ahh, he just got a little emotional and over stated things. I will say this. The doctrine of non-saving universalism is a mixture of grace and a denial of grace. It is not consistent and does include some human merit. I am aware that many non-Calvinist opponents would affirm "grace alone" (sola gratia) but they do so on an inconsistent basis. Only 3 or 4 years ago I was arminian. I was arminian out of ignorance because I had not studied the issues in the scriptures. I was inconsistent. I would have affirmed sola gratia, but then turn around and questioned limited atonement. It was just inconsistency.

I will admit that many of my non-Calvinist friends go pretty far in their denial of Gods sovereignty and grace. It sometimes bothers me. Its like they are putting one foot on each side of the fence concerning God's grace. I sometimes wonder which foot they are putting their weight on. I think when we get to heaven, we will all find out that we were all very inconsistent. I believe that my friends are very inconsistent, but I also think they depend upon the shed blood of Christ completely for their salvation. They just do not see that only Calvinist doctrine is 100% pure grace, and that their doctrine is falling short.

Now maybe time will tell.

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

Some might depart into outright heresy. They will leave the fold. But this will only manifest which foot they were putting the pressure on. Outright defection will show that they were never really "of us."

That is a very bold statement. And not just because I put it in bold.....

But I do know that when we enter the kingdom we will indeed see that we were inconsistent. We do agree on that.

How can they leave the fold?

 

[Strangelove]

Sorry Strangelove. I didn't mean to tick you off. I'm just sensitive to people attacking my doctrine. Calling it stupid, evil, etc...

Well....its ok...remember when ppl disagree here its always with the idea not the man. But....I said before its a nutty and funky doctrine. I'd like to take that back. I wouldn't even call it a doctrine. It's just a nutty take on the Bible. It's a weird philosophy or theosophy. I can't see that it changes much to be honest. The only thing I see it effecting is your eagerness to present the Gospel to people. Which reminds me you didnt address my question. Hang on I'll go get it...........

Ya this one:

Do you tell people that theres a good chance that even if they read the Gospels their not gonna have faith and be saved. Do you tell them that they are probably predestined to hell?

If you've never run into Calvinism and the doctrine of election, you may be unaware of the hailstorm of hate that their mention attracts… forgive my sensitivity.

Well I can understand Christians being frustrated with the theory that you guys are presenting cos it's really doom and gloom, it's basically saying that you may aswell shut up shop on the old evangelizing cos it doesnt make any difference. And it's just.......a really odd take on the Bible.....and God.

Fact is - the bible teaches predestination. It is hard to deny this. I know it flies in the face of our understanding. I know it doesn’t seem fair. If it were up to us, we would make a works based system, where the donkey-wholes all go to Hell and the nice guys go to Heaven, but the parable of the prodigal son describes a different scenario.

This is what I dont get. Ok God knows all things from the beginning to the end. If you wanna call that predestination then ok. But how do you know that he hasn't chosen in His infinate wisdom NOT to predestinate or to know some things by His own decision? How do you know God doesn't like to have a bit of randomness about certain things? How do you know that God doesn't WANT to give men a choice over their own salvation?

I know we’d like to think that we determine our own eternal destiny, but the parable of the wheat and tares presents a very different model.

That parable is just saying there will be saved and unsaved come the end, the harvest. How does it present a model where we have no control on which side we are on? Explain.

Calvinism isn’t part of evangelism really, but it does give us heart when we are challenged in our evangelism. Ultimately, our imperfect work in evangelism will not cause God to “loose soulsâ€. It is a comfort to the believer that he is not responsible for loosing souls by screwing up in his evangelical efforts.

Well that says it all really. Does that mean what I think it means? Before you said you offer people the Gospels. Please explain...this is confuzzling.

It is also a great comfort to the believer that God is responsible for the calamities in our lives. He brings the trials for our benefit. The trials pull us closer to God, and remove us from the world. In this way, He is passing us through the refiner’s fire. Christians cheat themselves from great comfort in tribulation by assuming that the pain is not God’s will: That God would stop it if He could – but He’s just not strong enough… or that He could stop it but won’t because he’s just a big meanie.

God allows bad things to happen of course. Most of us here I think you'll find believe that and take comfort in it. But that doesn't mean he's alreasdy chosen those who will be saved.

Also: I believe that all glory is God’s. So, I believe that all good works are God’s. I must get credit for nothing. Jesus didn’t die on the cross to provide a way for me to save myself…. I imagine a Heaven in which all the residents are glad they made the right choice. That would be the difference in the Arminian camp: The difference between those in Heaven and those in Hell would be that some decided wisely, and others poorly. Where is the work of God in that? Did God have any effect on their decision at all?

Yes He did! The Gospels. Lolz. He made it happen with His Word! Christ IS the Word made flesh. This is what it's all about babe.

>>>>> Doc.

 

[mondar]

I do not think this argument really works. In fact, I think if anything, this text works against the position that I understand you as holding. You have, correctly in my view, argued that through Adam, the taint of sin is extended to all mankind. So since we agree on this, when Paul then refers to the "many" dying through what Adam did, we have to read "many" here as "all humanity". Right?

Let me repost verse 15.
Rom 5:15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.

I would not be in complete agreement with what you say about Adam. Physical death and sin nature is passed to all mankind, with that I agree. Eternal spiritual death is also a part of being in Adam. This is not passed on to those in Christ. Christ rescues those who are his from that eternal spiritual death. So then, we who are in Christ die physically, but we live forever spiritually. Adam imparts spiritual death to all in him, Christ imparts spiritual life to all in him.

The passage cannot be equated physically, but only spiritually. Christ imparts eternal life to many, but not permanent physical life. Adam imparts eternal spiritual death to his posterity (many) but to all mankind he imparts physical death and the rebellion of sin nature, but not all will suffer eternal death.

Well if that is how we read "many" on one side of the equation that is also how we should read "many" on the other side - the grace side. So if Paul uses "the many" to denote all mankind in their state of sin, does it make sense to believe he has used the word "many" in this same universal sense when he writes about grace abounding to the many?

Since neither group completely encompases "all mankind in all times everywhere" think the use of the term "many" is appropriate in verse 15.

I think that if you look at the parallelism between verse 15 and 18, you will see the eternal spiritual aspects.

In verse 12, death passes to all men. But then at Salvation, death looses its grip, and all in Christ are made free from sin.
This freedom is later elaborated on in Chapter 6.
Rom 6:18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.

6:18 is not sinless perfection for the Christian, but a positional and legal freedom. Just as the black man was a legal slave before Lincoln, and legally free after Lincoln, but he could go back and serve the former master... so the sin nature is still present, but we are not legally bound to serve it.

 

[Nathan]

Rom 5:18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
***** The error many make in this verse is that the look at the word "all" and say that the word "all" must mean all are sinners, therefore the word "all" must mean that the atonement is applied to each and every man. The problem with this reading is that the term "all" is defined by the two groups "in Adam" and "in Christ." See the previous two verses.
***** So then, are all in Christ justified in verse 18? Yes! All are justified. To interpret the word "all" in verse 18 as always referring to "all mankind" would definitely be a universalism. The last phrase says "unto all men unto justification." You cannot focus on the word "all" without justification. So then the only two possible readings are the Calvinist, and universalism. Because the context in verses 16-17 define the terms all as referring to groups (in Adam---in Christ) I will opt for the Calvinist view that the "all justifed" refers to the group in Christ and that all is limited in extent.

Are you serious? Where do you get this out of the passage?

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

So then the act did not lead to condemnation to all man? Huh? You said that it entered the world through this one man yourself. But yet even though Paul says that the trespass led to condemnation for all men, and the righteousness leads to justification for all men....you want people to believe that the "all men" are supposed to be seen as different?

I ask you again. Does the sheep in the Old Covenant who have been written in the lambs book of life have their names written differently than those in the New Covenant?

 

[Nathan]

I would not be in complete agreement with what you say about Adam. Physical death and sin nature is passed to all mankind, with that I agree. Eternal spiritual death is also a part of being in Adam. This is not passed on to those in Christ. Christ rescues those who are his from that eternal spiritual death. So then, we who are in Christ die physically, but we live forever spiritually. Adam imparts spiritual death to all in him, Christ imparts spiritual life to all in him.

The passage cannot be equated physically, but only spiritually. Christ imparts eternal life to many, but not permanent physical life. Adam imparts eternal spiritual death to his posterity (many) but to all mankind he imparts physical death and the rebellion of sin nature, but not all will suffer eternal death.

Your serious, arnt you??? Do you believe that those who are in Christ have never been spiritually dead???

That is a pretty straight forward yes or no question. Although you really have already answered it by the above post. But I would still like an answer.

 

[Strangelove]

Because there is also human responsibility. It is a strawman that Calvinist do not believe in human responsibility.

Ok so...what things has God set aside for us to be responsible over?

Is it everything in our lives EXCEPT whether we are saved or not?

Do you offer people the Gospels Mondar? If you do.....do you tell them your super-calvanistic take on things at the same time? That theres a good chance that the Gospel isn't gonna have a positive effect on them?

 

[Strangelove]

All have sinned. Rom 3:23

All deserve Hell. Rom 6:23

Many will say that it is not "fair" of God to decide eternal destiny according to anything other than works. Man likes a works based system. But the bible is very clear that justification is not by works, but faith, and according to God's purpose. Rom 9:16.

Works naturaly follow salvation, being a consequence of faith. Eph 2:10

Really, the "unfair" part is that He saves any of us at all. [Huh?]

And how do you get faith?

 

[mondar]

That is a very bold statement. And not just because I put it in bold.....

But I do know that when we enter the kingdom we will indeed see that we were inconsistent. We do agree on that.

How can they leave the fold?

Read the text below....
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

Notice in the text why they went out from us. They (antiChrists) were once among us, but so that it might be manifest that they were not of us, they went out from us. We cannot see into the heart. We can see only that they "went out from us."

Nathaniel,
I think this text more then others tells us of the importance of the discussion we are having. I am suggesting that the "unlimited Atonement" view is fuzzy on the grace of God. Remember in my earlier post how the remonstrants said that the shed blood does not save? Then later they say that a man must make a free will faith decision? We absolutely must have faith. We are responsible for our faith or lack thereof. But faith is given to those whom the Father gave to Christ (the elect) because of the atonement. Our faith flows from Christs shed blood, and his shed blood is the object of our faith. In the atonement Christ won the right to give the elect faith.

Not all men were given to Christ.
Joh 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
In this verse, how many of those "which the Father giveth me" shall "cometh to me?" Some....? Most....? What is that first word in the sentence?

We come, not because we generate our own faith, we come because "the Father giveth" us to Christ. Then in verse 44 the Father draws those whom in verse 37 he determined will come.

If it was left to our free will, verse 44 says "no man can come to me." Some will be among us, and they were never really drawn. They may have confessed Christ, but they never jumped with both feet. Hebrews 6:4 tells us that they will even "taste of the heavenly gift" but they will not swallow it. Without the work of HS regeneration, they will all fall away.

 

[Nathan]

Read the text below....
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

Notice in the text why they went out from us. They (antiChrists) were once among us, but so that it might be manifest that they were not of us, they went out from us. We cannot see into the heart. We can see only that they "went out from us."

Nathaniel,
I think this text more then others tells us of the importance of the discussion we are having. I am suggesting that the "unlimited Atonement" view is fuzzy on the grace of God. Remember in my earlier post how the remonstrants said that the shed blood does not save? Then later they say that a man must make a free will faith decision? We absolutely must have faith. We are responsible for our faith or lack thereof. But faith is given to those whom the Father gave to Christ (the elect) because of the atonement. Our faith flows from Christs shed blood, and his shed blood is the object of our faith. In the atonement Christ won the right to give the elect faith.

Not all men were given to Christ.
Joh 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
In this verse, how many of those "which the Father giveth me" shall "cometh to me?" Some....? Most....? What is that first word in the sentence?

We come, not because we generate our own faith, we come because "the Father giveth" us to Christ. Then in verse 44 the Father draws those whom in verse 37 he determined will come.

If it was left to our free will, verse 44 says "no man can come to me." Some will be among us, and they were never really drawn. They may have confessed Christ, but they never jumped with both feet. Hebrews 6:4 tells us that they will even "taste of the heavenly gift" but they will not swallow it. Without the work of HS regeneration, they will all fall away.

First off I appreciate your response. I do think this is a very important discussion.

Secondly I would love to hear your thoughts on the other questions I have asked you.

Thirdly, Hebrews 6:4 tells us that they "shared" in the Holy Spirit. Shared does not imply a simple knowledge of, it imply's the consuming of.

shared - metochos

1) sharing in, partaking
2) a partner (in a work, office, dignity)

There is no denying that this passage speaks of those whom the Holy Spirit has been a "part" of.

1Cr 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons

 

[mondar]

Ok so...what things has God set aside for us to be responsible over?

Is it everything in our lives EXCEPT whether we are saved or not?

Do you offer people the Gospels Mondar? If you do.....do you tell them your super-calvanistic take on things at the same time? That theres a good chance that the Gospel isn't gonna have a positive effect on them?

LOL, that actually happened. I was once speaking to an atheist. He said he cannot believe in a God that judges people like he did in the OT. My answer was "I know." I did not mention that the NT pictures Christ as the judge over mankind in the book of Revelation in far more harsh terms.

I also note your anger and dislike of Calvinists. There are no "Calvinists" in your opinion, just "hyper-Calvinists" and "super-Calvinists?" And of course I offer the gospel to all men. While I accept the responsibility of the great commission, I do not accept responsibility for the results. I share the gospel to all. God chooses some to accept it, and some to reject it. I would guess it is different with you. If you accept libertarian free will, then if someone has rejected the message, you failed. You need to do like the ultimate free willer, Charles Finney. Do all you can to use means emotions to make any decision you can get them to make for the Lord. As for me, I do not feel called to do any more then present the gospel. God decides.

As for responsibility.... We are responsible to believe, life righteously. Of course God has not enabled everyone to fulfill our responsibilities. For those who do not fulfill responsibilities to believe their is judgment. For we who believe, we should count it all (even our faith) as grace.

Now the natural reply would be that this is not fair for God to make us responsible for something we cannot accomplish. Such a reply would be agree with Paul's imaginary antagonist that God does not have the right to choose, we do.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

 

[mondar]

First off I appreciate your response. I do think this is a very important discussion.

Secondly I would love to hear your thoughts on the other questions I have asked you.

Thirdly, Hebrews 6:4 tells us that they "shared" in the Holy Spirit. Shared does not imply a simple knowledge of, it imply's the consuming of.

shared - metochos

1) sharing in, partaking
2) a partner (in a work, office, dignity)

There is no denying that this passage speaks of those whom the Holy Spirit has been a "part" of.

1Cr 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons

Things are going a little fast, and I am home sick from work.... break time. I will be back later to talk about Hebrews 6.

 

[Nathan]

Things are going a little fast, and I am home sick from work.... break time. I will be back later to talk about Hebrews 6.

No problem. Things were going a little fast for me also. :yes I hope you get to feeling better soon. If you would not mind, please address the issue of the book of life first. Then the issue on post #111. Those should not take near as long as Hebrews 6.

 

[HisSheep]

And how do you get faith?

Faith is a gift of God. In some way or another God reveals Himself to a person. From then on, that person will be unable to deny... They will not want to deny…

And no, I do not discuss predestination with non-believers. Predestination is really not an evangelical tool. Nevertheless, it is biblical.

-HisSheep

 

[HisSheep]

Do you tell people that theres a good chance that even if they read the Gospels their not gonna have faith and be saved. Do you tell them that they are probably predestined to hell?[/B]

Of course not, why would they need to know that? I once heard an excellent and famous sermon by Paris Reidhead. It’s called 10 shekels and a shirt. In it, Mr. Reidhead describes beating himself up over his inability to convert any of the natives he is trying evangelize. It is then that it dawns on him that if they don’t repent of their idols and turn to God, it is out of his hands. Predestination in this case, comforts the evangelizer.

Well I can understand Christians being frustrated with the theory that you guys are presenting cos it's really doom and gloom, it's basically saying that you may aswell shut up shop on the old evangelizing cos it doesnt make any difference. And it's just.......a really odd take on the Bible.....and God.

Your take on it is common: Why evangelize if it’s already determined? It occurs to me that, throughout scripture, God rarely ever acts alone. In His dealings with men, He (nearly) always uses a human instrument(s). When God brings to life the dry bones in Ezekiel 37, for example, He does it through Ezekiel:

4 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! 5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.A bit later:

9 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.' "

Could God have done it without Ezekiel’s help? You bet He could’ve. But He chose to do it through His instrument Ezekiel. Likewise, God spoke through Moses who delivered His word to Israel.

Did God need Jonah to deliver His message to Nineveh? Did God need Joshua to encircle Jericho and blow his horn? Did God need Ananias to visit Paul? Of course not.

So, in the same way as these instruments, we are to speak the word of God to His sheep. It is not that He can’t do it without our help, but that is the way He wants it and that’s the way it will be done.

Regarding the Wheat and Tares:

That parable is just saying there will be saved and unsaved come the end, the harvest. How does it present a model where we have no control on which side we are on? Explain.

Really? Read it carefully:

Matthew 13:
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
37He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

This is plain. Some of us are wheat, and the others are weeds. God already knows which are which. In order to bring up His crop in the best possible way, the weeds are allowed to grow alongside them. Again, God is not determining which of us are wheat and which are weeds; He already knows that. The servants in the parable know it, too.

Ask yourself: Who planted the weeds? Right, the devil. They are sons of the devil. Not sons of God: The concept that all men are the children of God is from the gospel according to John Lennon, I think, which is not in my bible.

Alluding to the parable a bit later, Jesus says:

Mat 15:
13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.

The sons of the devil will not believe:

John 8:
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

This is not theory. It is Christianity.

-HisSheep