____

Don't you get it yet? These boys are not trying to prove the Scriptures are right, they are trying to prove Sola Calvinism.

With all due respect to you as a member of the human family, your post illustrates your total lack of knowledge in spiritual truth particularly as it relates to salvation, Here is an example from you:
___

If that which prevents the sinner can be overcome by him, then it is non sequitur to suggest that he can overcome sin of his own volition.
Clearly he did NOT overcome.
____

Show a single passage where salvation is overcoming sin and how you or I can do it. I am sorry but your whole premise is pure silliness. One does not have to overcome sin to be saved and, yea, he cannot overcome sin after he is saved; 1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Salvation is believing in him who did overcome sin and the proof is that he gave himself to it's penalty, death, and rose again.

Bernard wrote:

So you're saying "Because all of the unelect man's sins are unpardonable, he cannot commit the sin that is unpardonable"?
With the exception of the "unpardonable sin", all of the sins of both the elect and the unelect man are pardonable. That's why Jesus died on the cross and rose again.

However, for any sin to be pardoned, you need to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died and rose, and that he is now King of kings and Lord of lords. I think that can be easily agreed, no?

Only some people will believe and confess, etc, and some people won't. Also agreed?

Those that confess were elected by the Father before the foundation of the world; those that don't, weren't. (I know you don't agree, but stay with me)

The unelect man therefore commits many sins which can be pardoned (as we all do), but they aren't pardoned, because he doesn't repent. Among the unpardoned pardonable sins, the unelect man may ALSO commit the sin which cannot be pardoned.
__________

No interpretation is needed to understand the above statements. The 6 major positions are nothing but a red wheel and appeals to the pride of men who think they have these things figured out. Learning a few Latin phrases and using a few 16th century terms causes an otherwise common and somtimes unintelligent person to suddenly think he knows something and now he is not so common anymore. He is elect! He has self esteem! He is somebody and God loves him and nobody else. He has arrived!

But, in his pride he can say being one of the very few elect of history makes him humble. Yeah, right!

It will be a fearful thing to one day stand before God and have to give an answer as to why you taught in contradiction to the Word of God and caused people to not believe it and to suggest Luther and others were a better read for doctrine.

Do you know what the term "propitiation" means when it is used in a sentence like this?

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
____

Man can overcome depravity/sin to choose salvation in christ. But some do NOT make the correct choice because of depravity/sin
____

JD never says that. He quotes the Scriptures which tell us why men will not come to Christ.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
_____

Christ can be chosen by the sinner unto salvation because the sinner can overcome sin all by himself.
____

If the believers of the bongdage of the will cannot understand language like that found in the following Scriptural staements, what chance do you think they have in understanding the will of God or man?

Christ died for every man He 2:9
Christ died for the ungodly Ro 5:6
Christ died for sinners Mt 9:13
Christ died for all 2 Co 5:14,15
Christ died for the whole world 1 Jo 2:2
Christ died for you
Christ died for me

..And what about this?

Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Could he not have said that he came to save the elect if that is what he meant? There must have been some elect people who were already saved when he came but he came to seek and save the lost.

Mt 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mt 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

DJC49 wrote:
_____
More specifically, to his own kin who had "obtained like precious faith" [2Peter 1:1]

Two questions:

1) Is there a possibility that some who had obtained like precious faith could somehow ultimately perish?

2) Does the passage suggest that the delay of his promised coming can somehow be an opportunity for additional converts?

Some other questions

Why does God need to suffer long for his elect to be saved? Can he save them at anytime or does he need to wait until they meet the conditions?

But, the promise will be fulfilled:

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

The "promise" of v9 is clearly stated in v4; 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

The "usward" in context are those Peter addressed his letter to, which are his own kin, Israel.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

He wrote a 2nd letter to the same people - 2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you;

They were not gentiles:

1Pe 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
See 2 Pe 4:3

Peter was the apostle to the Jews, not to the gentiles, so he ministered to the circuncision;

Remember you are asking for my opinion so do not take my answer personally. You are in error on the person and character of the triune God and his plan and purpose in redemption and you take a low view of the Holy Scriptures and are willing to pervert plain words for your own ends. Those who are born again became that way because of literal truth.
______

"Do you hold that "Israel" only means literal physical descendents of Abraham,
__

Yes, God has safegaurded his literal meaning by saying "house of Israel" and "house of Jacob" to make the distinction and to confound the confusion of the adversary he knew would surely come.
____

Was not the woman at Sycars Well a lost sheep?

May I say to you men that if you do not consider the historical context of Scripture and apply everything to yourself you will likely fall into the error of the reformed, or worse (if there is a worse).

While we may learn many wonderful truths about God and salvation from the gospels, they do record the earthly and physical ministry of Jesus Christ which was exclusively to Israel.

I am not sent "but" to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he said. Who was in that crowd in John 6? Answer: The lost sheep!

During his earthly ministry he told his disciples

Go not to the samaritans, Go not to the gentiles, but go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 10:6,7

His post resurrection ministry, he told the same disciples to "go ye therefore and teach all nations".

But he must convince Israel that he is the promised Messiah so he fed the 5000 men with 5 (grace) barley loaves and 2 (testimony) small fishes and then the next day proclamed to them that he is the "bread of life" and that anyone that will come to him will never hunger and he that believeth (the same as coming) on him will never thirst.

I am sorry but you fellows will need to make an intelligent response before we can proceed.

Whoa!

A few months ago I was conversing with a man on this site and I asked him, " Is it possible for a man who was chosen by God before the foundation of the world to be saved to ever ultimately die lost and is it possible for one who was not elect before the foundation of the world to eventually be saved and the gentleman answered "no" to both questions. Several other reformed agreed with him and since then I have operated under the understanding that this is the true position of the reformed. Now you tell me that it is possible for someone to commit the unparonable sin. You can see how that confuses me? This is not consistent.

A) This cannot be the elect because they are well, elect.
B) This cannot be the unelect because none of their sins are pardonable.

Game. Set. Match point.
______

You may choose to believe that if it suits your case and I certainly cannot change your mind but you have offered no proof of the definition of the unpardonable sin and your position of selective salvation begs the question how could someone who had no chance of being saved in the first place commit a sin that gaurantees he cannot be pardoned from his sin. My head spins with this one. One can only hope that you understand the implication of your position.

Since there is not a body of doctrine on this sin, we must appeal to the context of the only passage we find it in and the whole of Scripture to understand it.

The unpardonable sin is a generational and national and corporate sin so I will answer your question with a question; Why was our Lord Jesus constantly in debate with the Pharisees and national leaders? Was it because he wanted to condemn them? No, it was because he wanted to convince them that he was the promised Messiah and saviour of Israel. These people were the spokesmen for the nation. They held sway over the people as evidenced by the fact that those who welcomed him into Jerusalem during passion week as king and Messiah was calling for him to be crucified the next day. The offer to Israel to come to him and he would give them life was ligitimate but the final confrontation occurred in Mt 10-12 that resulted in this national sin and it was there that Jesus began to call individuals, the national call being suspended.

Come unto me "all ye" that labor and are heavy laden, he said.

This national sin did not negate his ability to save any of those pharisees who would "repent" and come to him.

Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Jesus said concerning Israel:

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

This is the sheep of Jn 10!

Following is an example of some coming to him.

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi,"WE" know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

What had drawn Nicodemas to Jesus?

Answer! It was the miracles that Jesus did and the result of their thought and reasoning resulted in their believing in Jesus as the Messiah and so they came to him. Beleiving and coming to him are synonyms.

This, "We must witness if we want to see those He died for become His sheep", was a quote from the previous poster. Try to keep up.
_____

DJC 49 wrote
Did Christ also die for these Pharisaical "sheep" who were "NOT of My sheep?"
________

This is a very good question and, I think, a sincere one.

One simply must recognize the historical context of Scripture if he will understand. Jesus said these words before he was crucified. All the sheep belonged to the Father but all that would come to him would be given to him and they would become his. That did not limit the fact that he died for all or that none other could come after he had died and risen. The proof is here.
Ac 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying....

And Paul said of himself

Ro 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

And

Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

The invitation to Israel is here.

Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Why the mixing of the metaphors? Paul, who wrote the NT church doctrines never once called the church sheep. He used the term only once in all 13 of his epistles. Here: Ro 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. (Assign proper antecedents to the pronouns here)

The gentile woman whom Jesus Christ encountered in Mt 15 understood the plan and purpose of God more than most modern Christians who have the entire revelation of God in the bible. She understood the metaphors and Jesus marvelled at her faith which requires understanding. She said after he said his ministry was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel: Mt 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. She knew that God would have mercy to the gentiles which prompted Jesus, who is God, to respond thusly: Mt 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Paul did not call gentiles sheep! Php 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.