Dr. Tim wrote:
Words of God Himself.

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

26 ..ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him

John UK wrote:
.. after it is fed through the grammar-checker and truth-finder and logic-monger

Yes, a doctrine can turn on a single word.

Mk 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

The logic eluded the Pharisees! Logic is important. That is why God gave us minds, and communicated in words.

Acts 2:42
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Rmns 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

The early disciples were distinguished by their adherence to apostolic doctrine, which they took to heart.

Rmns 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Doctrinal purity was important in the early church before the rise of false christianity.

B. McCausland wrote:
..you are coming around.

Change the tune? No, you have a twist in your brain about what we both believe when you begin to extra reason God and put him in the box of your own 'logic' arriving to preposterous conclusions. This is what a hypercalvinist does.
We do believe the doctrines of grace, but we allow God to be God, we take what scripture states at face value without having to explain him.

Since you now claim to be an expert on the names I cited, can you point me to any statements they made purporting that Christ died for the unelected or indeed that he loved them with a saving love?

As for taking statements at face value you clearly cannot accept Christ's numerous statements that he died for the sheep, those given to him by the Father, but have to hide behind what you consider vague enough terms to encompass every single individual in the world, thereby turning a Christ who came with a mission and will undoubtedly accomplish it to another Christ who died for all but failing wholly to secure that end.

B. McCausland wrote:
None of these were hypercalvinists.
They believed the doctrines of grace but not in the impotent God alluded to.
They believed in the free offer of the gospel and so they preached in faith allowing God to be God.

It was precisely because of these beliefs that they had confidence that God's word would not return to him void, but accomplish what which he pleased and that it would prosper in its design of gathering in the elect.

These are exactly the things being insisted here by those that you have labelled hyper-calvinists.

ladybug wrote:
The context of 2 Peter 3:9 has already been addressed. Who is Peter speaking to? 'Us-ward' - believers. It is the 'usward that God is not willing to perish, to come to repentance. That is the context of the verse.

Dr. Tim wrote:
I couldn’t agree more, Darren—especially the liars who slanderously accuse God of wanting people to go to hell.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Does this mean that John 6:44 is of no value to the Lord? It definitely states that all that the Father gave will come, but here is I Peter God is not willing that some should perish? How would this even be a possibility to consider?

Dr. Tim wrote:
John, I couldn’t agree more that there are some who seem to be more concerned about keeping “undesirables” out of Heaven than helping people get in. I daresay that when they speak of “the elect,” what they really have in mind is that they are actually the elite.

To suggest that those who believe in the doctrines of grace are not concerned for the salvation of the lost is total nonsense. If that were the case we would not have had George Whitfield, or Charles Spurgeon or many of the American Greats like Jonathan Edwards, or their modern counterparts in the likes of Dr Masters etc.

"The clue to the interpretation of these words lies, we think, in the oft omitted words, "us-ward ;" toward us, His chosen and redeemed people, the Apostle informs us the Lord is longsuffering. His good pleasure is, that we should be saved with an everlasting salvation. Hence he is not willing that one of us should perish. The context discusses the most solemn subjects—the day of judgment ; the passing away of the heavens, and the burning up of the earth and the works that are therein. Momentous and mysterious themes, yet one comforting thought should console each fearful heart. However the severity of God may be manifested toward His enemies, toward us He is long-suffering. None of His children shall perish; and those yet uncalled, and those even that are yet unborn, shall be brought to repentance, and God's ideal church realized when the whole family are brought home at last." W Styles

Dr. Tim wrote:
People go to hell 100% contrary to the will of God.

Let's take 1 Tim 2.4 "God will have all men to be saved" - Paul is discussing the subject of prayer which he exhorts should be offered for all men. This determines the force of the "all" in passage before us. Is Paul really asking us to pray for all 7 billion people on the earth? If you sincerely believe this to be the case, how is it working out for you? Or is he saying as Calvin wrote, "When he wrote it might have been thought that because kings and magistrates were mortal enemies of the gospel, God had rejected them. He would, however, encourage supplications even on their behalf, for it might prove that some even of them were the chosen of the Most High"? In other words the "all" refers to all sorts and conditions of men.

B. McCausland wrote:
See these two texts.
1."The bread of God is he which comes down from heaven,
and gives life unto the world"
2."My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life"
Both are true though they seem not to match meaning. One says Christ gives life to the world, and the other that he gives life to his sheep. How do you square them is your problem.

Mike wrote:
It isn't my place to argue with what Jesus said. It has to be incorporated into what I believe, regardless of what I might think.

So in the passage the Lord is not saying that spiritually evil men can produce spiritually good acts (good relative to each other yes, relative to God no), which is what is needed to prove your point that spiritually dead people can of their own "free" will produce spiritually good acts.

And why should anyone have a problem with God being referred to as their heavenly father? Did I miss something? Since God created each and every one of us of course he is our heavenly father.

B. McCausland wrote:
Darren.
Truth often in Scripture glides upon two wings. Chopping one off we become unbalanced and unfair.

B. McCausland wrote:
Texts announcing the extend/purpose/potential of the atonement,
"God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
but that the world through him might be saved"
"The bread of God is he which comes down from heaven,
and gives life unto the world"
"... the bread that I will give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world"
" I came not to judge the world, but to save the world"
"... the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world"
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself"
"he is the propitiation for our sins:
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"
" the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world"
"as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"
"God loved the world... gave his Son.. "
"the covenant ... God made with our fathers, saying ... in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed"
The potential/extend of the atonement does not indicate universal salvation, but infinite redemptive value, because the eternal sacrifice involved an infinite victim:
"...they ... crucified the Lord of glory"
"ye denied the Holy One and the Just,
And killed the Prince of life"

Mike wrote:
One example might be Jesus' own:
Luke 11:13
"If ye then, being evil, (their nature)know how to give good gifts (go against their own nature) unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

Viewed spiritually, God's view is clear:

Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

None do good.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Mike wrote:
We are all, as you say, born with a sin nature, and we all die as a result of Adam's sin imputed to us. But we are not born with any sin of our own. The wicked become wicked via their own sin, fed by their sin nature. Wickedness is sinful behavior, not the bent toward it.

Mike wrote:
Hi Adriel, it's good to note the truth in the last sentence that man makes himself wicked, not that he was wicked before his birth and was created that way for God's glory, etc. He indeed made the wicked, i.e. as in he created them, but he did not make the wicked wicked. That's on them alone.

Gen 3.9 God is not omniscient

Gen 4.16 God is not omnipresent

Gen 6.6 God changed his mind

Gen 8.1 God temporarily forgot Noah

Exod 31.17 - God was tired. We have to accept the text at face value and not attempt to reconcile this with Is 40.28

Judg 1.19 God couldn't do this because he is not omnipotent.

Ps 44.23 God sleeps

We could go through the entire bible and multiply examples like this a thousands of times over. The fact is that it is the preacher's job to explain the text and open to the hearers the mind of God and not seek to hide behind words or to leave hearers with a false impression.

All the verses I mentioned have to be explained, otherwise the hearers will walk away having a completely wrong view of God and the meaning of his word.

How can God give increase when people are presented a false gospel?

Just wondering wrote:
Why would God require His children to do that which some say He won’t?

If you look at the context of the command to love enemies, we have an illustration of how God loves his enemies.

Matt 5

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

John UK wrote:
... God will condemn them for not believing in him...

There has to be corresponding provision in the atonement for there to be accountability in the command to repent and believe? Really? They're not called to believe that Christ died for them.

Why isn't refusal of a divine command (viz. repent and believe) enough to add to their condemnation?