In the last "Exposing Calvinism" post, I shared a comment I made to a Calvinist in the comment section of the Soteriology 101 post "Romans 8:29-30 or How We Can Trust God at His Word". Here is part of that comment, and then I will share two strings of comments that followed it. (I made minor corrections or alterations for clarity or to explain things better.)
My comment to the Calvinist, Jtleosala:
You (and all Calvinists) assume that “God loving you” means “God WILL MOST DEFINITELY save you,” instead of what it is biblically: that God bought salvation for you (for all people) but you have to accept or reject it. If you can’t see this, if you misunderstand what God’s love accomplished, if you choose to always insist that God will force salvation on those He loves and that He only really loves those He saves, then you will never understand Scripture correctly. You will always have to twist the “all” verses and the “world” verses and the “God loves” verses to fit your presumption.
2 Peter 2:1: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign LORD who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves."
WHO BOUGHT THEM!
The Lord’s death bought the false teachers who brought destruction on themselves. How is it possible for Jesus to have bought false teachers who are going to hell if Jesus’s death supposedly only bought the elect?
If Calvinism is true, either God “elects” false teachers or He is lying when He says that He “bought” them, because Calvi-Jesus didn’t die for those on their way to hell. (And He’d be lying that they brought destruction ON THEMSELVES. They didn’t ultimately bring destruction on themselves; Calvi-god did it. Supposedly for his glory, right!?! So then why would Calvi-god share his glory with these false teachers by saying that they did it?)
But if you toss out the Calvinism, we understand this verse as saying that Jesus’s death paid for these false teachers, for EVERYONE, but they end up bringing destruction ON THEMSELVES because they reject the truth. God didn’t love them any less. Out of love, He provided salvation for them, just like He did for those who accept Him. But they decided to reject it instead of to accept it.
This is so simple to understand that I am amazed at how Calvinists can’t see it, how they refuse to see it, how they continue to try to defend their view that God only loved a few people and that Jesus only died for a few people and that God deliberately created most people so that He could hate them and send them to hell, supposedly for His glory, and so that He could show how just He is, how seriously He takes sin (sin that He supposedly CAUSED in the first place, but then He punishes us for it – yep, sounds like “justice” to me!!!) … and to show the elect how loving and merciful He is to them, compared to the non-elect.
Calvi-god to the elect: “I could have randomly hated and slaughtered you too for no reason at all other than I felt like it. So be thankful I randomly picked you to love enough to save. Now love me and worship me, although you have no choice about it anyway. Yep, I feel glorified now!”
It’s sick! It really is! Calvi-god is a sick, sick god!
Here is the first string of comments that came after my comment:
TS00 (non-Calvinist) responds:
You explain it well, Heather. This is such an important point, that I would hope Calvinists would meditate upon it long and hard, praying for God to open their minds to the truth. This means very deliberately considering and making sure you understand both alternative explanations, not bowing to the common Calvinist arrogance of ‘Only we believe the truth’.
I cannot imagine how any true believer, in tune with the Spirit, would not be led to see and rejoice in the goodness of God in offering salvation to any and all who will receive it, once they shed the blinders that falsely insist that God is making a demand that no one can comply with. Under Calvinism, demanding ‘belief’ is an asinine impossibility, with Calvi-god just grandstanding so he can show off his ‘power’ to save.
In reality, no one has, or will have, any doubts as to who has all of the power in this universe. The true God is not worried about men possibly getting some of his ‘glory’, for the very act of believing requires acknowledging your sin and need for a savior. ‘Thank you for offering me a second chance that I don’t deserve’ doesn’t sound like taking credit for the salvation which only God can offer. Also, built in to the true concept that salvation is freely offered to all is the obvious implication that no one is more deserving than anyone else – all sin, all deserve punishment, all are offered pardon.
And of course Paul himself tells us that believing – faith – is not a work, but clearly contrasts Abraham’s and others’ faith with works. Does scripture ever say that God unilaterally forces faith upon men who don’t even seek it? No, never. Anyone who honestly reads scripture, desiring to see the truth rather than to prove their presuppositions, will see how God loves and freely offers life to all. They will see the true glory of God and the true hope of the gospel, rather than the false Judaistic ‘chosen people’ concept which brought condemnation upon much of national Israel, who refused to accept that ‘all men’ were equally loved and sought by God.
My reply to TS00:
Great comments, TS00. Well said! In particular, you said, “Also, built in to the true concept that salvation is freely offered to all is the obvious implication that no one is more deserving than anyone else – all sin, all deserve punishment, all are offered pardon.”
I totally agree. Offering salvation freely and unbiasedly to all people levels the playing field. No one is more “deserving” than anyone else because we do nothing to deserve it. It is freely offered to all, from the “worst” sinner to the “best” religious Law-follower.
[Note: I reworded this paragraph to make it easier to understand.] Yet isn’t it funny how Calvinists basically say the opposite? They say that if we think salvation is offered to all people and that we choose to accept it or reject it, then we are claiming that we are somehow “better/more humble/smarter” than those who reject it, as if we are more “deserving” of it, because we saw our need for a Savior and did something about it but our unbelieving neighbor couldn't/didn't. Calvinists try to shame you this way, accusing you of thinking too highly of yourself for making "the right decision" while your unbelieving neighbor didn't. (See this Soteriology 101 post for more on this: "Are you better than your friend who refused to believe?")
They say that Calvi-god arbitrarily choosing whom to save better shows that no one “deserves” salvation. They believe it’s unhumble to say that we “choose” or “accept” salvation, but that it’s more humble to claim we did NOTHING to get to heaven ("We don't know why God chose us; His reasons are a mystery"), not even making a choice to accept an offer of salvation.
But I believe salvation is offered freely to all and that all people have the ability to accept it. And like you, TS00, I believe it’s humble to gratefully accept a gift that someone else paid for, knowing that we could never earn it on our own, to say (as you wrote) ‘Thank you for offering me a second chance that I don’t deserve.’
This is humility … as opposed to the arrogance of basically believing “Calvi-god created ME special. He loves ME more. He died for MY sins. He created ME to love and to save, while He created most others to hate and to damn to hell. I MYSELF have been CHOSEN to go to heaven even though I did nothing, not even make a choice to follow Jesus.... I don't know why he chose ME, out of billions of people, but I'm so thankful he did.”
[You don't think they really talk/think like this, do you? Well, see this 2-minute "Jesus died for me, me, me" video demonstrating Calvinist "humility." Of course, each person can say that Jesus died for them specifically, that God loves them personally. But Calvinists don't mean that. They really do mean just them, the Elect, the special pre-chosen ones ... and no one else. *And see my note way at the end of this post for another comment about this video.]
It’s asinine, as you said! Totally backwards!
If people reject the offer of salvation, it’s not because they were forced to or because they lacked some ability or quality to accept it. It’s because THEY DIDN’T WANT IT. It’s because they wanted to be their own god. It's because they didn't believe the Bible or think God was real or take Him seriously or want to know if He's real. They wanted to go their own way.
And the person who accepts salvation doesn’t do so because they are "better" or "more deserving" than anyone else. There's nothing about them that makes them better than anyone else. It’s just that they chose to acknowledge that God is offering them (all people) a gift that they could never earn on their own, that they don’t deserve, and they chose to thankfully, humbly accept it.
This doesn’t make them “better” or “more deserving” … but I would say it makes them “smarter.” 
They are smart enough to realize they could never earn salvation on their own and that they had better accept the free gift of salvation being offered to them if they want to get into heaven. They are smart enough to realize that they really are responsible for their own choices, and that they had better make the right one. They are smart enough to take God seriously.
And this is a lot smarter than resisting/ignoring God and rejecting a free gift you can never earn for yourself, choosing instead to pay for your own sins in hell when Jesus already paid for them so that you could go to heaven. It’s a lot smarter than believing that you’re not really responsible for your choices and that you don’t have to do ANYTHING to get to heaven, not even seek God or accept Jesus as Lord and Savior (when the Bible tells us over and over again to seek God, to choose obedience, and to choose whom we will serve). It's a lot smarter to take God at His Word than to ignore Him or to reinterpret His Word to fit our desires/presuppositions.
But if Calvinists want to believe that it’s more humble to say Calvi-god only loves THEM and that Calvi-Jesus only died for THEM and that they are not really responsible for their choices and that they don’t even have to make a choice to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior because they were “elected” … well, that’s their choice! And they won’t see it any other way unless and until they are willing to.
I, however, will take God seriously when He says “Seek Me” and “Believe in Me” and “Choose whom you will serve.” I’ll err on the side of believing that God meant what He said, the way He wrote it, than believing that He really meant something else, some secret layer of meaning that changes the Gospel and the way we view and approach faith.
If I’m wrong in how I believe Scripture, at least I’ll be able to say “But God, I was simply taking Your Word at face value, the way You wrote it” when I stand before Him.
Whereas if Calvinists are wrong, they’ll have to say “Yeah, I saw what You wrote but I thought there was some sort of secret double-meaning behind it. I thought You didn’t really mean what You wrote, the way You wrote it, and so I tried to figure out what I think You must have really meant to say instead.”
I wonder how well that excuse will hold up before God!
[Added Note: Calvinists assume that if all people were really given the offer to be saved then all people would definitely accept it, that no one would be stupid enough to turn it down. (I've seen this time and time again in Calvinist arguments.)
And so since all people aren't saved, Calvinists think that it must be because they weren't truly offered salvation. Because, as they think, no one would refuse salvation if it really was offered to them. No one would choose hell over heaven, if they really had a choice. (Can they find a verse to support this? No! It comes from their own philosophical fantasies!)
Calvinists say "Why would anyone reject heaven when it's the best thing for them? No one would do that. So therefore, it wasn't really offered to them in the first place."
(So they think it's so much better and more reasonable for Calvi-god to pretend to offer people salvation, to command them to believe, but then to cause them to reject him and go to hell because he predestined it for his glory ... than it is to simply think God lets people decide for themselves, that He allows them to make bad decisions!?! I don't get that.)
But I wonder: Why do people do drugs? Why don't they reject drugs if they know it's the best thing for them to do? Is it because they had no choice? Were they predestined to do drugs? Was a drug-free life unavailable to them? Why do people cheat? Have affairs? Drive drunk? Steal? Murder? Etc.? They know it's bad, that it's not best for them, but they choose it anyway, even though they know it's bad and could get them in trouble.
Just because we know that one option is good and one option is bad doesn't mean we will always choose the right one. And just because someone chooses the wrong one doesn't mean they had no choice.
Why don't all people choose Jesus as Lord and Savior or accept the salvation He offers, even though it's the best option?
Because they don't want it. Because they want to follow their earthly desires. Because they don't take the Bible seriously or believe that it's God Word. Because they don't think God is real. Because they don't want to be under anyone else's thumb. Because they think all paths lead to heaven or that they can get to heaven just by being good enough. Etc.
There are a multitude of reasons why people choose the bad thing over the good thing (why they reject Jesus and the offer of salvation), none of which has to do with "Because they were predestined to, because they had no choice, because salvation was never offered to them."
Calvinists start with their Calvinist ideas of how things have to be and then they twist Scripture to try to fit it - but all it does is create illogical nonsense, irreconcilable contradictions, and major conflicts with Scripture, which they then have to try to "solve," scrambling around for explanations that end up twisting Scripture even more. And the cycle continues. But it doesn't work, no matter how hard they try, which is why they always end with "Yeah, well, who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Don't question it. You're not supposed to understand it anyway. So just be a humble Christian and accept it."]
Rhutchin (Calvinist) replies:
Heather writes, “Offering salvation freely and unbiasedly to all people levels the playing field.”
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the gospel is offered to all who hear the gospel preached. The Calvinist adds that a person must have faith to respond positively to the gospel and without faith, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…” [My note: Calvinists say the gospel is "offered to all," knowing that the non-elect can never respond to it because Calvi-god doesn't give them the faith to believe it. So is salvation really "offered" to them then, if God makes sure that they can never accept it? What damage that does to God's character and the gospel! And notice that Calvinists believe the elect have faith before they can respond to the gospel. Faith before the gospel!?! Saved first, before you believe in Jesus!?! Does that sound scriptural to you?]
Then Heather says, "They [Calvinists] say that if we think salvation is offered to all people and that we choose to accept it or reject it, then we are claiming that we are somehow “better/more humble/smarter” than those who reject it, as if we are more “deserving” of it, because we saw our need for a Savior and did something about it but our unbelieving neighbor couldn't/didn't."
Calvinists say that people who accept salvation do so only because God gave them faith – “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them..” So, if God gives a person faith, then that person is better than the person to whom God withholds faith. [My note: What a twisting of Scripture! That verse says God created "good works" for believers to do, not that He created certain sinners to be saved. Big difference! And all Rhutchin's really doing here anyway is just claiming that the elect are indeed "better than" the non-elect, because God gave them faith. And yet they accuse non-Calvinists of thinking they are "better than others" because they "chose" to believe while others didn't. It's the pot calling the kettle black!]
Then, “They say that Calvi-god arbitrarily choosing…”
God chooses whom to give faith to “…according to the counsel of His will…” [My note: Translation: "I don't know why God chose to save ME. It's a mystery!"]
Then, “But I believe salvation is offered freely to all and that all people have the ability to accept it.”
Then you believe that God gives all people faith. [My note: Calvinists wrongly think that if salvation is offered to someone then they WILL be saved, because they don't think it's possible to reject an offer. So when a Calvinist hears "God offers salvation to all people," they reinterpret it to mean "God saves all people."] Given that “faith” comes from assurance and conviction, how do people with assurance and conviction make a choice that reflects a lack of assurance and lack of conviction? [My note: Huh!?!]
Then, ‘If people reject the offer of salvation, it’s not because they lacked some ability or quality to accept it. It’s because THEY DIDN’T WANT IT.”
They did not want it because they had no faith. [My note: Because Calvi-god didn't give them faith. And if he doesn't give them faith, then they cannot be saved or even want to be saved. The non-elect are created to want to remain sinners.]
In a different string of comments, Rhutchin also says this: "The ability to respond to that gospel requires faith, and faith is only given to God’s elect with that faith being the cause of them accepting salvation."
[My note: When Rhutchin said "God chooses whom to give faith to “…according to the counsel of His will…”", he was (as far as I can tell) quoting Ephesians 1:11: "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will..."
Calvinists think that "working things out according to His Will" (also seen in Romans 8:28) means that God preplans/causes/wills everything that happens, even sin and evil (but then He punishes us for it). However, this would compromise God's righteous, holy, just, loving character.
So to keep God's character and Word intact, those verses are best understood this way: God has overarching plans, a Will. And He can take anything that happens - anything we do, our self-chosen sins, things He didn't preplan and doesn't cause and doesn't even want - and work it into the circumstance in such a way that He can still get His plans accomplished.
Here's a biblical example of what I mean: God's Will and plan was to get the Israelites out of Egypt and to take them to the Promised Land. He desired that and planned that for them. But they rebelled and grumbled and disobeyed. So as a consequence of their rebellion, He extended their stay in the desert until all the grumblers died off. And then He led His people - the next generation - into the Promised Land.
His overarching plan was that His people got to the land He promised. Of course, He wanted to get the same people into Canaan that He took out of Egypt, but because of their behavior and choices, they lost the right to get what God promised. And yet even with the people’s rebellion, He still found a way to accomplish His overarching plan.
But it didn’t have to work out the way it did. God didn’t “will” that they die in the desert. They could have had the blessings, the promises, of His original plan for them, if they had just obeyed.
We are given the choice to cooperate with God in His plans or not, to obey or disobey, to follow Him or go our own way. But regardless of what we do, even if we disobey, God can still work out His overarching plans and get His Will accomplished. But if we disobey, we will miss out on the promises that are for those who obey. We will get the consequences that come with our choices.
And make no mistake about it: They are OUR choices! God does not preplan/control what we do. He can and does work whatever we do into His plans, but He does not plan what we do. And don't let Calvinists convince you otherwise.
The God of the Bible is wise enough to know how to work everything together, even things He doesn't cause but allows us to do, to get His plans done. Whereas Calvi-god can only work his plans out if he preplans/causes everything that happens.
Besides that, look at Ephesians 1:12 to see what they were "chosen" for: "in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory." It's not that God chose certain sinners to be saved. It's that God has chosen/predestined believers - anyone who chooses to put their hope in Christ - to bring Him glory. Big difference!]
TS00 replies to Rhutchin:
This is deliberate obtuseness. It is simply blowing smoke to say Calvi-god offers salvation to someone, but only after he has deliberately ensured that they have no ability to respond to it. Honestly, Calvinists make their god look not only cruel and tyrannical, but stupid and foolish to boot. Even a blind, dead sinner can see through that smokescreen.
Calvi-god: ‘Nobody can say I didn’t offer salvation to all. Watch and see me offering the gospel to everyone. Come, all who are weary and I will give you rest. Believe in the gift I didn’t offer you and live! Hey, you morons, why aren’t you coming? Why don’t you respond to my false offer and believe? Do you want me to send you to hell? That does it, you guys are gonna get it.’
Sheesh, what a god! He is either too stupid to see his own foolishness or is a cruel, mocking tyrant who can’t wait to start the fun of torturing people. Either way, he is not a god anyone would want.
Heather said: “Then, ‘If people reject the offer of salvation, it’s not because they lacked some ability or quality to accept it. It’s because THEY DIDN’T WANT IT.”
Rhutchin replies: “They did not want it because they had no faith.”
No, they did not want it because Calvi-god made sure they wouldn’t, couldn’t want it. Throwing out the feeble excuse that it’s because they didn’t have faith – when the only reason they don’t have faith is because Calvi-god withheld it from them – is just silly. It’s time Calvinists realize we are not idiots. We see through all of your silly, illogical pretenses.
Rhutchin replies:
TS00 writes, “No, they did not want it because Calvi-god made sure they wouldn’t, couldn’t want it. ”
Yes, because God is the one who gives faith to whom He will and those God does not give faith to cannot change who they are, so that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”
Then, ‘Throwing out the feeble excuse that it’s because they didn’t have faith – when the only reason they don’t have faith is because Calvi-god withheld it from them – is just silly.”
Yet, people do not have faith because God does not give them faith. [My note: And then Calvi-god punishes them for not having the faith he wouldn't give them! How's that for a loving, just, trustworthy god!?!]
TS00 replies:
It doesn’t meet my definition of moral and honest, that’s for sure. Since it is claimed that Jesus died only for ‘the elect’ then what exactly is being ‘offered’ to the ‘reprobate’? It is an outright lie to declare ‘Believe and you will be saved’ if Jesus never paid the price for their sin.
Nor do we see wording even close to that anywhere in scripture. It can only be manufactured if you conflate being ‘chosen’ with believing, which is why Calvinism distorts ‘faith’ into an object that must be given, rather than the personal, self-derived response of an individual to the revelation of truth.
Rhutchin replies:
TS00 writes, “It is an outright lie to declare ‘Believe and you will be saved’ if Jesus never paid the price for their sin.”
That is why the preaching of the gospel to all the world has the purpose of drawing God’s Elect to salvation and not the Reprobate. When Jesus said, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” in one place and then, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” in another, then we can understand that only those God is drawing could respond to Christ’s plea.
[My note: "The preaching of the gospel to all the world has the purpose of drawing God’s Elect to salvation and not the Reprobate"!?!
Really!?! Because I thought the purpose of the gospel was this:
John 20:31: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
If Calvinists can find me a verse - even just one verse - that clearly, plainly says that the purpose of the gospel is to bring only the elect to Christ and not the reprobates, then I might start believing them.
Of course, Calvinists might say that John 20:31 is only for believers or for the elect, those predestined to become believers. But that wouldn't make sense because there is no point in telling believers to believe in Jesus when they already do, and because, if this was for those predestined to believe, there would be no "may believe" about it. It would have to be "These are written so that you - and only you - will believe ...". But "may" opens the door to the possibility that some who hear the gospel will believe and some won't (as evidenced in John 5:40 where Jesus condemns those who were not willing to come to Him so that they could have life), which means this can't be for the elect believers only. Not to mention that, in Calvinism, the elect are "born again" before they believe, in order to cause them to believe. But this verse says that it's by believing that we are born again. A major strike against Calvinism!
And once again, Calvinists assume "drawing" means "will definitely be saved," which only happens to the elect. And so what Rhutchin's saying here is that "believe and be saved" is a command only for the elect. And, of course, it's only after God gives them faith first. So in Calvinism, it's not really "anyone can believe and then they will be saved," it's "God gives the elect faith first (makes them born again) because they were predestined for heaven, and only then can they 'believe'."
So technically, contrary to Scripture, belief in Jesus doesn't save anyone in Calvinism. What really saves the elect is the faith that Calvi-god first gives them that causes them to believe.
In Calvinism, belief is the result of being saved, not what leads to being saved.
But do you see that clearly taught in the Bible anywhere? As clearly as, let's say ...
Romans 10:9 (KJV): "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
John 3:16: "... whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life".
John 1:12: "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."
John 6:28-29: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'"
Acts 16:30-31: "'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved...'"
Honest Calvinist theology would have to answer "what must I do to be saved?" with "Do!?! You can't do anything, not even believe! You must wait for God to give you faith first, which will cause you to believe."
Doesn't sound very biblical when it's worded that way, does it? But that is what honest Calvinism is! But most Calvinists are not honest enough to say it this way.]
Then TS00 writes, ‘which is why Calvinism distorts ‘faith’ into an object that must be given, rather than the personal, self-derived response of an individual to the revelation of truth.”
Paul said in Romans 10 that faith comes through hearing the gospel. It enables a person to respond in “belief” or “the personal, self-derived response of an individual to the revelation of truth.” [My note: This is funny, because he said in other comments that the elect cannot respond to the gospel unless and until God gives them faith first. So which is it? Does faith come before and lead to believing the gospel, or does faith come after/from hearing the gospel? You can't have it both ways, Calvinists! But this is the kind of word-games Calvinists play to deceive you, confuse you, and to try to squeeze their theology into the Bible where it doesn't belong, twisting Scripture to fit their theology.]
TS00 says:
Twist, twist, twist – you would think a person would eventually grow weary of going through hoops trying to make scripture fit into his false paradigm.
Rhutchin says the purpose is ‘drawing God’s Elect to salvation and not the Reprobate’.
Of course, scripture teaches no such thing, EVER, and repeatedly declares in countless places and ways that the purpose of the gospel is to declare the good news of a saviour and a salvation which shall be to all people. But the Calvinist will twist and twist, unaware of how obvious his distortions are to those who have sees through the deceptions of Calvinism.
After years of twisting, we are determined to pursue truth, not distortions manufactured to uphold the traditions of men.
Rhutchin replies:
TS00 writes, “scripture teaches no such thing, EVER, and repeatedly declares in countless places and ways that the purpose of the gospel is to declare the good news of a saviour and a salvation which shall be to all people.”
So, what about faith. If two people hear the gospel and one accepts and one rejects, isn’t the cause traced to faith and not the hearing so that one had faith and the other did not?
[My note: Calvinists have to blame a person's rejection of Jesus on their idea that "God didn't give them faith to believe" because they cannot conceive that a person would willingly choose to reject heaven, the best option. And they believe "God is sovereign" means that He controls everything, even all we think and do, even our sins and unbelief. And so they think the only reason someone would reject Jesus is because God made them do it, because He predestined them for hell, and so He didn't give them the faith to believe. With their foundational beliefs being so wrong and unbiblical, there is no way Calvinists can understand Scripture, the gospel, or God properly.]
TS00 says:
We’ve been through that too many times to count. You’ll have to find someone else to rise to the bait.
Here is part of the second string of comments:
Rhutchin (Calvinist) replies:
Heather writes, ” We’ve all been “bought,” but we’re not all saved because most reject the price Jesus paid on their behalf.”
If you were “bought” (a past tense completed transaction) how does a person reject that. I think you mean that Christ, by His death, didn’t buy anything – His death didn’t pay for any sin in particular but could only make salvation available for acceptance/rejection. A person accepting salvation could then have God apply Christ’s death to their sins.
Then, “Jesus’s death paid for all sins of all men, which would mean that all people are technically “bought” by God.”
If Jesus paid for all sins of all men, then that is a completed transaction and cannot be overturned – it would include the sin of rejection making that rejection of no effect.
You seem to recognize this when you say, “…technically “bought” by God…” Technically, but not really?
My reply:
Rhutchin says: “I think you mean that Christ, by His death, didn’t buy anything – His death didn’t pay for any sin in particular ...”
Heather: You can think I said whatever you want to think, but I said that Jesus paid for all sins of all people (and actually, I didn't say it; the Bible did!) …
1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
1 Timothy 2:6: Who gave himself as a ransom FOR ALL …
John 1:29: The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away THE SIN OF THE WORLD!
Romans 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.
To say that Jesus’s death didn’t actually pay the price for sin fully would be to say that there’s work we have to do to get that salvation or activate it. But the price has been paid in full, and all we have to do is accept it. (Of course, a Calvinist would say that “accepting” the sacrifice Jesus made for us is work. But it’s not. It’s actually simply acknowledging and accepting the work that someone else did for us. And if it is "work," it's because God called it that and yet said that it's the one work we must do to be saved: John 6:28-29: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'" See this post for more on this: "Is 'Accept Jesus in Your Heart' Unbiblical and Dangerous?")
Rhutchin says: “If you were “bought” (a past tense completed transaction) how does a person reject that.”
Heather: What I mean by “bought” is NOT like being “bought” like a pet gets bought. With pets, we pick out the pet, pay for the pet, and drag it home with us whether it wants to go with us or not. In this case, the pet has no say in being bought or not, and it cannot “undo” it.
But I mean “bought” as in everyone’s freedom is paid for, their sins were paid for by Jesus. And they can accept what He did – His sacrificial death in their place – and go to heaven. Or they can reject His payment on their behalf, choosing to face the penalty of their sins for themselves, which is eternal death, separation from God. I can pay for someone’s tuition for four years of college, giving them a scholarship they didn’t ask for, work for, or deserve … but they can choose to reject my gift and go somewhere else and pay the price on their own. That is more similar to what I’m talking about. And if they accept my gift, that’s not “working for it.” It’s simply accepting it in humble gratitude. (Another example: You can buy someone's freedom from jail, opening the door to let them out, but they can reject your offer and refuse to leave the cell. It's really not that hard to understand. Unless you're a Calvinist.)
*Note about the "Jesus died for me, me, me" video:
I just want to point out one amusing thing here. Tyler says he doesn't know why God picked him. Calvinists say it's a "mystery" why God chose to save them specifically, out of everyone else out there. And they accuse non-Calvinists of thinking that they (the non-Calvinists) are better than, smarter than, or more humble than their unbelieving neighbors because they (the non-Calvinists) saw their need for a Savior and did something about it, whereas the unbelieving neighbors couldn't and didn't. (If you believe that you made a decision of your own free-will to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, Calvinists will accuse you of thinking too highly of yourself, as if you must think that you are better/smarter/more humble than those who don't believe. Because you figured out that you needed a Savior but others couldn't.)
But the funny, ironic thing is ... If God's reasons for choosing the Calvinists are "mysteries," if they don't know why God chose them, then they cannot claim that it's not because they are better than, smarter than, or more humble than their neighbors. They could have been "chosen" for the very things they shame non-Calvinists for, that they accuse non-Calvinists of: because they are "better/smarter/more humble" than those who aren't saved. It's just that God didn't tell them that those were the reasons.
