Featured Did Christ Atone for ALL humans?

No, no, and no. 'God is no respecter of persons' is always used in the context of 'Jew vs. Gentile' in the scriptures.

 

Actually Robert, you were basically correct though:

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10

...but it's still in the context of Jew vs. Gentile. (Peter got called onto the carpet Acts 11 to explain his actions in going to the Gentiles.)

 

If the only way a person could be a Christian was to be a Calvinist or a Roman Catholic, I could not be a Christian.

Or if I was forced at gunpoint to choose between the two, I'd have to say go ahead and pull the trigger.

 

Brother Tony?? ^^^^^^^^^

 

I have cited this Alan E. Kurschner quote before:

"These (synergists) will sincerely say, 'I believe in grace alone.' but in reality, they believe that grace is not alone (sufficient), but that the human will is necessary for regeneration to be effective.
It could be said that these individuals are 'functional' Arminians because even though some will deny the label, their theology functions synergistically; thus how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe."

 

No. Only the children of Zion above are able to choose between good and evil.

....It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3:7,8 YLT

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

 

That is exactly like the question, can God commit suicide? If yes, He is not eternal, and if no, He is not all powerful. It is a flawed question.

Christ died for those whom the Father gave Him, exactly how He prayed to His Father the night before He was crucified.

 

If Jesus Christ died for ALL, assuming ALL means every person that ever lived, then every person that ever lived would be saved!

But Jesus Christ died only for those chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, only for those that God gave to Jesus Christ. {Ephesians 1:3-6, John 6:37}

**********************************************************************

 

If it were not for Sovereign Election no one would be saved!

 

Apologies, I've been out of town for the weekend.

What brought the curse upon us?
One argument would say "Our sin." Then again, we know from scripture that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3) Since the curse had to come from somewhere, one could use that very scripture to argue that the curse came from God. If man has no will of his own, then man could not create the curse, so it had to come from God. However, if man has a will of his own, which I believe he does and I believe it was evidenced in Adam choosing to partake of the fruit, then man caused his own separation from God. The Cal argument has been the man has free will, though that freedom is limited and bounded by man's sin nature. If that is true, then Adam was created in sin, and his will was bound up by his sin nature. But why would God create something in sin and then turn around and call it "very good," as He did all creation after His work was accomplished?

So if the curse is upon all of us to the point that none are born sinless, and, as RW points out, sin cannot enter the kingdom, then the logical conclusion, regardless how he tries to couch the argument that the Word does not tell us the final destination of babies dying in infancy, is that babies who die are hell bound. I guess under those circumstances I could see a Calvinistic argument of Election, as that's the only way you could console parents whose child died in infancy, to tell them the child was one of the Elect. But, even the Calvinist has to admit they cannot be sure they are one of the Elect. I do not say that to discredit a Calvinist who has an experience of grace. Sovereign election without having an experience of grace means you really cannot have certainty of salvation.

 

Though I am a Calvinist, I would have to agree with this somewhat.