Featured False accusations.

IMO it's hypocritical
MB

 

They don’t call the devil “accuser” for no reason.

Blaming finger-pointing and fault finding is the core of every sin.

one can tell that attitude-spirit to take a break.

 

If you back it up to this point and find irreconcilable differences, then how do you proceed further? There is little basis to talk about what the other person believes, unless you first adopt his methods, definitions, and terminology. And if you don't do that, that is, accept his terms, then won't what you say about his beliefs essentially be a lie?

But if you understand the problem that well, then you should see that the impasse is just that. That's the way I see it.

 

You could do the opposite.
Argue the opposite in the best possible light and make a case stronger than what they had in mind.

like if your not a Calvinist be a Calvinist for one day and floor it with the best possible argument. Don’t vilify and fix it best way possible.

 

Often, I find that people refuse to follow their assertions to their ultimate conclusion. Instead they make an assertion, thinking it resolves problems, but they just haven't considered the implications. When confronted with the need to consider the implications, they refuse and instead the double down on their faulty assertion.

 

My own general conclusion from these discussions is that there is an impasse.

In part this is due to differing definitions that make the arguments either impossible or not worth pursuing. In other cases, the arguments depend on heavily weighting evidence that seems dubious or much less weighty.

I'm not interested in trying to untie the resultant Gordian knot, and taking a sword to it won't satisfy a great many others.

 

Invitation requires choice.It also means it a free choice sense it is not a demand.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
MB

 

General redemption is universal atonement, which is universalism.
Go ahead and argue for universalism.
The problem is that people arguing for general redemption refuse to recognize and acknowledge they are indeed arguing for universalism.
So, to claim particular redemption falls within general redemption is simply redundant.

 

You refuse to follow your view to its conclusion, which is universalism. Therefore, you are either being intellectually dishonest or unwilling to honestly look at your position.

 

Ryrie's question beggs itself.

Berkhof asks the correct question.

I am amazed how semi-pelagians, like Ryrie, refused to accept the clear conclusions of scripture and instead seek a circular question that will result in what they want the Bible to convey, not what it actually conveys. Dispensationalism is inherently dishonest in its hoop jumping to make the Bible fit into its tortured models.
Your website shows us that tortured attempt to try avoid the logical outcome of it's assertions, which is indeed universalism.

I encourage you to throw out such dependence upon a secondary source filled with false assertions and actually go read your Bible. You will be amazed what the Bible actually teaches regarding whom Jesus shed blood actually redeems.