Mark

Cheryl,

First of all i never called you a semi-pelagian. I asked you to show me how your view is not semi-pelagian, there is a difference.

From what you have written it seems that we somewhat are closer to agreeing than perhaps first thought. You have admitted that we need God to open the eyes of believers, which i think is good.

So we both agree that God draws, calls, opens eyes, soften hearts all before people accept the message of Christ. But yet i guess we still disagree that faith is a gift. I’m quite surprised actually that you don’t even believe grace is a gift. But i guess at least you are being consistent with how you read Eph 2. But honestly it’s a bit far when you say that God’s grace to us is not even a gift, is it not? Can i ask is repentance a gift or not?

Also you did not define your view of God’s sovereignty. You simply asked me if God had the ability to make choices. IF you believe as Kay does, show me from the Bible. If not, i suggest you stop promoting an unbiblical view of God’s sovereignty.

Why is it people will go to such lengths when Romans 9-11 is so clear. You want me to reject the reformed position and accept a view that is not even found in the Bible. Come on now.

With regards to the limited atonement, i wonder how you understand John 10, when Jesus himslef declares that he lays down his life ‘for his sheep’. Maybe you think God’s sheep is everybody, i dunno?
I wonder if you feel that the OT sacrifices atoned for the whole world? Is this what you believe, or was it limited? Nothing in scripture teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of every single person except the passages that use universal language. Now we can have a more thorough discussion on that terminology but i think we both know the danger in placing a theology on universal language. After all, this is precisely what universalists do.

You can’t have Jesus saying he only died for his sheep (limited) and that he died for the whole world (unlimited). One of them must not be as you might think on the surface. Clearly universal language is the more ambiguous, since the analogy of sheep and goats is quite clear. Where as universal language is not. I have already shown one example from John to disprove the universal language assumption, but there are plenty more.

Ok i will stop now, unless Kay or pinklight respond. John 6 here we go!

Gazza,
I agree, Cheryl’s analogy is worthless.(why is it Cheryl you used an analogy anyway after slamming Gazza’s earlier) That is precisely why i said her view of the atonement is also limited.