Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

I'd like to apologize for yelling in the previous round, I got kind of frustrated :/"There is no indication here that the all means every single person who is on the earth without exception. "All: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. If it meant every single person without exception, He would then be read as going back and forth between universal and some. It seems kind of eisegetical to read in any as every single person without exception, Randomly in the text. "How is that eisegetical? I could turn it around say it is eisegetical for you to read it as not referring to the whole earth. You have not explained how this doesn't refer to everyone. "Notice Peter says he is long-suffering to US-ward, Not willing that any. . . Limiting any is obvious by the context, And henceforth all. But all of what? Cats? Dogs? Random people debating online? No. All ofthe us Peter was referring to. It is obvious the us limits the any and all, And refers to believers. "Limiting of any is not obvious. For what reason would he do that? You can't simply say it's obvious and not say why. "If you can't explain this verse in another way than I am, I don't see a need to accept your rebuttal, Especially when it doesn't actually deal with the verse itself. "That's not true, If you told me that you saw an alien ship that was zooming through the sky faster than light, I could prove to you that it wasn't what you thought because nothing can go faster than light. Is it then my job to prove what it was? No. "No offense, But this is a seriously ignorant response. He doesn't create them for that, He creates them knowing they will do that. There's a difference. You didn't even acknowledge the Bible verses I provided. I'd rather believe what the Bible says. What does dead in trespasses mean? That they want to come to God? ! I mean, Come on! "I never said that they want to come to God, You said that they can't because he won't allow them to. If they don't want to in the first place, Why does God have to take away the choice? That seems like overkill. If I have two children, And I teach one that 1+2=3, And the other that 1+2=4, And then make them solve the problem, Do I penalize the second one when he/she gets it wrong? How is that even remotely fair? The answer is it isn't. "Again, This doesn't mean He created them for that, He created them knowing they would do that. They cannot come to God naturally. If you think they can, That's dangerously close to Pelagianism. For, "No man can come to me, Except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. " The Bible's word against yours. Your originally conclusion was a straw man, That was what I was meaning. Its this "choice" versus the Bible. If you reference the passage from Joshua, That is referring to serving the Lord, Not salvation. "Here is a nice example of what I believe that verse means:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me *enables* them, And I will raise up *those who come* at the last day. ”You can be enabled and not actually end up choosing to get saved, Like Judas. My point is that you believe that some people go to hell for sinning, Even though they literally cannot be saved, But the only people who do go to heaven are the ones who consciously sin because they know of Jesus. "No offense, But this is very unbiblical (maybe even heretical). Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. " There is NO POINT to saying this if there is another way to salvation. Jesus is the gospel, The good news! He Himself calls people to repent and BELIEVE! The Bible's word against yours. For, "I am the way, The truth, And the life; NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me. """My bad, I don't think I was being clear. I didn't mean that they can come through a way besides Jesus, I was saying that you don't have to hear of Jesus by word of mouth. For example, God might reveal himself through the awesomeness of nature to someone in a remote jungle somewhere who will never meet a missionary. That's what I meant. Most people do hear of Jesus by word of mouth, But I was just saying that that isn't always the case. "Did you forget that antecedents can refer to pronouns? "You still never said what the antecedent was. "You" is not specific enough to make your point. "A straw man is a false representation of someone's belief. What I wrote is an argument, Not what you believe. (? ) Sin is not the only thing they can do. It's what their nature is inclined to unless God changes it. Again, What does dead in trespasses mean? "So they can choose to come to Christ? But you said that they can only do that if God chooses them. . . Which means that sinning is the only thing they can do. I'm genuinely confused on what you mean here when you say I straw-manned; if you can't choose Jesus, Then the only other option is that you can only sin. "You realize I was representing what you believe here, In a semi-satirical way. (? ) He punishes them for sin. God is the creator, I'm not going to tell Him what to do with His creation, And I'm certainly not warp scripture to make him what i want him to be. "Again, Your model does not line up with the loving God who the Bible describes. Why would a loving God force a certain part of the population to go to hell by nothing that they can control? "Does it say He offers propitiation to the world, Or does it say that He is the propitiation? Blatant eisegesis. You are reading offer into that verse! "This is an obvious straw man. Him being the propitiation is the offer. If I go to pay for your check, But you stop me, That's you refusing my gift. He's saying that anyone who acceps him has his sins paid for. "Nations are made up of people. The words love and hate are still there! "You completely ignored what I said. God was showing how age or nationality or anything else doesn't matter to him because he will offer salvation to any and everyone. The Bible never implies that Esau died in bad standing with God. He was showing how he chose the Israelites to be the line which Jesus comes through, And how much he had done for them, But they continually rejected him, While nations such as Esau's descendants readily came to him. Read this scripture:"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, Wife and children, Brothers and sisters, Yes, And his own life also, He cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26)"Does that mean that we need to literally hate our family? No, Because we know we are commanded to love everyone. This is Jesus saying we must esteem him more than our loved ones, And God was saying in that scripture that he esteemed Jacob's descendants more than Esau's. Again, I apologize if I got a little bit heated. This was a fun debate, Maybe we can have another one some time soon. :)God bless!