From the Desk of the Editor...

wisdomofscripture:

From the Desk of the Editor…: wisdomofscripture: In reply to the first paragraph, I view accepting…

n1ghtcrwler:

wisdomofscripture:

Maybe not how I’d write it but yeah thats near enough

And you see absolutely no logical fallacy in there?

The point is, Jesus’ substitution is the effector and perfecter of our redemption, not our acceptance of it.

Yes.  I know.  We don’t disagree on the role of Christ’s death.  Seriously, go back and actually read what I’ve written so far on the matter.  The death and resurrection of Christ are the reason, means, and entire obligation of salvation.  We’re not debating that and never were, and this will go a lot easier as soon as you recognize that.

What we’re debating is application of said salvation.  I’m saying that, in order for God to remain just, He must have that salvation equally available to equal transgressors.  You’re saying that He does, and then turning around and directly contradicting that statement by saying that man can only accept salvation if we are first changed.  I honestly don’t know how I could possibly spell that out more clearly for you: if we cannot (and you have shown no actual difference between ‘cannot’ and ‘will not’ in this instance, since the ‘will not’ is a direct result of our fundamental nature that must be changed) accept salvation without being changed, then salvation is only actually available to those who have been changed.  It is completely unavailable to anyone else because their nature directly forbids it.  Explain how that isn’t a direct contradiction.  Stop backtracking to points that I’m not arguing, and address the central point that I’ve been talking about this entire time, or explain how it isn’t relevant.  Either way, you cannot keep leaning on ‘no, it works’, because it logically doesn’t.