I guess that's the best consent I can get from you. Unfortunately, you make an argument from silence.

On the other hand there are clear statments from Calvini that makes reference to universal atonement.

For example in the same Romans 5:8 commentary...

John Calvin wrote:
"The word many is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race."

Also

John Calvin wrote:
True it is that the effect of His death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered His death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them ...

Minnow wrote:
"Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still FAITH IS NOT COMMON TO ALL. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, BUT THE ELECT ALONE are they WHOSE EYES GOD OPENS, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ."
(John Calvin Commentary on John 3:16)

Now that's classic!

If the past cannot be considered, then you might as well throw out the whole system of Calvinism where it belongs: in the trash.

You have to have valid proof from the NT to establish something as a type. Ironically, what you are practicing is what you detest: hyperdispensationalism. Unfortunately you do not have any such proof from the NT that the promises given to David was merely typical.

If that were true there was no reason on earth for Jesus to be born from a pure line of David. He could have been hispanic for all due purposes.

Jesus was King before David was born, so for you to state that David's throne is a type is a joke and violates any standards of typology of any type. Types are a subset of prophecy: there is nothing prophetical in your hermeneutic.

BTW, considering that the Bible speaks that in his kingdom there will be streets of gold, I doubt Christ's throne would be any less glorious.

You guys make the promises of God be no promises at all.

"So tell me, do you believe in election at all? And if you do, it is obviously conditional election, so tell me - on what condition does God elect? Then tell me where you find this in the Bible."

... That was the change of subject.

Sorry, you change the subject so much that I lose tract of which one is suppose to be the current one.
_______________________________________

Mr J wrote:
WHERE DOES FAITH COME FROM?

To "What is foreknowledge"

TO "WHERE DOES FAITH COME FROM?"

Are you ever going to give a rebuttal to any of the answers I gave you?

The fact is that you can't find any quotes by John Calvin where he speaks on limited atonement.

I can give you direct quotes that if taken literally, Calvin speaks on unlimited atonement.

So go ahead. I dare you.

I told you that the Calvinist has all the questions but none of the answers.

I find it interesting how you want to have an intellectual discussion but you refuse to consent to the rules of an intellectual discussion.

So who knows, maybe "I AM" a Calvinist.

jago wrote:
The words "know" and "foreknow" are used in a special way in scripture.

Mr. J wrote:
I did ask you a simple question, but maybe there were not enough small words.

If you go back to your post, there were 4 questions that you proposed to me.

This is from which I ask "which question would you like me to answer first?"

You sound like a theological parrot on steroids.

Try refuting the point I made instead of pasting what you could from the WCF.

You do not have to tell me what you believe. I already know what you believe. You have to prove what you believe. Big difference.

You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. Now it's on your lap to refute it and present a more tenable explanation of the verse provided.

Who knows, maybe according to the F_anciful L_and of the C_alvinist, David transported his throne after he died.

Until then I will continue to believe that Jesus is sitting on the same throne he sat on eternity past. It does not sound to be that God rearranged his furniture in heaven to accommodate David's puny little thing.

Prophecy has always had multiple fulfillments, that is what happened in his first coming and that is what will happen at his second coming. Any honest theologian will tell you that.

I do not even have the room to show you briefly how the two passages you use completely betray your position. It's too comical to squeeze it in this post. The only thing I can say about it is...

Now if you want an answer from me, then all you have to do is ask. You have not because you ask not.

Now if you would like to have an intelligent discussion, then you would have to agree to contribute as well. Most of you guys are content with having all the questions but none of the answers.

The condition that it consistently gives is the condition of faith.

Romans 10:9 wrote:
9that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Now I have given you one out of many explicit statements that places faith as a condition of salvation. Would you be so courteous to offer us one simple declarative statement from Scripture that states that one has to be arbitrarily (unconditionally, or whatever statement that would express the same idea) elected by God before he can be saved? And can you do so without equivocating one word for another but rather taking a literal approach to God's word?