Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Are you Protestant? Or, are you sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. Register in less than a minute, it is simple, fast, and free! We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another forum.

Enjoy your fellowship

In order to understand the importance of Christian fellowship, we must first understand what Christian fellowship is and what it isn’t. The Greek words translated “fellowship” in the New Testament mean essentially a partnership to the mutual benefit of those involved. Christian fellowship, then, is the mutually beneficial relationship between Christians, who can’t have the identical relationship with those outside the faith. Those who believe the gospel are united in the Spirit through Christ to the Father, and that unity is the basis of fellowship. This relationship is described by Jesus in His high-priestly prayer for His followers in John 17:23. The importance of true Christian fellowship is that it reinforces Christ centeredness in our mind and helps us to focus on Christ and His desires and goals for us. As iron sharpens iron, in true Christian fellowship Christians sharpen one another's faith and stir one another to exercise that faith in love and good works, all to God’s glory.
Sign in to follow this  
reformed baptist

When we assume we know what a word means

Recommended Posts

In 1 Tim 2:4 we read that God desires 'all men' (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) to be saved, and many assume that must mean every person everywhere that has ever lived - after all, 'all' means 'all' right!

 

Well, yes, 'all' does mean 'all' but what does 'all' mean?

 

Think about Luke 6:26 Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets (Luk 6:26 NKJ) - Did Jesus mean everyone who has ever lived or ever will - no - if he did he was speaking nonsense.

 

Or what about Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. How can I live peaceably with people I have never met or who are not born yet.

 

Now certainly there are times when we can take this phrase 'all men' to be inclusive of the entire human race, for example Rom 5:12 and that is precisely the point. Words exist in semantic domains and have range of meanings therefore the only way to determine the meaning of a word is to examine its context - to understand a word like 'all' we need to consider its context to determine the meaning.

 

This is why the Calvinist shakes his head in wonder at the typical citation of 1 Tim 2:4 as a proof text against his doctrine - if you want to convince me 1 Tim 2:4 contradicts Calvinism you need to exegete it consistently within the flow of Paul's argument with the pericope it occupies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother reformed baptist, When I write a post its intention to make John 13:34,35 because others must see the love we Christians have for one another.. So I thought I would share my thinking and some feelings.

 

I have never been been more excepted and respected in any forum like this one. William is one of the kindest persons along with the Moderators, and their respect for others that have different understandings of issues like infant baptism, Calvinism just to name a few things. We all do not have to agree on side issues, but on some core Doctrines there is no room for compromise, and I am sure you know what I mean.

 

I am not sure if you are a Southern Baptist or not, but allow me to share what is happening and a little history. I do have a point in all this honestly/

 

In the nineteen eighties the Seminaries were very liberal and many conservatives were fed up with those who were in control. The SBC was slipping in those coming to Christ, Baptisms were at an all time low. Conservative lay people and leaders gathered together and plotted how to once again change the SBC back to a Bible believing denomination. To make a longer story short the Liberals left and formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. (witch has turned out to be a disaster). Thanks to men like Russel Moore and Albert Moler and many others the SBC once again became a Bible based denomination.

 

However now the SBC are faced with a serious problem again. The SBC has been a denomination that our main focus was reaching people for Jesus Christ. Our missionaries go out fully supported and Christians have worked together even with some different views. However they has now begone a movement which may well split the SBC. Al Moler, Russel Moore and others are attempting make Calvinism our denominations doctrine. All but one SBC seminary, MidWestern is totally Calvinistic. The very people that helped take our SBC back from the very liberals, is driving out the churches and people that don't agree totally with Calvinism

 

Sadly the SBC has now taken on the us and them. No longer is Reaching people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ the central reason all of us work together, but are you Calvinistic or are you Arminianism. To be honest I think church members are becoming aware of the disharmony within the denomination as well of SBC State Conventions.

 

Sense 1845 Southern Baptists have worked together to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Cooperating together, not always agreeing on some issues, but at the CORE is the Bible is errant, and the WORD of God. Now some want to change our denomination to where unless you are Calvinistic you are no longer welcome. Where is this headed? For sure this effort is not going to Glorify God with the decisiveness of "us versa them".

 

I have said all the above to say this; I am fully aware this is a Calvinist forum, and I have not fully made up my mind on Calvinism. William and others have been more than polite, showed respect and I have done the very same. However reformed baptist not all my post have a slant for my thinking, nor do I remind everyone that perhaps they are wrong and can't possibly be right. That is what I see in every post you have made. Unless I am a Calvinists I don't understand Scripture right. There are other genuine born again Christian Brothers and sisters that have other views too. God bless you reformed baptist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Brother reformed baptist, When I write a post its intention to make John 13:34,35 because others must see the love we Christians have for one another.. So I thought I would share my thinking and some feelings.

 

OK

 

I am not sure if you are a Southern Baptist or not, but allow me to share what is happening and a little history. I do have a point in all this honestly

 

I am not part of the SBC, in fact I am not even American. I am from sunny old England. I am what is historically known as a strict and particular baptist!

 

I have said all the above to say this; I am fully aware this is a Calvinist forum, and I have not fully made up my mind on Calvinism.

 

OK again, your mind is your own and you must (in all conscience) accept scripture with the light you are given.

 

let me ask you a question - Are you suggesting I don't have the right to state what I believe, defend it from scripture and respond to criticisms of it?

 

Please remember my friend, that every response I have made to you is exactly that - You have chosen to respond to posts I have made in a critical way (which i welcome by the way) and you have not supported any of your assertions from scripture - I have merely been responding to things you have said to me in criticism of my doctrine, and now me personally (and side tracking a thread in the process) - so where is my fault in this? It seems you want the right to disagree with me without being able to respond.

 

I spent a long time this afternoon typing up a detailed response to try and help you understand where I was coming from - it was a post that relied heavily upon scripture to make my argument - I am very sorry that it purpose seems to have been lost.

 

William and others have been more than polite, showed respect and I have done the very same. However reformed baptist not all my post have a slant for my thinking, nor do I remind everyone that perhaps they are wrong and can't possibly be right. That is what I see in every post you have made.

 

I am sorry you feel that way about my posts, I will try to be more considerate in the future, however please understand I can only control the way I write my posts and not the way they are read, The tone you infer from my posts is not within my control, please be assured that I always write in love and allow for the fact that I am a Yorkshire man, by that I mean I call a spade a spade :D

 

Unless I am a Calvinists I don't understand Scripture right.

 

Well, we can't both be right can we brother? :D

 

But where have I said, or implied, you don't understand 'scripture'? As far as I am aware I implied you don't understand Calvinism - but nowhere have I intentionally stated you don't understand scripture - if I have a profusely apologize.

 

There are other genuine born again Christian Brothers and sisters that have other views too.

 

Yes there are. God is a God of grace, and we are saved not because of our knowledge or understanding, but despite our ignorance. I am convinced when I get to glory I will have many 'd'oh' moments when I realize just how obtuse and stupid I have been in not truly grasping what the word of God has to say. However just because I know other dear Christians believe differently to me, is not a reason not to discuss and raise those differences.

 

If we love the truth as we understand it, we will discuss it and discuss it with some passion

 

God bless you reformed baptist.

 

And you brother - if you wish to discuss this matter further maybe a PM discussion would be more appropriate?

 

If the mods think I spoken out of turn then they can correct me/ reprimand me as they see fit :RpS_thumbsup:

Edited by reformed baptist
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right guys lets all just take a deep breath. I am going to close this thread for 24 hours so we can all do that. This is not a punishment or anything like that.

 

Both Arminian and Calvinist believe they are correct but both also agree (at least most of the time they do lol) we are all Christians.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been reopened. Try and not talk past each other and please to be kind to one another thinking of the other person first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1 Tim 2:4 we read that God desires 'all men' (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) to be saved, and many assume that must mean every person everywhere that has ever lived - after all, 'all' means 'all' right!

 

Well, yes, 'all' does mean 'all' but what does 'all' mean?

 

Think about Luke 6:26 Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets (Luk 6:26 NKJ) - Did Jesus mean everyone who has ever lived or ever will - no - if he did he was speaking nonsense.

 

Or what about Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. How can I live peaceably with people I have never met or who are not born yet.

 

Now certainly there are times when we can take this phrase 'all men' to be inclusive of the entire human race, for example Rom 5:12 and that is precisely the point. Words exist in semantic domains and have range of meanings therefore the only way to determine the meaning of a word is to examine its context - to understand a word like 'all' we need to consider its context to determine the meaning.

 

This is why the Calvinist shakes his head in wonder at the typical citation of 1 Tim 2:4 as a proof text against his doctrine - if you want to convince me 1 Tim 2:4 contradicts Calvinism you need to exegete it consistently within the flow of Paul's argument with the pericope it occupies.

 

So who is it that God “desires to be damned (not saved)”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Timothy 2:1-2 NASB

[1Ti 2:1-2 NASB] 1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

 

Are we to pray for all people, or are there some people for whom we should not pray? Are there some ‘in authority’ for whom we should not pray?

 

[1Ti 2:3-4 NASB] 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

Is the “all” of 1 Timothy 2:1-2 different from the “all” of 1 Timothy 2:3-4? If so, then on what exegetical basis?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reformed Baptist. I in no way think or feel you did ANYTHING to offend me, or you did anything that the forum should be upset at you for IMO.

 

Just as there are four views of the Millennium, so I believe there can be a mixture of both side of our dialogue. That put aside and I relinquish my dialogue to to you. Never is it my intention to make someone upset or feel like they have done something wrong when they have not.

 

I know the majority of the forum members here are Calvinists, and I have not reached that Scriptural conclusion, therefore I no longer will dialogue or enter a topic about Calvinism from this point onward. Please except my deepest concern for Brotherly love over a topic that caused me to violated my principal belief in John 13:34,35. God bless you derl brother reformed baptist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reformed Baptist. I in no way think or feel you did ANYTHING to offend me, or you did anything that the forum should be upset at you for IMO.

 

Just as there are four views of the Millennium, so I believe there can be a mixture of both side of our dialogue. That put aside and I relinquish my dialogue to to you. Never is it my intention to make someone upset or feel like they have done something wrong when they have not.

 

I know the majority of the forum members here are Calvinists, and I have not reached that Scriptural conclusion, therefore I no longer will dialogue or enter a topic about Calvinism from this point onward. Please except my deepest concern for Brotherly love over a topic that caused me to violated my principal belief in John 13:34,35. God bless you derl brother reformed baptist.

A question -- maybe my question can be squeezed into the 'what does a word mean' -- your comment about there being 4 views of the Millennium. That meaning the 1,000 yr reign of Christ here on earth.

 

There's the amilleniulism = no 1,000 yr reign. And then that Jesus Christ will reign from heaven and not here on earth. And that He will reign here on earth.

 

What are Your 4 views?

 

And I tend to agree with you that there is a mix involved -- I'm somewhere in the middle of either C or A.

 

I'd rather talk about what Scripture says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1 Tim 2:4 we read that God desires 'all men' (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) to be saved, and many assume that must mean every person everywhere that has ever lived - after all, 'all' means 'all' right!

 

Well, yes, 'all' does mean 'all' but what does 'all' mean?

 

Think about Luke 6:26 Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets (Luk 6:26 NKJ) - Did Jesus mean everyone who has ever lived or ever will - no - if he did he was speaking nonsense.

 

Or what about Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. How can I live peaceably with people I have never met or who are not born yet.

 

Now certainly there are times when we can take this phrase 'all men' to be inclusive of the entire human race, for example Rom 5:12 and that is precisely the point. Words exist in semantic domains and have range of meanings therefore the only way to determine the meaning of a word is to examine its context - to understand a word like 'all' we need to consider its context to determine the meaning.

 

This is why the Calvinist shakes his head in wonder at the typical citation of 1 Tim 2:4 as a proof text against his doctrine - if you want to convince me 1 Tim 2:4 contradicts Calvinism you need to exegete it consistently within the flow of Paul's argument with the pericope it occupies.

 

Well by His doctrine do you mean Calvin's' doctrine?

 

It is Gods desire that no man should perish- He repeats this in Peter and in the OT God says He takes no dleight in the death fo thewwicked!

 

Just because god has a desire does not mean that becomes His will. John 3:16 shows god loves all men and yet at the same time we have John 3: 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.. Both are true and neither one contradicts the other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reformed Baptist. I in no way think or feel you did ANYTHING to offend me, or you did anything that the forum should be upset at you for IMO.

 

Just as there are four views of the Millennium, so I believe there can be a mixture of both side of our dialogue. That put aside and I relinquish my dialogue to to you. Never is it my intention to make someone upset or feel like they have done something wrong when they have not.

 

I know the majority of the forum members here are Calvinists, and I have not reached that Scriptural conclusion, therefore I no longer will dialogue or enter a topic about Calvinism from this point onward. Please except my deepest concern for Brotherly love over a topic that caused me to violated my principal belief in John 13:34,35. God bless you derl brother reformed baptist.

Dispensational Premillennialism

Historical Premillennialism

Postmillennialism

Amillennialism

 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.cfm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well by His doctrine do you mean Calvin's' doctrine?

 

I think what i mean is self explanatory - I wrote, "This is why the Calvinist shakes his head in wonder at the typical citation of 1 Tim 2:4 as a proof text against his doctrine"

 

'The Calvinist' is the subject of the sentence, therefore the pronoun 'his' must refer back to this antecedent, ie 'the Calvinist' - the point being that one person's a priori assumption is not another therefore simply throwing a verse over the wall is not sufficient to make a case. The irony is, that in response to a thread that is making this point that is exactly what I get :RpS_smile:

 

It is Gods desire that no man should perish- He repeats this in Peter and in the OT God says He takes no dleight in the death fo thewwicked!

 

I would be interested in what verse you are referring to?

 

If it 2 pet 3:9 I would be very interested in knowing what version you are using because the word 'man' isn't there. The text reads: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." The question here is, who are the 'any' that God is not willing should perish?

 

It can't be 'all people everywhere who have ever lived' because God word is clear that he accomplishes everything he wills (Eph 1:11) if it is God's will that no one perishes, and if he accomplishes all that he wills - then why do some perish?

 

No, the 'nay' must refer to a different group - happily we are not left to guess at who that group his - we simply have the follow the pronouns - the 'us' which traces back to antecedent 'beloved' - Paul is addressing believers and he says to them that God is not willing that any of us should perish.

 

As for the reference from the OT I believe your referring to Ezekiel 18:23, well in context this is a call to repentance addressed to the people of God, rather then it being a general soteriological truth like Romans 9:21-23 in which we see clearly that God has prepared certain 'vessels' for wrath, so that he might be glorified and make his power known.

 

Just because god has a desire does not mean that becomes His will.

 

Hold on a minute, that's an assertion that you then go on to draw a conclusion from without first establishing the assertion from scripture - can you demonstrate from scripture that God's 'desire' differs to his 'will'?

 

John 3:16 shows god loves all men

 

Again my friend, the text doesn't say that - you are reading your a priori assumption into it. the phrase 'all men' is not found in John 3:16, the phrase is 'the world' ( τὸν κόσμον) you can't simply jump from one phrase to another and assume they are synonymous - if you believe 'the world' refers to 'all men' on this occasion you have to prove it :RpS_biggrin:

 

and yet at the same time we have John 3: 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.. Both are true and neither one contradicts the other.

 

It is certainly true that God has a love for the whole of creation, that includes every man, women and child but that does not mean that he loves all equally. Why would God's love be so one dimensional, when our love (which is based upon his) is far more nuanced - I love my wife, I love my children, I love my wider family, I love my church, I love my fellow believers beyond my fellowship, I love the lost and, above of I love God, and whilst those loves all share things in common there is also something different about each one - I don't love my wife in the same way as I love the down and out on the street. I love them both, but the love is different. If, I as a fallen human being am capable of loving in dimensions, why must God's love be one dimensional.

 

John 3:16 is actually in contrast to John 3:14 - Jesus is comparing his 'lifting up' with the lifting up of the servant in the wilderness and the point is that just as any Israelite could look to that serpent and live because God had given it to them, so God has given his son to the world (as opposed to the Jews only) so that any who look to him (Jew or gentile) might live. There is no statement being made about where the faith to look originates, for that isn't Jesus' concern in discussion with Nicodemus.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reformed Baptist. I in no way think or feel you did ANYTHING to offend me, or you did anything that the forum should be upset at you for IMO.

 

Just as there are four views of the Millennium, so I believe there can be a mixture of both side of our dialogue. That put aside and I relinquish my dialogue to to you. Never is it my intention to make someone upset or feel like they have done something wrong when they have not.

 

I know the majority of the forum members here are Calvinists, and I have not reached that Scriptural conclusion, therefore I no longer will dialogue or enter a topic about Calvinism from this point onward. Please except my deepest concern for Brotherly love over a topic that caused me to violated my principal belief in John 13:34,35. God bless you derl brother reformed baptist.

 

Let's call it 'water under the bridge' and move on :RpS_thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So who is it that God “desires to be damned (not saved)”?

I realize that my original post may have seemed flippant. That was not my intent. I was simply approaching your stated position ...

In 1 Tim 2:4 we read that God desires 'all men' (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) to be saved, and many assume that must mean every person everywhere that has ever lived - after all, 'all' means 'all' right!
... (you denied this was a proper exegesis), and I applied pure human logic to ask:

 

If God does not desire "every person everywhere that has ever lived" to be saved, then who is it that God desires to NOT BE SAVED (which is commonly called damned)?

 

If there is no one that God desires to be damned, then does God not desire every person everywhere that has ever lived to be saved, even if he allows reasons to exist why many are not saved?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I realize that my original post may have seemed flippant. That was not my intent. I was simply approaching your stated position ... ... (you denied this was a proper exegesis), and I applied pure human logic to ask:

 

If God does not desire "every person everywhere that has ever lived" to be saved, then who is it that God desires to NOT BE SAVED (which is commonly called damned)?

 

If there is no one that God desires to be damned, then does God not desire every person everywhere that has ever lived to be saved, even if he allows reasons to exist why many are not saved?

 

 

Ok,

 

First of all, let me note that I am saying we cannot simply assume that 'all men' must mean 'all people everywhere who have ever lived' - my point being that just because you might read like that doesn't mean I will so you can't simply throw this text at me and say, 'look God desires that every person who has lived is saved' - you have to show me why you think it means that.

 

Following on from that therefore your question seems to bear little relevance to the point I'm making - I haven't not addressed it because I thought you were being flippant (I'm not that thin skinned) I haven't addressed it because I don't see it's relevance - for the record I have never used the language of God 'desires' some to be damned - the reality is that his justice demands that sinners are damned, and it is in his grace that he chooses to rescue many from that end - God desires many to be saved, but purposes as a display of his power and glory that some will remain in their lost condition and face the justice we all deserve (Rom 9:14-29)

Edited by reformed baptist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for the record I have never used the language of God 'desires' some to be damned

If there is no one that God desires to be damned, then does God not desire every person everywhere that has ever lived to be saved, even if he allows reasons to exist why many are not saved?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no one that God desires to be damned, then does God not desire every person everywhere that has ever lived to be saved, even if he allows reasons to exist why many are not saved?

 

Again, this is a derailment of the thread which is talking about the need to actually explain why you believe a text supports your position

 

No, lets actually look at what you have said because in my opinion it raises further examples of how not to argue a point :RpS_wink: and that is somewhat relevant to the theme of the thread

 

1) I said:

for the record I have never used the language of God 'desires' some to be damned

From that you have drawn the conclusion that I am saying

If there is no one that God desires to be damned,

I never made that point - to further your position you have manipulated what I have said to try and establish your point and created a straw man.

 

2) You have said:

If there is no one that God desires to be damned, then does God not desire every person everywhere that has ever lived to be saved, even if he allows reasons to exist why many are not saved?

 

This is a logical fallacy - it assumes that because one thing is true something else must be true (we have already seen that the initial statement has not has not be established, merely read in) now I wish to point out that your conclusion is not the only possible one to draw - for example, it might be equally valid to argue, 'God doesn't desire anyone to be damned, he simply doesn't care what happens to them' - on what grounds have you ruled out that conclusion?

 

3) why the bold text - is it like the man who wrote in his notes, 'weak argument, shout and bang the lectern'?

 

Thanks for bearing with me in that little explanation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I never made that point - to further your position you have manipulated what I have said to try and establish your point and created a straw man.

It is not a straw man. I may have committed a logical falacy, but it was never my intent to misrepresent your argument.

 

1 Timothy 2:4 says God "desires all men to be saved". So setting aside the actual words, what are all of the posibilities allowed by 'logic' for God's desire:

A. God desires every single human being who has ever lived to be saved. (In which case there is some reason other than God's 'desire' why some are not saved.)

B. God desires no human beings to be saved. (In which case there is some reason other than God's desire why some people are saved.)

C. God desires some people to be saved and God desires that other people not be saved (In which case some people being saved and some people being damned is exactly the desire of God and we need look for no other reason.)

 

Have I missed a possibility?

 

If not, then the lack of any Biblical support for either (B) or © makes the reading of 1 Timothy 2:4 which agrees with (A) perfectly reasonable and, potentially, the only POSSIBLE interpretation without inserting (B) or © into scripture.

My point is not that 1 Timothy 2:4 disproved Calvinism. My point is that 1 Timothy 2:4 can mean exactly what you claim we must prove exigetically, since it cannot mean anything else [due to lack of scriptural support for (B) and ©].

 

 

2) This is a logical fallacy - it assumes that because one thing is true something else must be true (we have already seen that the initial statement has not has not be established, merely read in) now I wish to point out that your conclusion is not the only possible one to draw - for example, it might be equally valid to argue, 'God doesn't desire anyone to be damned, he simply doesn't care what happens to them' - on what grounds have you ruled out that conclusion?

That is the typical Calvinist response that get's us accused of wimping out and tap dancing around scripture to avoid saying what makes us uncomfortable. If EVERYONE is damned then the act of choosing to save one and not save another makes God the chooser of both the saved and the damned. Why did God choose one person ... because God 'felt like it'. Why did God not choose another ... because God 'felt like it'. To argue that one is GOD'S DESIRE and the other is GOD'S INDIFFERENCE is to reduce the discussion to splitting semantic hairs.

 

PS. Indifference is not typically held up as a character trait of God.

 

3) why the bold text - is it like the man who wrote in his notes, 'weak argument, shout and bang the lectern'?

Nothing so fancy. I just quoted from both your post and mine and it was easiest to change my self quote to SOMETHING else that would use the brackets to avoid a post with no words (which the BBS software would reject). I should probably have chosen italics rather than bold

 

Thanks for bearing with me in that little explanation.

No problem.

Actually, I am Reformed Baptist in my theology myself. I just wanted to attempt to offer some counterpoint to your OP that was not a personal argument.

I am a little disappointed that you have focused so hard on the "argument from Logic" (which was not all that strong and at its simplest amounts to 'there is no biblical evidence for any other logical conclusion' (which is a bit of an argument from silence), while ignoring the actual exegetical argument I presented based on the context of 1 Timothy 2:1-4.

 

You seem to have been looking for something very specific and narrow in focus ... so I am inclined to bow out and leave someone else to give you whatever it is that you are looking for.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be interested in what verse you are referring to?

2 Pet 3:8-10 (KJV)

 

 

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If you believe eternal security is biblical then this verse can only mean all people!

 

'The Calvinist' is the subject of the sentence, therefore the pronoun 'his' must refer back to this antecedent, ie 'the Calvinist' -

This is what I thought but wanted to make sure

 

.

If it 2 pet 3:9 I would be very interested in knowing what version you are using because the word 'man' isn't there. The text reads: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." The question here is, who are the 'any' that God is not willing should perish?

man (anthropos) is assumed because we are the only ones who perish on earth.

 

It can't be 'all people everywhere who have ever lived' because God word is clear that he accomplishes everything he wills (Eph 1:11) if it is God's will that no one perishes, and if he accomplishes all that he wills - then why do some perish?

No, the 'nay' must refer to a different group - happily we are not left to guess at who that group his - we simply have the follow the pronouns - the 'us' which traces back to antecedent 'beloved' - Paul is addressing believers and he says to them that God is not willing that any of us should perish.

Two mistakes. One : the meaning of willing. it is boulamai and while its primary use is will or intent it is also meant as desire as well. Given that the rest of the passage is that ALL should (potentiality) come to repentance- all refers to Gods desire that none should perish which corresponds to many passages that says God so loved the world and the invitation by Jesus of all to come who thirst(which we know only the elect come.

2) the beloved have already come to repentance in the soteriological sense!

 

As for the reference from the OT I believe your referring to Ezekiel 18:23, well in context this is a call to repentance addressed to the people of God, rather then it being a general soteriological truth like Romans 9:21-23 in which we see clearly that God has prepared certain 'vessels' for wrath, so that he might be glorified and make his power known.

Well the wicked would not be saved! and He has no delight in their death! Israel was His covenant people, but not all were saved.

 

Hold on a minute, that's an assertion that you then go on to draw a conclusion from without first establishing the assertion from scripture - can you demonstrate from scripture that God's 'desire' differs to his 'will'?

Did- the context of 2 Peter! The beloved have already come to repentance any is an indefinite[ pronoun here which means there is no limit and would be just as correct translated as anyone at all.

 

Again my friend, the text doesn't say that - you are reading your a priori assumption into it. the phrase 'all men' is not found in John 3:16, the phrase is 'the world' ( τὸν κόσμον) you can't simply jump from one phrase to another and assume they are synonymous - if you believe 'the world' refers to 'all men' on this occasion you have to prove it

 

\

​​​​​​​Actually it is you that is making the apriori assumption. You are declaring that world here is the least used usage meaning just a particular group. So it is you that must make the case why it wold be that in light of the fact that Jesus also uses whosoever believes which directly shows that some will not (how is that so if He is referring to teh elect???)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is certainly true that God has a love for the whole of creation, that includes every man, women and child but that does not mean that he loves all equally. Why would God's love be so one dimensional, when our love (which is based upon his) is far more nuanced - I love my wife, I love my children, I love my wider family, I love my church, I love my fellow believers beyond my fellowship, I love the lost and, above of I love God, and whilst those loves all share things in common there is also something different about each one - I don't love my wife in the same way as I love the down and out on the street. I love them both, but the love is different. If, I as a fallen human being am capable of loving in dimensions, why must God's love be one dimensional.

 

Well as I never even implied god's love is one dimensional- this is all irrelevant! I just know He loved mankind in such a way that He sent His son to die for all mans sins so that anyone who believes will not perish. The construct cannot allow for this referring to just the elect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The construct cannot allow for this referring to just the elect.

 

Are you a monergist? Just curious, who believes and why? Lastly, whoever does not believe is condemned already. What does that mean?

  • John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

There are a few ways in which I understand various people to interpret John 3:16:

 

1) World means all people without exception. The arguments says, God loves every person, died for all persons therefore making salvation possible.

2) World means all people without distinction. The death of Christ on the cross was not only for Jews but also for Gentiles.

3) World means the elect. The emphasis is on God's particularity of His grace: John 6:37; 10:14-18; 15:9; 17:9.

4) World means quality of God's love. The world represents sinful humanity and is not worthy of God’s saving love.

 

Hope this helps.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The construct cannot allow for this referring to just the elect.

 

Are you a monergist? Just curious, who believes and why? Lastly, whoever does not believe is condemned already. What does that mean?

  • John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

There are a few ways in which I understand various people to interpret John 3:16:

 

1) World means all people without exception. The arguments says, God loves every person, died for all persons therefore making salvation possible.

2) World means all people without distinction. The death of Christ on the cross was not only for Jews but also for Gentiles.

3) World means the elect. The emphasis is on God's particularity of His grace: John 6:37; 10:14-18; 15:9; 17:9.

4) World means quality of God's love. The world represents sinful humanity and is not worthy of God’s saving love.

 

Hope this helps.

 

God bless,

William

Yes I am a monergist.

 

Those who believe are the ones drawn to Christ by the Father.

 

Whoever does not believe refers to the unelect. Though the elect are saved before the foundation of the world- we were still in a list state until the moment we exercised the faith given us to turn to Christ!

 

I believe in 1 and 2 for JOhn 3 as they are synonymous! It cannot refer to the elect alone for there is the reality of potentiality in this passage. The elect will come to Christ. I think too many of us read too much onto this simple declaration While it is an extraordinary powerful statement, it still is a simple statement.

 

It is not declaring how or who or why or whenh people get saved- it just says that whoever (anyone) and that they might be saved (Aorist passive subjunctive.) Which only holdsd an undefined possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I am a monergist... Those who believe are the ones drawn to Christ by the Father.

 

Which comes first, regeneration or faith?

 

Whoever does not believe refers to the unelect. Though the elect are saved before the foundation of the world- we were still in a list state until the moment we exercised the faith given us to turn to Christ!

 

Did the elect always believe? Or were some called later and their unbelief forgiven? If the elect's unbelief is forgiven, and Christ Jesus died for the sins of all men then why is not the sin of unbelief forgiven in all men without exception (Universalism)?

 

I believe in 1 and 2 for JOhn 3 as they are synonymous! It cannot refer to the elect alone for there is the reality of potentiality in this passage. The elect will come to Christ. I think too many of us read too much onto this simple declaration While it is an extraordinary powerful statement, it still is a simple statement.

 

They are not synonymous. However, having a superficial understanding of them may lead one to that conclusion.

 

There's a difference between Christ dying for everyone without exception and the elect from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Just as there is a difference between the atonement being sufficient for the whole world and efficient for the elect only.

 

In 1 John 2:1–2, the apostle is saying that Christ’s defense before God is so complete that it is sufficient for the sins of the world. He is also saying that the sacrifice Christ made was not only for the Jews or for a small group of first-century believers, but for people of every tribe, tongue, and nation through all time. John Murray speaks about the ethnic universalism of the gospel, meaning that those for whom Christ died are spread among all nations. Abraham Kuyper shows that the Greek word translated “for” (peri, not hyper) means “fitting for” or “with respect to.” Hence, the meaning of the Greek can be that Jesus is a propitiation just like we and the entire world need—or, just as Jesus is our propitiation, so the entire world needs that same propitiation.

 

It is not declaring how or who or why or whenh people get saved- it just says that whoever (anyone) and that they might be saved (Aorist passive subjunctive.) Which only holdsd an undefined possibility.

 

I reject number 1 and believe points 2 through 4 are truthful. D.A. Carson writes "On this axis, God’s love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect." All this is saying, at least in Carson's view, is that God does have some "type of love" for the world as He does for the elect. Notice what he is not saying ... that this "love" that God has for the "world" is the same "salvific love (penal-substitution)" he has for his elect. This is the problem with Arminian "theology" - it flattens out the love of God and does not make a distinction in God's love - as the Scriptures do.

 

Lemme ask you something else as I am curious. From a systematic standpoint, I take it that you agree with the Protestant pillars known as the five sola? My question is this, if the five sola are true and any interpretation of scripture finds any of them at fault is it best to reject that interpretation? Is that an unreasonable point of view?

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I am a monergist... Those who believe are the ones drawn to Christ by the Father.

 

Which comes first, regeneration or faith?

 

Whoever does not believe refers to the unelect. Though the elect are saved before the foundation of the world- we were still in a list state until the moment we exercised the faith given us to turn to Christ!

 

Did the elect always believe? Or were some called later and their unbelief forgiven? If the elect's unbelief is forgiven, and Christ Jesus died for the sins of all men then why is not the sin of unbelief forgiven in all men without exception (Universalism)?

 

I believe in 1 and 2 for JOhn 3 as they are synonymous! It cannot refer to the elect alone for there is the reality of potentiality in this passage. The elect will come to Christ. I think too many of us read too much onto this simple declaration While it is an extraordinary powerful statement, it still is a simple statement.

 

They are not synonymous. However, having a superficial understanding of them may lead one to that conclusion.

 

There's a difference between Christ dying for everyone without exception and the elect from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Just as there is a difference between the atonement being sufficient for the whole world and efficient for the elect only.

 

In 1 John 2:1–2, the apostle is saying that Christ’s defense before God is so complete that it is sufficient for the sins of the world. He is also saying that the sacrifice Christ made was not only for the Jews or for a small group of first-century believers, but for people of every tribe, tongue, and nation through all time. John Murray speaks about the ethnic universalism of the gospel, meaning that those for whom Christ died are spread among all nations. Abraham Kuyper shows that the Greek word translated “for” (peri, not hyper) means “fitting for” or “with respect to.” Hence, the meaning of the Greek can be that Jesus is a propitiation just like we and the entire world need—or, just as Jesus is our propitiation, so the entire world needs that same propitiation.

 

It is not declaring how or who or why or whenh people get saved- it just says that whoever (anyone) and that they might be saved (Aorist passive subjunctive.) Which only holdsd an undefined possibility.

 

I reject number 1 and believe points 2 through 4 are truthful. D.A. Carson writes "On this axis, God’s love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect." All this is saying, at least in Carson's view, is that God does have some "type of love" for the world as He does for the elect. Notice what he is not saying ... that this "love" that God has for the "world" is the same "salvific love (penal-substitution)" he has for his elect. This is the problem with Arminian "theology" - it flattens out the love of God and does not make a distinction in God's love - as the Scriptures do.

 

Lemme ask you something else as I am curious. From a systematic standpoint, I take it that you agree with the Protestant pillars known as the five sola? My question is this, if the five sola are true and any interpretation of scripture finds any of them at fault is it best to reject that interpretation? Is that an unreasonable point of view?

 

God bless,

William

You ad-hominems are not so subtle. they only make you appear to have an aura of smugness. A teacher is one who must patiently teach not cast subtle insults.

 

One and 2 are synonymous from the perspective is that when you include Jew and Gentile then it is without distinction and without exception for if one is not a Jew they are a gentile and that means all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I am a monergist... Those who believe are the ones drawn to Christ by the Father.

 

Which comes first, regeneration or faith?

 

Whoever does not believe refers to the unelect. Though the elect are saved before the foundation of the world- we were still in a list state until the moment we exercised the faith given us to turn to Christ!

 

Did the elect always believe? Or were some called later and their unbelief forgiven? If the elect's unbelief is forgiven, and Christ Jesus died for the sins of all men then why is not the sin of unbelief forgiven in all men without exception (Universalism)?

 

I believe in 1 and 2 for JOhn 3 as they are synonymous! It cannot refer to the elect alone for there is the reality of potentiality in this passage. The elect will come to Christ. I think too many of us read too much onto this simple declaration While it is an extraordinary powerful statement, it still is a simple statement.

 

They are not synonymous. However, having a superficial understanding of them may lead one to that conclusion.

 

There's a difference between Christ dying for everyone without exception and the elect from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Just as there is a difference between the atonement being sufficient for the whole world and efficient for the elect only.

 

In 1 John 2:1–2, the apostle is saying that Christ’s defense before God is so complete that it is sufficient for the sins of the world. He is also saying that the sacrifice Christ made was not only for the Jews or for a small group of first-century believers, but for people of every tribe, tongue, and nation through all time. John Murray speaks about the ethnic universalism of the gospel, meaning that those for whom Christ died are spread among all nations. Abraham Kuyper shows that the Greek word translated “for” (peri, not hyper) means “fitting for” or “with respect to.” Hence, the meaning of the Greek can be that Jesus is a propitiation just like we and the entire world need—or, just as Jesus is our propitiation, so the entire world needs that same propitiation.

 

It is not declaring how or who or why or whenh people get saved- it just says that whoever (anyone) and that they might be saved (Aorist passive subjunctive.) Which only holdsd an undefined possibility.

 

I reject number 1 and believe points 2 through 4 are truthful. D.A. Carson writes "On this axis, God’s love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect." All this is saying, at least in Carson's view, is that God does have some "type of love" for the world as He does for the elect. Notice what he is not saying ... that this "love" that God has for the "world" is the same "salvific love (penal-substitution)" he has for his elect. This is the problem with Arminian "theology" - it flattens out the love of God and does not make a distinction in God's love - as the Scriptures do.

 

Lemme ask you something else as I am curious. From a systematic standpoint, I take it that you agree with the Protestant pillars known as the five sola? My question is this, if the five sola are true and any interpretation of scripture finds any of them at fault is it best to reject that interpretation? Is that an unreasonable point of view?

 

God bless,

William

Answer the questions. And I never suggested that I hold the office of teacher, but I sincerely question your self proclaimed status of teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×