# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  In The Bible, ALL Does Not Mean ALL And WORLD Does Not Mean WORLD

## Sola_Fide

I will be quoting from the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon




> _Pas_,Adjective
> 
> *Definition*
> 
> individually, each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything collectively, some of all types
> 
> "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? 
> 
> "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? 
> ...


All does not mean "every single person".  And world does not mean "every single person in the world".  

I want to leave this thread open for people to post Scripture verses that give examples of this Greek word usage.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Link to Lexicon: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...k/nas/pas.html

----------


## Brett85

Um, I'm pretty sure that some of the words listed mean "every single person," and there's no reason to believe that those words aren't the meaning of this Greek word in the verses that we cite.

*Each, every, all, the whole, everyone, all things*,

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Um, I'm pretty sure that some of the words listed mean "every single person," and there's no reason to believe that those words aren't the meaning of this Greek word in the verses that we cite.
> 
> *Each, every, all, the whole, everyone, all things*,


That's right TC!  So, do you know how we decipher what _pas_ means in any given verse?  *Context.*  The word _pas_ is qualified by the context of what is being described.   

Very soon, I'll post some examples so that it will be easier to understand.

----------


## Brett85

> That's right TC!  So, do you know how we decipher what _pas_ means in any given verse?  *Context.*  The word _pas_ is qualified by the context of what is being described.   
> 
> Very soon, I'll post some examples so that it will be easier to understand.


And you're saying that every translation of the Bible is wrong and interpreted this Greek word incorrectly in these verses, and only you know the correct interpretation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's right TC!  So, do you know how we decipher what _pas_ means in any given verse?  *Context.*  The word _pas_ is qualified by the context of what is being described.   
> 
> Very soon, I'll post some examples so that it will be easier to understand.


I agree with you on the election issue and I don't know any of this Greek either.  Maybe I should study it.  I know my dad looks at the Greek  of the passage he preaches every week, but I don't really know any of it.

----------


## Brett85

> I agree with you on the election issue and I don't know any of this Greek either.  Maybe I should study it.  I know my dad looks at the Greek  of the passage he preaches every week, but I don't really know any of it.


Is your dad a Calvinist as well?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And you're saying that every translation of the Bible is wrong and interpreted this Greek word incorrectly in these verses, and only you know the correct interpretation.


Sometimes there is no exact interpretation.

There are a lot of theologians who agree with us on election so I do not see your point.

Frankly, I think you are just hostile to the idea that you don't have control over your salvation and that God "hated" the non-elect.  I've been there, but you have to put the Bible above your personal feelings.  The word "All" still does not mean "every single thing ever."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is your dad a Calvinist as well?


Yes.  He became one several years ago after studying the scriptures on the issue.  I was a much later convert.  If you look at some of my earliest posts here (Back in early 2013) I still had some Arminianism in my thinking.  I've leaned toward the Calvinistic view for awhile, but in July I was really awakened to its importance because of something personal that happened in my life.

----------


## Brett85

> The word "All" still does not mean "every single thing ever."


Then there simply isn't any word in the English language that could ever describe "every single person in the world."

----------


## jmdrake

Solo_Fide: So do you believe that the admonition in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 to "pray for all men" is really a admonition to "pray for all kinds of men"?  So as long as you pray for at least one Jew and one Gentile you have followed the admonition?  Because...otherwise...your argument makes no sense.  (Your theological arguments rarely do.)

----------


## Terry1

> I will be quoting from the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
> 
> 
> 
> All does not mean "every single person".  And world does not mean "every single person in the world".  
> 
> I want to leave this thread open for people to post Scripture verses that give examples of this Greek word usage.



*John 3:16  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.* 

I'm actually very thankful that you brought this subject up Sola.  Because never more is there another scripture that so clearly demonstrates Gods love for all and His desire that all should be believe in Him and obtain eternal life.

Examine this scripture again and see that it says clearly 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, *that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 
*

*"Whoever"* meaning anyone who chooses to believe---those who choose God". * "For God so loved the world"*

Sola, with all due respect, you are in direct opposition to what God is telling you.  People are blotted from The Book of Life and remembered no more by God because they chose not to believe and not because God did not choose them.  God is clearly telling you that He loved the world so very much that He sent his only begotten Son to save the world, not just some, but the "world" means all people.

Read Matthew 18:

*The Parable of the Lost Sheep*

10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.  11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.[a]

12 “What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying?  13 And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.  *14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish*

Jesus told us that the only way to enter the Kingdom of heaven is to become as "little children".  Meaning without blame and innocent by and through belief and faith.  This it is not the will of God that one should perish.  

We have a choice.  We are not puppets. God gave us a choice for His reasons that we should love Him enough to understand how much He loves us and wants all of His children.  "Whoever believes and continues to believe by showing evidence of that through their work of faith, which is exactly what He tells us over and over and over again throughout the New Testament.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *John 3:16  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.* 
> 
> I'm actually very thankful that you brought this subject up Sola.  Because never more is there another scripture that so clearly demonstrates Gods love for all and His desire that all should be believe in Him and obtain eternal life.
> 
> Examine this scripture again and see that it says clearly 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, *that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 
> *
> 
> *"Whoever"* meaning anyone who chooses to believe---those who choose God". * "For God so loved the world"*
> 
> ...



Haha....it doesn't matter how big you make the letters.  _Pas ho pisteuwn_ does not mean "whosoever".  It means "every one who believes" or "the believing ones".  God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son in order that the believing ones would have eternal life.  There is particularity in John 3:16.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The Greek word for "world" in the New Testament is "_Kosmos_".  There is at least 7 different ways it is used in the New Testament:



1. * "Kosmos" is used of the Universe as a whole:* Acts 17: 24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth." is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth."

2. * "Kosmos" is used of the earth*: John 13:1; Eph. 1:4, etc., etc.- "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end." "Depart out of this world" signifies, leave this earth. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." This expression signifies, before the earth was founded—compare Job 38:4 etc.

3.  *"Kosmos" is used of the world-system:* John 12:31 etc. "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out"— compare Matt. 4:8 and I John 5:19, R. V.

4.  *"Kosmos" is used of the whole human race*: Rom. 3: 19, etc.—"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

5.  *"Kosmos" is used of humanity minus believers:* John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view. is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.

6. *"Kosmos" is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews:* Rom. 11:12 etc. "Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness." Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, "the world" cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

7. *"Kosmos" is used of believers only:* John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place. is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place.

----------


## Terry1

> Haha....it doesn't matter how big you make the letters.  _Pas ho pisteuwn_ does not mean "whosoever".  It means "every one who believes" or "the believing ones".  God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son in order that the believing ones would have eternal life.  There is particularity in John 3:16.


Your original point in question was that you claimed God did not come to save the entire world.  Gods word says otherwise as was illustrated for you.  Intentionally changing the narrative of your original point does not change the truth.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your original point in question was that you claimed God did not come to save the entire world.  Gods word says otherwise as was illustrated for you.  Intentionally changing the narrative of your original point does not change the truth.


Save the ..."world"?  Oh, you mean_ Kosmos_, right?  

Well since there are at least 7 different ways _kosmos_ is used in the New Testament, which sense do you mean?

----------


## Terry1

> Save the ..."world"?  Oh, you mean_ Kosmos_, right?  
> 
> Well since there are at least 7 different ways _kosmos_ is used in the New Testament, which sense do you mean?


I have to give ya credit Sola, you do have a way with words when it comes to supporting what you choose to believe.  The God I know, tells me He came to save the world, I'm pretty sure He meant the one mankind lives in and on. LOL

----------


## otherone

> Save the ..."world"?  Oh, you mean_ Kosmos_, right?  
> 
> Well since there are at least 7 different ways _kosmos_ is used in the New Testament, which sense do you mean?

----------


## Dr.3D

To quote someone we all know, "It all depends on what the meaning of is is."

----------


## jmdrake

> Haha....it doesn't matter how big you make the letters.  _Pas ho pisteuwn_ does not mean "whosoever".  It means "every one who believes" or "the believing ones".  God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son in order that the believing ones would have eternal life.  There is particularity in John 3:16.


So, you only pray for believers then Sola_Fide?  You never answered that question.  If you're scared, say you're scared.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


If you think that this is just semantics or something like that, then you have no respect for the Word of God and have no desire to be a student of it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, you only pray for believers then Sola_Fide?  You never answered that question.  If you're scared, say you're scared.


Why would I do that?

----------


## Brett85

> If you think that this is just semantics or something like that, then you have no respect for the Word of God and have no desire to be a student of it.


Well, that's what it is.  You're just giving absurd explanations for words and verses that clearly refute your doctrine.

----------


## otherone

> Well, that's what it is.  You're just giving absurd explanations for words and verses that clearly refute your doctrine.


It's called "equivocation".  It's an informal fallacy.  Apparently,the Word of God is reliant on parsing language...unless I'm using the wrong meaning of "word"? 

*word*
_noun \ˈwərd\
: a sound or combination of sounds that has a meaning and is spoken or written
: a brief remark or conversation : something that a person says
: an order or command_

or maybe we should reference the Koine English?:
_: well said
: said in a agreement
: a greeting, "hey whats up"_ 

It's all so confusing...

----------


## jmdrake

> Why would I do that?


Why would you do what?  Answer the question?  Because intellectual honesty demands it.  You can't pretend "all" does not mean "all" in one context and then pretend "all" means "all" in a different context *in the same verse*.  And if you don't want to answer the question because you are afraid of admitting that you might be wrong, just man up and say it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, that's what it is.  You're just giving absurd explanations for words and verses that clearly refute your doctrine.



Absurd?  Okay, let's see what is absurd.

Paul says in Romans 7:8:



> *8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting.*


There's that Greek word again, _pas_.  So does that mean Paul experienced EVERY SINGLE kind of coveting there could be?  Did Paul covet the Samsung Note 2 I just bought?  Did Paul covet my Holiday Inn Express rewards points?  

Who has the absurd interpretation here?   ALL does not mean ALL.

----------


## Sola_Fide

_Kosmos_ does not mean "all without exception".  Here is more proof:




> *John 17:9
> 
> I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.*


If world means "all men without exception", does Jesus refuse to pray for all men _(kosmos)_?  That can't possibly be.  _Kosmos_ does not mean "all without exception" here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

_Kosmos_ does not mean all without exception:




> *John 6:33
> 
> For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.*


If world means "all men without exception", why do not all men have life?

----------


## Brett85

Is there any word that could ever be used that you think would describe "every single person in the entire world?"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is there any word that could ever be used that you think would describe "every single person in the entire world?"


Yes.  _Pas_ can mean that.  But to the writers of the New Testament, in the Greek of the day, _pas_ was almost never used in that way.  To quote the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon:




> The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. 
> 
> The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes.  _Pas_ can mean that.  But to the writers of the New Testament, in the Greek of the day, _pas_ was almost never used in that way.  To quote the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon:


So there isn't a Greek word that actually means "all" every time it's used.  So if the men in the Bible who wrote the inspired word of God wanted to use language to describe every single person in the entire world, it would simply be impossible for them to do so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

World does not mean "every single person without exception":




> *John 12:17-19
> 
> Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word.  Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him.  So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”*


Did every single person without exception go after Christ?  Of course not!  The Pharisees in that very verse didn't go after him.  

ALL does not mean ALL.  WORLD does not mean WORLD.  You cannot read the Bible like a 21st century American, you must read it like a 1st century Grecian.

----------


## Brett85

> *ALL does not mean ALL.  WORLD does not mean WORLD.*  You cannot read the Bible like a 21st century American, you must read it like a 1st century Grecian.


Lol.  Then there simply isn't any word that describes "every single person in the entire world."  That word apparently just doesn't exist.

----------


## otherone

> You cannot read the Bible like a 21st century American, you must read it like a 1st century Grecian.


Is this your opinion, or a quote from scriptures?

----------


## erowe1

> Lol.  Then there simply isn't any word that describes "every single person in the entire world."  That word apparently just doesn't exist.


There is no word that means that every time it's used, no matter what the context is.

We don't have a word that does that in English either. I doubt any language does. This really isn't about Greek. It's just how language works.

----------


## erowe1

> You cannot read the Bible like a 21st century American, you must read it like a 1st century Grecian.


This is unnecessary to say. Even for 21st century Americans, words like "all" get used for less than all all the time (

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes.  He became one several years ago after studying the scriptures on the issue.  I was a much later convert.  If you look at some of my earliest posts here (Back in early 2013) I still had some Arminianism in my thinking.  I've leaned toward the Calvinistic view for awhile, but in July I was really awakened to its importance because of something personal that happened in my life.


I'll fix you before you're 30.  Your brain has much growing and learning to do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There is no word that means that every time it's used, no matter what the context is.
> 
> We don't have a word that does that in English either. I doubt any language does. This really isn't about Greek. It's just how language works.





> This is unnecessary to say. Even for 21st century Americans, words like "all" get used for less than all all the time (<see what I did there?).


I was hoping you would contribute to this thread Erowe1.  Thank you.  And yes, I agree.

----------


## Brett85

> 


Sola Fide would make a good politician or lawyer.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is no word that means that every time it's used, no matter what the context is.
> 
> We don't have a word that does that in English either. I doubt any language does. This really isn't about Greek. It's just how language works.


Russian has "все", which means "all" or "everyone".  It can have the widest meaning possible ("everyone in the world"), or more narrow meanings like "everyone was at the party".  I imagine a few other indo-European languages have something like this, as well as the oriental languages

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sola Fide would make a good politician or lawyer.


 LOLZ so true... 


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Traditional Conservative again.


 Sorry.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Russian has "все", which means "all" or "everyone".  It can have the widest meaning possible ("everyone in the world"), or more narrow meanings like "everyone was at the party".  I imagine a few other indo-European languages have something like this, as well as the oriental languages


Great example.   Thanks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why would you do what?  Answer the question?  Because intellectual honesty demands it.  You can't pretend "all" does not mean "all" in one context and then pretend "all" means "all" in a different context *in the same verse*.  And if you don't want to answer the question because you are afraid of admitting that you might be wrong, just man up and say it.


Could you elaborate?   What verse are we talking about?

----------


## TER

> World does not mean "every single person without exception":
> 
> 
> 
> Did every single person without exception go after Christ?  Of course not!  The Pharisees in that very verse didn't go after him.  
> 
> ALL does not mean ALL.  WORLD does not mean WORLD.  You cannot read the Bible like a 21st century American, you must read it like a 1st century Grecian.


Sooooo, you think you know the Greek understanding of the word and the context of the word better then the GREEK Fathers of the early Church?  Or do you just believe that all the saints of the early Church were wrong until you came to educate them?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sooooo, you think you know the Greek understanding of the word and the context of the word better then the GREEK Fathers of the early Church?  Or do you just believe that all the saints of the early Church were wrong until you came to educate them?



What does _ pas ho pisteuwn_  mean in John 3:16?

I've asked you this question 3 times now and you haven't answered me.

----------


## otherone

> Sooooo, you think you know the Greek understanding of the word and the context of the word better then the GREEK Fathers of the early Church?  Or do you just believe that all the saints of the early Church were wrong until you came to educate them?


In post #38 he changed his position and agreed that knowledge of Greek is unimportant in understanding context.

----------


## TER

> What does _ pas ho pisteuwn_  mean in John 3:16?
> 
> I've asked you this question 3 times now and you haven't answered me.


"All who believe", that is, whoever *WILLS* to believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In post #38 he changed his position and agreed that knowledge of Greek is unimportant in understanding context.


In regards to every language having differing senses for all, yes.  But as far as being a serious student of the Bible, you MUST understand Koine Greek to some degree or you will be very deficient, and easily led into error.

----------


## TER

> In regards to every language having differing senses for all, yes.  But as far as being a serious student of the Bible, you MUST understand Koine Greek to some degree or you will be very deficient, and easily led into error.


So when did your Koine Greek become better then the Koine Greek of the early Christians?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "All who believe", that is, whoever *WILLS* to believe.


1.  Thank you!  _pas ho pisteuwn_ means "every believing one" or "every one believing".  It DOES NOT mean "whosoever".  

2.  There is the hina clause in the verse, the "so that", "in order that" right in the middle.  God gave His son, SO THAT.  God gave His Son, IN ORDER THAT.

John 3:16 says nothing about who has the ability to believe!  All it says is that God gave His Son so that the believing ones would have eternal life.

----------


## otherone

> In regards to every language having differing senses for all, yes.  But as far as being a serious student of the Bible, you MUST understand Koine Greek to some degree or you will be very deficient, and easily led into error.



It seems that what you are saying is that knowledge of Greek is a requirement for understanding scripture.

----------


## Brett85

> 1.  Thank you!  _pas ho pisteuwn_ means "every believing one" or "every one believing".  It DOES NOT mean "whosoever".


Then I guess you're just a whole lot smarter than all of the Bible translators.

----------


## TER

> 1.  Thank you!  _pas ho pisteuwn_ means "every believing one" or "every one believing".  It DOES NOT mean "whosoever".  
> 
> 2.  There is the hina clause in the verse, the "so that", "in order that" right in the middle.  God gave His son, SO THAT.  God gave His Son, IN ORDER THAT.
> 
> John 3:16 says nothing about who has the ability to believe!  All it says is that God gave His Son so that the believing ones would have eternal life.


It doesn't have anything to do with predestination..  You are simply inferring that (wrongly).  I am at work and would love to continue this right now but things just got a little hectic and I have to go.   Will try to respond later.

----------


## erowe1

> Then I guess you're just a whole lot smarter than *all* of the Bible translators.


That's a great illustration of the use of the word "all."

Notice the variations.

http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16

The language of the Bible isn't a special Holy Ghost language. When the Bible's authors use the word "all," they do they same thing you just did.

By the way, so do the Greek Church Fathers.

----------


## Brett85

> That's a great illustration of the use of the word "all."
> 
> Notice the variations.
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16
> 
> The language of the Bible isn't a special Holy Ghost language. When the Bible's authors use the word "all," they do they same thing you just did.


And like I said before, according to you there's no way that God could've communicated to us through those who wrote the Bible that Christ died for everyone, since there literally isn't any word in the English language that refers to "every person in the entire world."  You just eliminate the possibility for the idea that Christ died for everyone by saying that the word that would describe that simply doesn't exist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's a great illustration of the use of the word "all."
> 
> Notice the variations.
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16
> 
> The language of the Bible isn't a special Holy Ghost language. When the Bible's authors use the word "all," they do they same thing you just did.
> 
> By the way, so do the Greek Church Fathers.



WOW.  Nice catch!

----------


## erowe1

> And like I said before, according to you there's no way that God could've communicated to us through those who wrote the Bible that Christ died for everyone, since there literally isn't any word in the English language that refers to "every person in the entire world."  You just eliminate the possibility for the idea that Christ died for everyone by saying that the word that would describe that simply doesn't exist.


I'm not saying there's no way God could say that. But it's true that there's no word in Greek or English or any other language that always means "every single person in the entire world" in every single context and is not susceptible to having other meanings.

This is not just according to me. It's an irrefutable fact.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'll fix you before you're 30.  Your brain has much growing and learning to do.


As one of God's Elect, I cannot ever go from believing a true gospel to a false gospel.  God will protect me from such heresies.



> Sola Fide would make a good politician or lawyer.


I'd support Sola for congress in a heartbeat.  I know he'd stick up for our liberties every time AND do it in a way that would make it virtually impossible for the red-state fascist "Christians" to call him a "libertine" or "God-hater" or whatever.



> I'm not saying there's no way God could say that. But it's true that there's no word in Greek or English or any other language that always means "every single person in the entire world" in every single context and is not susceptible to having other meanings.
> 
> This is not just according to me. It's an irrefutable fact.


Why not just the Greek words for "every single person in the entire world?"

----------


## Brett85

> Why not just the Greek words for "every single person in the entire world?"


Because they're not going to go to the trouble to write 7 words when it can be described with one word.

----------


## erowe1

> Because they're not going to go to the trouble to write 7 words when it can be described with one word.


But it can't. There is no one word that can serve as the kind of silver bullet you're trying to make "all" into.

----------


## Brett85

> But it can't. There is no one word that can serve as the kind of silver bullet you're trying to make "all" into.


There are at least certain times where "all" means everyone in the whole world.  That's generally what it means, unless there is some kind of context that shows otherwise.

----------


## Dr.3D

all - elements of the set
some - elements of the set
none - of the element of the set

Ever do set mathmatics?

Seems like if they didn't mean all they would have said some or none.

----------


## erowe1

> There are at least certain times where "all" means everyone in the whole world.


Right. But unless it always means that, you can't just point to the word "all" and say that settles it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As one of God's Elect, I cannot ever go from believing a true gospel to a false gospel.  God will protect me from such heresies.


I've read your posts-you don't believe in the true Gospel.  You believe what your subjective opinion of the gospel is.  You shouldn't have such unrealistic expectations of yourself.  You're 18 and still have a LOT of studying to do.  Till then, you'll have to rely on the Church Fathers.

ETA:  How do you _know_ you're one of The Elect?  You don't believe in the Universal Church, which is directly in violation of the Nicene Creed-about as authoritative as Christian literature gets.   You also reject huge swaths of doctrine taught by the apostles. 
ETA 2: See also Gallatians 3:26-28, Romans 6:3.  Unless you've had a valid baptism in the sense Paul means it (in the Universal Church), you can't be saved.

----------


## Brett85

> Right. But unless it always means that, you can't just point to the word "all" and say that settles it.


There's no context in any of these verses that show that "all" doesn't refer to all people.  There has to be something specifically mentioned for the word "all" to mean something other than all of the people in the world.  For example:

"There was a party of 500 people that lasted all night.  In the morning, all were very tired."

I don't see any such context in the verses that we cite.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> all - elements of the set
> some - elements of the set
> none - of the element of the set
> 
> Ever do set mathmatics?
> 
> Seems like if they didn't mean all they would have said some or none.


Set mathematics gives me headaches and nightmares...

----------


## erowe1

> There's no context in any of these verses that show that "all" doesn't refer to all people.


You seem to be trying not to accept the burden of proof. If you want to point to those verses as proof texts that he died for every single person in the world, then you're the one who has to show how "all" must mean that in those contexts. Otherwise, they don't prove it. The simple use of a word like "all" is not enough.




> There has to be something specifically mentioned for the word "all" to mean something other than all of the people in the world.


That is definitely not true. Even in your own example here, "all" doesn't have to mean every last one of those 500 people that you mentioned.

----------


## Brett85

> That is definitely not true. Even in your own example here, "all" doesn't have to mean all 500 of those 500 people that you specifically mentioned.


Huh?  How so?

----------


## erowe1

> Huh?  How so?


It would be a perfectly normal use of the word "all" if somebody said "all" and was merely expressing a generality. We all do that all the time (

You yourself referred to "all translators" in post 52, but you didn't really mean all of them. You're trying to apply a rule to the Bible's use of all that doesn't exist and that you yourself don't follow.

----------


## Brett85

> You yourself referred to "all translators" in post 52, but you didn't really mean all of them.


No, I was just wrong about that.  I didn't mean that only about half of the translations saying that actually means "all."  I just thought they all said that and was wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I was just wrong about that.  I didn't mean that only about half of the translations saying that actually means "all."  I just thought they all said that and was wrong.


Interesting. But if you were to take some time to inspect your own actual usage of the word "all," whether by searching for its occurrences in posts here or in any other context, I bet that you will still find that your tendency is not to use it with the rigidity that you are insisting it must have.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It would be a perfectly normal use of the word "all" if somebody said "all" and was merely expressing a generality. We all do that all the time (<see what I just did?).


Yes.

----------


## eduardo89

> As one of God's Elect, I cannot ever go from believing a true gospel to a false gospel.


Wow, the arrogance and pride is this statement is astounding, but not surprising given you're a Calvinist.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wow, the arrogance and pride is this statement is astounding, but not surprising given you're a Calvinist.


+rep

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wow, the arrogance and pride is this statement is astounding, but not surprising given you're a Calvinist.


I would caution him the same thing Paul said.  Examine yourself,  whether you be in the faith or not.

But technically, he is right.   When God regenerates a man, He gives that man faith and assurance.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow, the arrogance and pride is this statement is astounding, but not surprising given you're a Calvinist.


It would only be pride if I thought it was anything within myself that makes it impossible for me to turn to a false gospel.  But it is not.  I am dead, and it is Christ who lives in me, thus, by Christ's power and Christ's alone I am unable to reject him, because he has caused the destruction of my old self and made me a new creature in Christ.  In my natural state, I always rejected God, but God saved me.

It is you who are arrogant, because you believe your salvation depends on your own choices and works.  I cannot come up with words to describe how filthy and prideful YOUR belief system is.

Frankly, that you would accuse me of this is laughable and blatantly illogical.




> I would caution him the same thing Paul said.  Examine yourself,  whether you be in the faith or not.


I have.  If it were my own works that made the difference, I would fall far short.  I am a sinful man.

But since it is Christ's work, and Christ's alone, that saves, I am his, despite any shortcomings I may personally have.  Acts 16:31 says that he who believes shall be saved.  God has destroyed my old self and given me a new heart that is able to believe, because of his grace.




> But technically, he is right.   When God regenerates a man, He gives that man faith and assurance.


I don't know if you agree with them or not, but I know the OTC people say that if you ever doubt your salvation that this is proof of not being regenerate.  I do not agree with this precisely because it contradicts Paul's command above.

----------


## TER

so FF, if you find out in the very end that you are going to hell, then who would be to blame for that?  You or God?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *
> It is you who are arrogant, because you believe your salvation depends on your own choices and works.  I cannot come up with words to describe how filthy and prideful YOUR belief system is.*


Again you lie about my brother eduardo and his Church. Curse you, kid.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Despite its problems, the RCC is NOT a works-based faith.  This is elementary Catholic stuff.  I only study Romanism casually out of curiosity and I knew this.

----------


## TER

> so FF, if you find out in the very end that you are going to hell, then who would be to blame for that?  You or God?


bump in case you missed it the first time.  I am really interested to hear your answer.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What does _ pas ho pisteuwn_  mean in John 3:16?
> 
> I've asked you this question 3 times now and you haven't answered me.


πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων 

πᾶς - _/pas/_ meaning "all" presented in the nominative case (Nominative case - "naming the actor" identifying the party _doing_ something)

ὁ - _/ho/_ definite article. "the" in English, Greek often renders the article where an article is not appropriate in English

πιστεύων  - _/pisteuon/_ meaning "those-believing" ('those' because the case ending is in Nominative case)

...all (of) those-believing...

ie "everyone that believeth" 

or, "the full set of persons who are believers" (in Messiah)

This is one of the least difficult renderings in the entire Greek canon.  You _barely_ even need to know case endings to perfect this one.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> all - elements of the set
> some - elements of the set
> none - of the element of the set
> 
> Ever do set mathmatics?
> 
> Seems like if they didn't mean all they would have said some or none.


Especially in John 3:16 in particular; given that both "all" πᾶς and "believers" πιστεύων are in the same (nominative) case in Greek, it clearly reflects the meaning "all believers" or "the full set of believers."  Often time if it were a 'generalization all' you would not find such specificity in the text tied together by case.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων 
> 
> πᾶς - _/pas/_ meaning "all" presented in the nominative case (Nominative case - "naming the actor" identifying the party _doing_ something)
> 
> ὁ - _/ho/_ definite article. "the" in English, Greek often renders the article where an article is not appropriate in English
> 
> πιστεύων  - _/pisteuon/_ meaning "those-believing" ('those' because the case ending is in Nominative case)
> 
> ...all (of) those-believing...
> ...


Yes.   The point is that "whosoever" in John 3:16 is not a clear rendering.   People misread John 3:16 so as to make it seem like it implies a universal ability on the part of man to choose or reject God. All the sentence says is that God gave His Son so that every believing one would have eternal life.  There is particularly in John 3:16, not universality.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Various uses of _kosmos_ in Jesus' prayer in John 17:





> *John 17:9, 14, 16 NIV
> 
> I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.  
> 
> I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.  
> 
> They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.*


How could "world" mean "every person without exception" in those verses above?

----------


## jmdrake

> Could you elaborate?   What verse are we talking about?


1 Timothy 2:1-4.  You know, the verse in the thread that restarted the debate about what "all" meant right before you posted this thread?  Common SF, quit being coy.

----------


## jmdrake

> Various uses of _kosmos_ in Jesus' prayer in John 17:
> 
> _John 17:9, 14, 16 NIV
> 
> I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
> 
> I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
> 
> They are not of the world, even as I am not of it._
> ...


In that specific case, from the context it is clear that the "world" is referring to people who are not saved.  So, following that same pattern, when John says in 1 John 2:2

_1 John 2:2

New International Version (NIV)

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world._

Again, *world is referring to people who are not saved*.  That's the pattern.  It doesn't fit your theology, so you reject it a priori.  What you are lacking is a clear example where "the whole world" means "the whole world consisting of the tiny minority of people who are the elect."

----------


## Brett85

> In that specific case, from the context it is clear that the "world" is referring to people who are not saved.  So, following that same pattern, when John says in 1 John 2:2
> 
> _1 John 2:2
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world._
> 
> Again, *world is referring to people who are not saved*.  That's the pattern.  It doesn't fit your theology, so you reject it a priori.  What you are lacking is a clear example where "the whole world" means "the whole world consisting of the tiny minority of people who are the elect."


And it's also clear that when John says that "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins," he's saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all Christians.  Then he takes it a step farther and says that "not only for *ours* but *also* for the sins of the whole world."  That verse completely refutes the possibility that "the whole world" doesn't refer to every single person in the world.

----------


## erowe1

> And it's also clear that when John says that "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins," he's saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all Christians.  Then he takes it a step farther and says that "not only for *ours* but *also* for the sins of the whole world."  That verse completely refutes the possibility that "the whole world" doesn't refer to every single person in the world.


I disagree. Unless you interpret that verse as teaching universalism, you have to do the same thing anyone who believes in limited atonement does. Notice the verse doesn't mention any condition on his being the propitiation for your sins, such as accepting it by your free will.

I think what it means is that he is the propitiation for the sins of everyone in the world who has propitiation for their sins. In other words, there is no other propitiation for sins out there that's available to us or anyone else besides Jesus. But it isn't saying that everyone in the world has already been reconciled to God.

----------


## Brett85

> But it isn't saying that everyone in the world has already been reconciled to God.


No, but it's saying that everyone in the world has the opportunity to be reconciled to God.

----------


## erowe1

> No, but it's saying that everyone in the world has the opportunity to be reconciled to God.


That is not what it says. What you're saying when you say that is that the verse really means that he is the propitiation not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world (but only for those who believe).

See? You have to do the exact same thing someone who believes in limited atonement does.

----------


## jmdrake

> I disagree. *Unless you interpret that verse as teaching universalism, you have to do the same thing anyone who believes in limited atonement does.* Notice the verse doesn't mention any condition on his being the propitiation for your sins, such as accepting it by your free will.


Right track, wrong train.  The most obvious way to interpret that verse is from a universal atonement, though not necessarily a universal salvation, point of view.  So, unless you have limited your belief to limited atonement, you will interpret it in the most natural way.  Also, you are assuming that just because there has been propitiation for sin, that there is ultimate salvation from sin.  As I pointed out to Sola_Fide in another thread, it is possible in the legal realm for someone to be offered a pardon from the governor (or the president) and refuse it.  That is true even if the pardon is unconditional.  




> I think what it means is that he is the propitiation for the sins of everyone in the world who has propitiation for their sins. In other words, there is no other propitiation for sins out there that's available to us or anyone else besides Jesus. But it isn't saying that everyone in the world has already been reconciled to God.


And you are free to think and interpret the Bible the way you wish.  I'm just as convinced that your interpretation is flat wrong.  But if you are at least understanding that you view is an interpretation, and not what the Bible actually says, then you are indeed making progress.  Once you start to realize that there are other interpretations that are just as valid you will really be on your way to enlightenment.

----------


## Brett85

> That is not what it says. What you're saying when you say that is that the verse really means that he is the propitiation not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world (but only for those who believe).
> 
> See? You have to do the exact same thing someone who believes in limited atonement does.


I don't really see that at all.  The verse says that Christ is not only the atoning sacrifice for *our sins,* but also for the sins of the whole world.  We know that since the Bible doesn't teach universalism, that this verse is saying that Christ died so that everyone would have the chance at salvation, even though only some would accept that free gift.  When the verse says that he is the atoning sacrifice for *our* sins, who does "our" refer to?  He uses the word "our" in comparison to "the entire world," which Christ also died for.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, but it's saying that everyone in the world has the opportunity to be reconciled to God.





> That is not what it says. What you're saying when you say that is that the verse really means that he is the propitiation not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world (but only for those who believe).


Ummm...no.  That's *not* what Traditional Conservative is saying.  What he is saying is that while Jesus atonement took care of God's wrath for the whole world, people are still free to choose God's wrath anyway through their unbelief.  Remember that hell was not created for sinful humans.  Hell was prepared for "the devil and his angels."  People aren't supposed to end up there.  They end up there by their own choices.




> See? You have to do the exact same thing someone who believes in limited atonement does.


Not really.  Someone who believes in universal atonement has a clear answer for the difference between John's use of the pronoun "our" and his use of the noun phrase "the whole world."  You do not have a good explanation for that.  I have yet to see anyone who believes in universal atonement come up with a good explanation for that.  I've heard the "Well John was talking about Jews when he said 'our' and talking about Gentiles when he said 'the whole world.'"  That's nonsense.  John's letters were general epistles and not targeted to any ethnic group.  But most limited atonement believers don't even try to give an answer.  They just say "Well it can't mean (what it obviously means)".

----------


## erowe1

> As I pointed out to Sola_Fide in another thread, it is possible in the legal realm for someone to be offered a pardon from the governor (or the president) and refuse it.  That is true even if the pardon is unconditional.


But then you still end up with only the elect being pardoned. Whether or not an offer is made to everybody, it is only efficacious for those who accept it. What is the difference between this and limited atonement?

The verse is either teaching that everyone in the world is reconciled to God, or it is not.

You can't say that people who believe in limited atonement are playing fast and loose with the text on account of them saying that it does not teach that and then turn around and say that you also believe that it does not teach that.

----------


## erowe1

> Ummm...no.  That's *not* what Traditional Conservative is saying.  What he is saying is that while Jesus atonement took care of God's wrath for the whole world, people are still free to choose God's wrath anyway through their unbelief.


Right, so Jesus's taking care of someone's wrath only takes effect for those who don't reject it. That's what I said he said. But 1 John 2:2 doesn't say that, it says "the whole world."

----------


## jmdrake

> But then you still end up with only the elect being pardoned. Whether or not an offer is made to everybody, it is only efficacious for those who accept it. What is the difference between this and limited atonement?


Limited atonement is the belief that pardons were only offered to certain people, those people who were offered pardons were forced to accept them whether they wanted them or not, and others had no opportunity to receive a pardon at all.




> The verse is either teaching that everyone in the world is reconciled to God, or it is not.


Only if you are thinking in 1 dimension.  If you are able to think 2 dimensionally you are able to realize that God can be reconciled to someone without that person being reconciled to Him.  It's like a divorce where only one party wants the divorce.  There's still a divorce.




> You can't say that people who believe in limited atonement are playing fast and loose with the text on account of them saying that it does not teach that and then turn around and say that you also believe that it does not teach that.


I will ask you again the question you seem afraid to answer.  Who was John talking about when he said "our"?  Those who believe in universal atonement have an answer, even if you disagree with it, about what is really meant by propitiation.  But you have no answer for what is really meant by "our".

----------


## erowe1

> I don't really see that at all.  The verse says that Christ is not only the atoning sacrifice for *our sins,* but also for the sins of the whole world.  We know that since the Bible doesn't teach universalism, that this verse is saying that Christ died so that everyone would have the chance at salvation, even though only some would accept that free gift.  When the verse says that he is the atoning sacrifice for *our* sins, who does "our" refer to?  He uses the word "our" in comparison to "the entire world," which Christ also died for.


The chance at salvation? Or actual salvation? The verse doesn't say anything about a chance at it. When you say that, you're limiting the salvation that the verse mentions to only those who accept it. That's the same thing limited atonement people do, they limit it to only those who accept it, which are the elect.

----------


## jmdrake

> Right, so Jesus's taking care of someone's wrath only takes effect for those who don't reject it. That's what I said he said. But 1 John 2:2 doesn't say that, it says "the whole world."


Please answer the following question.  When John says "Christ died for *our* sins", who was John talking about?  Forget the whole world part since we can't agree.  What does the "our" mean?

----------


## jmdrake

> The chance at salvation? Or actual salvation? The verse doesn't say anything about a chance at it. When you say that, you're limiting the salvation that the verse mentions to only those who accept it. That's the same thing limited atonement people do, they limit it to only those who accept it, which are the elect.


_1 John 2:2

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world._

What does *our* mean?

----------


## erowe1

> I will ask you again the question you seem afraid to answer.  Who was John talking about when he said "our"?  Those who believe in universal atonement have an answer, even if you disagree with it, about what is really meant by propitiation.  But you have no answer for what is really meant by "our".


You're asking me again? When was the last time you asked me? I just looked and I can't find it. No, I'm not afraid to answer that. But I resent that you try to make it look like I was avoiding the question.

"Our" is the intended audience of the book, the saved people of the Johannine community.

----------


## TER

> That is not what it says. What you're saying when you say that is that the verse really means that he is the propitiation not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world (but only for those who believe).
> 
> See? You have to do the exact same thing someone who believes in limited atonement does.


Yes, but he is backed by the witness of the Church.  You are the one who is inventing a meaning unknown in the 1700 years of Christian writings and witness.  The onus is therefore on YOU to prove why your novel interpretation is right against the historical witness and tradition of the Church.  It really is that simple.

----------


## TER

> No, but it's saying that everyone in the world has the opportunity to be reconciled to God.


yep!  Thanks be to our loving and merciful God _who does not take pleasure in the death of a sinner_ but pleasures that they should turn away from _their_ ways and turn to Him and *live*! (cf Ezekial 18:23)

----------


## jmdrake

> You're asking me again? When was the last time you asked me? I just looked and I can't find it. No, I'm not afraid to answer that. But I resent that you try to make it look like I was avoiding the question.
> 
> "Our" is the intended audience of the book, the saved people of the Johannine community.


Sorry.  But the question should have been obvious from my statements at least from post 85.  The issue is that "our" and "the whole world" cannot be the same thing.  And I know I've asked this question repeatedly in various threads to those who would object to the most straightforward interpretation of 1 John 2:2, but I'll take your word that you didn't see it.

That said, I have seen no biblical evidence to suggest that John saw the so called "Johannine community" as in anyway distinct from the rest of Christianity.  Indeed, biblically John wrote letters in Revelation to churches started by Paul.  Perhaps you are going off of church tradition?  TER could be helpful in deciphering that, although you have him on ignore.  Certainly you are appealing to an extra-biblical argument which is odd from a "sola scriptura" mindset.

Anyhow, back to the question of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:19-21 _19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[b] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God._

Note that in verse 19, Paul states that God was reconciled to the world at the cross.  But then he adds in verse 20 that we should we should tell others "Be reconciled to God" as if reconciliation had not already happened.  It's clear to me, though apparently not to you, that there based on this passage there are two parts to reconciliation.  God being reconciled to man (verse 19) and man being reconciled to God (verse 20).  That is where freewill comes in.

----------


## erowe1

> Sorry.  But the question should have been obvious from my statements at least from post 85.


It looks to me like that post was directed at SF, not me.




> The issue is that "our" and "the whole world" cannot be the same thing.


I agree. And my own explanation makes that clear.




> That said, I have seen no biblical evidence to suggest that John saw the so called "Johannine community" as in anyway distinct from the rest of Christianity.


I don't mean to overemphasize a distinction. I definitely don't think that they were a sect that separated itself from the churches of the other apostles. But it seems clear to me that there was this group of churches and their members that John had a special relationship with. When he refers to his children in 1 John 2:1 (the verse right before the one we're talking about), he must be talking about actual specific people that he had that relationship with. And these people are the ones he refers to as "us."




> Indeed, biblically John wrote letters in Revelation to churches started by Paul.  Perhaps you are going off of church tradition?


That is not at all clear to me. He did write to churches that were in some of the same cities as churches that were started by Paul. But that doesn't mean that Paul's churches and John's were all intermixed. It may well be that the Ephesian churches to whom the letter to Ephesus in Revelation went were specifically those Ephesian churches with whom John had that special authoritative relationship, which might not include those started by Paul. Of course it may also be that John built up such a relationship with churches that were started by Paul.

At any rate, even if the people John calls his children are disciples of Paul, it's still a specific original audience of people with whom John himself has this kind of relationship. These people, whoever they are and whatever their background in the faith, are the people he calls "us" in 1 John.

(This is not true throughout the letter, such as the beginning of chapter 1, where the "we" is authorial and does not include the audience, but it is the case in 1 John 2:2, which we are discussing.)




> Certainly you are appealing to an extra-biblical argument which is odd from a "sola scriptura" mindset.


No, I'm not. But it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura either. This is a historical question, and I'm investigating it historically, using the sources that are most relevant to the question. In this case, my primary sources of evidence for there having been a Johannine community are the Gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the book of Revelation. It is primarily from things I see in them that I get that idea, not from other sources. 




> Anyhow, back to the question of reconciliation.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 2:19-21 _19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[b] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God._
> 
> Note that in verse 19, Paul states that God was reconciled to the world at the cross.  But then he adds in verse 20 that we should we should tell others "Be reconciled to God" as if reconciliation had not already happened.  It's clear to me, though apparently not to you, that there based on this passage there are two parts to reconciliation.  God being reconciled to man (verse 19) and man being reconciled to God (verse 20).  That is where freewill comes in.


But the passage doesn't mention free will. I still don't know what free will means. But leaving aside that term, what you just did is illustrate my point again. You yourself don't believe that every individual in the world is reconciled to God. You only believe that those who heed the call to be reconciled to God are. That's the same thing the limited atonement people believe.

You can't say that they're playing fast and loose with the text for claiming that God's reconciliation of the world unto himself only includes those who heed the call to be reconciled to God, but then turn around and say that you also believe that. Whether free will is involved or not, and whether predestination is involved or not, you both believe that only some people in the world actually end up reconciled to God, rather than every last individual. And it's the same with 1 John 2:2.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 2 Corinthians 2:19-21 _19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting peoples sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christs ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christs behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[b] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God._
> 
> Note that in verse 19, Paul states that God was reconciled to the world at the cross.  But then he adds in verse 20 that we should we should tell others "Be reconciled to God" as if reconciliation had not already happened.  It's clear to me, though apparently not to you, that there based on this passage there are two parts to reconciliation.  God being reconciled to man (verse 19) and man being reconciled to God (verse 20).  That is where freewill comes in.


No.  There is NOTHING in that verse about free will.  Paul is saying GOD is the one doing the reconciliation.   GOD is the one not imputing sins.  This is the same thing that he is saying in Romans 4, 5, and 8.

Justification is a legal action that takes place COMPLTELY APART from a man's will.

----------


## Terry1

> The chance at salvation? Or actual salvation? The verse doesn't say anything about a chance at it. When you say that, you're limiting the salvation that the verse mentions to only those who accept it. That's the same thing limited atonement people do, they limit it to only those who accept it, which are the elect.


Pardon my intrusion here, but there is a simple way to understand this IMO.  God gives us a choice for His benefit of sorting us out, those who want and accept Him and those who He knows never will.  

We're created in the image and likeness of God Himself, meaning He instilled in us many attributes of Himself.  This is why we're called "sons and heirs" as being the children of God we have spiritually inherited certain attributes of God, just the same as earthly children inherit physical attributes of their fathers and mothers.  

There is a reason and purpose we were left here in this world to endure this life and the trials and temptations of it.  God said, *Revelation 3:18 
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.*

The test of our faith in this life does not end upon professing that one believes in the Lord.  The test of our faith does not end until and after we leave this world and go onto perfection having overcome (rev. 3:5), having been purged as pure gold (rev. 3:18) and been proven to have finished the race and kept the faith as the Apostle Paul tells us, (2 Timothy 4:7).  This is the only time Paul ever asserts that he knows he has his crown of righteousness.  No where else in the NT do any of the Apostles, teachers or prophets tell us that our salvation is "guaranteed" during the course of this life.  Paul is the only one whoever does this and at the very end of his life hours before his death does he have complete assurance.

This is why we are to walk in the fear of the Lord and the Holy Spirit always maintaining and choosing the only good path to towards salvation with the "HOPE".  We can rest in the hope of our salvation when we know we are within the will of God to the very end of our lives.  Then the same as Apostle Paul, when the end comes, only then we can say, "we have fought the good fight, finished the race and kept the faith knowing we have our crown of salvation.

----------


## Brett85

> Then the same as Apostle Paul, when the end comes, only then we can say, "we have fought the good fight, finished the race and kept the faith knowing we have our crown of salvation.


But doesn't that basically just mean that you have to be a Christian at the end of your life in order to be saved?  It's seems to me like that verse means that you can lose your salvation if you actually stop believing, if you say "Jesus I know longer believe in you, get out of my life."  But, I don't think that's the same thing as saying that you lose your salvation just for committing certain sins.  If that were the case, we would never know for sure whether we would be saved if we died today, and I don't think that's what the Bible teaches.

----------


## Terry1

> But doesn't that basically just mean that you have to be a Christian at the end of your life in order to be saved?  It's seems to me like that verse means that you can lose your salvation if you actually stop believing, if you say "Jesus I know longer believe in you, get out of my life."  But, I don't think that's the same thing as saying that you lose your salvation just for committing certain sins.  If that were the case, we would never know for sure whether we would be saved if we died today, and I don't think that's what the Bible teaches.


As I understand the word, God is patient for a time in the life of individuals who have been called, answer that call and then fall away for whatever reason, they lose faith.  The longer a believer remains in this state of mind and heart the closer they come to grieving the Holy Spirit, meaning ignoring what God is attempting to prompt upon their conscience and going their own way.  At some point in that believers life, (only God knows this), they become so full of disobedience and disbelief that God simply turns them over to a reprobate mind.  

Although Gods word indicates this possibility, no one knows how often this happens or with whom, only God can judge the heart of man.

One example that comes to mind is where God is speaking the "loveless church" of Ephesus in the warnings to the seven churches.  God says this to them as He is speaking to believing Christians who have lost "their first love" in their witness to the lost.  They have become hardened against the very sinners God has called them to be witnesses to here:

*Revelation 2:

2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God is clearly telling the church that if they don't repent, He will remove them from the Kingdom of Heaven.


*20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.*

----------


## Brett85

> As I understand the word, God is patient for a time in the life of individuals who have been called, answer that call and then fall away for whatever reason, they lose faith.  The longer a believer remains in this state of mind and heart the closer they come to grieving the Holy Spirit, meaning ignoring what God is attempting to prompt upon their conscience and going their own way.  At some point in that believers life, (only God knows this), they become so full of disobedience and disbelief that God simply turns them over to a reprobate mind.


But does this mean that you're not assured of your own salvation from day to day?

----------


## Sola_Fide

All does not mean all!




> *Romans 8:31-33
> 
> What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us ALLhow will he not also, along with him, graciously give us ALL things? Who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.*


There's that Greek word again...pas.
"how will he not graciously gives us ALL things?"

ALL things?  Is God going to give His people EVERY SINGLE THING that has or will ever exist? Or is Paul using the term all generically? 


This is a great verse as well to show that God gave His Son ONLY for the elect.  The "us all" refers to "God's elect", who no one can bring a charge against now.

----------


## Terry1

> But does this mean that you're not assured of your own salvation from day to day?


I would say that it's both yes and no because this is why the word tells us to walk in the fear of the Lord and the **comfort** Holy Spirit and only fear what God can do and not the devil.  While we remain in faith and in the "comfort" of the Holy Spirit, we know that we're living within the will of God.  Paul tells us that we can rest in the knowledge and wisdom that as long as this is where we remain by our works of faith, that we can rest in our salvation just the same.  How many scriptures tell us that fearing the Lord is a good thing.  It keeps us in understanding that we can not fall any further than His everlasting arms as long as we remain in Him and abide in Him continually throughout our lives.  That is our rest and assurance here in this life, still conditional upon choosing to remain there throughout our lives to the very end.

*
Acts 9:31
31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.*

----------


## erowe1

> This is a great verse as well to show that God gave His Son ONLY for the elect.  The "us all" refers to "God's elect", who no one can bring a charge against now.


I agree with this. And this passage is the only one I know of that really does teach that Christ died only for those who end up glorified and not anyone else. The formula it presents is: "If God gave up his Son for anyone, then He will also give that person all things," where "all things" in the context clearly denotes ultimate glorification. Thus, if God does not end up glorifying someone, then it must be the case that he did not give up his Son for that person.

Most of the passages that get adduced in favor of limited atonement don't actually clearly teach that Christ did not die for those who end up being punished for their sins. But this one does.

This fact, however, doesn't automatically decide for us how we are to reconcile Romans 8:31-33 with other passages that refer to Jesus dying for people who will end up being punished for their sins, like 2 Peter 2:1.

----------


## Terry1

> I agree with this. And this passage is the only one I know of that really does teach that Christ died only for those who end up glorified and not anyone else. The formula it presents is: "If God gave up his Son for anyone, then He will also give that person all things," where "all things" in the context clearly denotes ultimate glorification. Thus, if God does not end up glorifying someone, then it must be the case that he did not give up his Son for that person.
> 
> Most of the passages that get adduced in favor of limited atonement don't actually clearly teach that Christ did not die for those who end up being punished for their sins. But this one does.
> 
> This fact, however, doesn't automatically decide for us how we are to reconcile Romans 8:31-33 with other passages that refer to Jesus dying for people who will end up being punished for their sins, like 2 Peter 2:1.


erowe1, then you must reconcile what the Apostle Paul tells you here if you don't believe that Christ/Yeshua died for all.

1.2 Corinthians 5:14 
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, *that if one died for all, then were all dead:

*2.2 Corinthians 5:15 
*And that he died for all,* that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

*5.2 Peter 3:9 
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.*

----------


## Brett85

> This is a great verse as well to show that God gave His Son ONLY for the elect.  The "us all" refers to "God's elect", who no one can bring a charge against now.


I don't see how the verse says that at all.  Paul here is talking to believers, and he's telling believers that God gave up his own son for "us all," which means that God gave up his son for believers.  However, the verse doesn't say that he didn't also give up his son for those who don't yet believe.  It doesn't rule that out.  The verse simply says that God gave up his own son for believers, because that's who Paul was addressing here, believers.  And the only ones who will be justified and given all things are those who freely choose to accept Christ as their savior.

----------


## erowe1

> erowe1, then you must reconcile what the Apostle Paul tells you here if you don't believe that Christ/Yeshua died for all.
> 
> 1.2 Corinthians 5:14 
> For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, *that if one died for all, then were all dead:
> 
> *2.2 Corinthians 5:15 
> *And that he died for all,* that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


I agree. You must reconcile it. I believe that if you reread what I said in the quote you just gave, you will see that I already said that.

Romans 8:31-33 doesn't tell you how to reconcile it with other passages. But it does say unequivocally that God did not give up His Son for those who do not end up glorified.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't see how the verse says that at all.  Paul here is talking to believers, and he's telling believers that God gave up his own son for "us all," which means that God gave up his son for believers.  However, the verse doesn't say that he didn't also give up his son for those who don't yet believe.  It doesn't rule that out.  The verse simply says that God gave up his own son for believers, because that's who Paul was addressing here, believers.  And the only ones who will be justified and given all things are those who freely choose to accept Christ as their savior.


Notice what it says, using rhetorical questions:
If God gave up his son for someone, then God will also give that person all things.

The whole point of this section of the book of Romans is to guarantee that all people who have been justified are guaranteed to be glorified. And here, at this point within Paul's dwelling on that promise, he expresses it this way, such that to all for whom God gave His Son He will also give all things. Thus, Paul is saying that it is impossible for anyone for whom God gave His Son not to be glorified. Conversely, if anyone does not end up glorified, it is impossible that God gave up His Son for them.

----------


## Brett85

http://arminianperspectives.wordpres...ategory/faith/




> It is important to remember that the issue of “no condemnation” was first raised in Romans 8:1: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  There is no condemnation “to the ones in Christ,” and when Paul returns to this theme in Romans 8:33, 34 he naturally refers to “the chosen ones of God.”  They are chosen in Christ, and so are free from condemnation.  The link may become even clearer to us if we consider Isaiah 50:6-9:
> 
> I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.  I hid not my face from shame and spitting.  For the Lord God will help me; therefore have I not been confounded: therefore have I set my face like flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.  He is near that justifies me; who shall contend with me?  Let us stand up together; who is my adversary?  Let him come near to me.  Behold the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall condemn me?
> 
> In this passage Isaiah is speaking of the Messiah, the elect One of Isaiah 49:7.  Paul, however, in Romans 8:31, 33-34, applies these words to the church, the “elect ones of God.”  Surely the thinking behind this is that the “elect ones” are able to say “Who shall condemn?” because they are in Christ, the elect servant of God, who alone could say such a thing in his own right.  We are elect and free from condemnation only because we are in the elect One of God…The implications of being chosen in Christ may be made clearer by analogy, and it might be best to begin with an analogy implied in scripture itself.  This is the analogy of God’s choice of Jacob.  The descendents of Jacob were not chosen to be put into Jacob; rather they were chosen in Jacob.  Their chosenness was not distinct from his chosenness.  Individuals were chosen only because they were part of the chosen nation; the election was a corporate one.  This is even clearer if we consider Gentiles who became proselytized into the Jewish nation and faith.
> 
> We have already looked at a good example of this in Ruth the Moabitess.  In becoming an Israelite she became part of the chosen nation.  She was now chosen in the nation of Israel.  This does not mean that she was chosen to be put into Israel, for though the opportunity was God-given, that was her own decision.  Rather, she became chosen in Israel, and Israel’s election had now become her election.  Likewise, all other proselytes entered into Israel and so shared Israel’s election.
> 
> An obvious parallel exists between this and the Christian’s election in Christ.  When people enter into Christ then not only does his death become theirs, but his election becomes their election.  They are chosen in him, and his chosennes was established before the foundation of the world.  But to be chosen in him is not the same as being chosen to be put into him…The prime point is that election of the church is a corporate rather than an individual thing.  It is not that individuals are in the church because they are elect, it is rather that they are elect because they are in the church, which is the body of the elect One.  Ruth was not chosen to become an Israelite but in becoming an Israelite she partook of Israel’s election.  A Christian is not chosen to become part of Christ’s body, but in becoming part of that body (s)he partakes of Christ’s election. (ibid. 152-155, bold emphasis and italics theirs).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> All does not mean all!
> 
> 
> 
> There's that Greek word again...pas.
> "how will he not graciously gives us ALL things?"
> 
> ALL things?  Is God going to give His people EVERY SINGLE THING that has or will ever exist? Or is Paul using the term all generically? 
> 
> ...


I've always known that "all things" didn't mean "All" but those things certainly have to include salvation.  Everyone who Christ died for receives salvation.  He won't let any of them perish.  That's how I see that verse.

----------


## moostraks

> All does not mean all!
> 
> 
> 
> There's that Greek word again...pas.
> "how will he not graciously gives us ALL things?"
> 
> ALL things?  Is God going to give His people EVERY SINGLE THING that has or will ever exist? Or is Paul using the term all generically? 
> 
> ...


Oh goody! You're back...

Read much into things? Uh, yeah you do. You are reading for your interpretation (as usual) and accusing those who disagree of ignorance, that's rich. You are reading into the first us all that it just refers to you special elect folks when there is no immediate qualifiers. Us all could very well mean all of humanity which is how many of us believe and you have been fruitlessly trying to prove this ridiculous idea that it upholds your elect belief for years. Did you think you could hide out for awhile and the argument just poof goes away?

He gives us all things means He gives us ALL things. If you got it, then He is why you do. He is not withholding from you any specific thing. To turn this around from your philosophy one could say that He is not withholding any thing as he gave His only Son for all of us. Having sacrificed His Son for those who were in sin (all of us) then why should He be blamed for that which we have not? He shouldn't because it is through our own choices and efforts that we were then foreknown to thus be predestined. Foreknown precedes predestinates. This is only a major hang up for those who insist that He conforms to man's comprehension of time in a linear sense. Therefore, if He gave His Son for us all and He gives us all things then He is not the reason why one is not a member of the elect as the whole process started with what He foreknew of us because He knew before we actually lived the choice in our own memory which path we walked and that made all the difference.

----------


## erowe1

> http://arminianperspectives.wordpres...ategory/faith/


That author mentions Romans 8:31-33 but then completely avoids addressing Paul's argument. Yes, as he says, Paul assures those elect ones that they are guaranteed to be glorified. But what proof does Paul offer to support this guarantee in Romans 8:31-33? He offers the proof that God gave His Son up for these elect, and that everyone for whom God gave up His Son is guaranteed to be glorified.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh goody! You're back...
> 
> Read much into things? Uh, yeah you do. You are reading for your interpretation (as usual) and accusing those who disagree of ignorance, that's rich. You are reading into the first us all that it just refers to you special elect folks when there is no immediate qualifiers. Us all could very well mean all of humanity which is how many of us believe and you have been fruitlessly trying to prove this ridiculous idea that it upholds your elect belief for years. Did you think you could hide out for awhile and the argument just poof goes away?
> 
> He gives us all things means He gives us ALL things. If you got it, then He is why you do. He is not withholding from you any specific thing. To turn this around from your philosophy one could say that He is not withholding any thing as he gave His only Son for all of us. Having sacrificed His Son for those who were in sin (all of us) then why should He be blamed for that which we have not? He shouldn't because it is through our own choices and efforts that we were then foreknown to thus be predestined. Foreknown precedes predestinates. This is only a major hang up for those who insist that He conforms to man's comprehension of time in a linear sense. Therefore, if He gave His Son for us all and He gives us all things then He is not the reason why one is not a member of the elect as the whole process started with what He foreknew of us because He knew before we actually lived the choice in our own memory which path we walked and that made all the difference.


Thanks for posting.  We Arminian-leaning people need more reinforcements.    I think the interpretation that you just presented is a better argument than what I've been trying to make.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I will be quoting from the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
> 
> 
> 
> All does not mean "every single person".  And world does not mean "every single person in the world".  
> 
> I want to leave this thread open for people to post Scripture verses that give examples of this Greek word usage.



And this is how you wrest the scriptures and twist them beyond their meaning. All does not mean all. World does not mean world. Words don't mean what they say. I guess its necessary to change what the Bible says in order to match that "false teacher" Calvin's "damnable heresies." (2 Peter 2) http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-pet/2?lang=eng

----------


## Christian Liberty

> he didn't also give up his son for those who don't yet believe.


Nobody denies that.  What we are saying is that God only gave up his Son for those who ultimately will believe, and they will believe because they are his sheep.  The formula is that if Christ died for you, you will be justified, and thus, glorified.  Some elect, who will believe, haven't yet done so.

----------


## Terry1

> All does not mean all!
> 
> 
> 
> There's that Greek word again...pas.
> "how will he not graciously gives us ALL things?"
> 
> ALL things?  Is God going to give His people EVERY SINGLE THING that has or will ever exist? Or is Paul using the term all generically? 
> 
> ...


Sola, you are refuting so much clear scripture and reinterpreting it to mean something else, you might as well just write your own bible to suit yourself.

When in Matthew, Jesus tells you Himself that it's His will that *none perish*.  When John tells you that God came to save the world that they might all be saved.  When all of these scriptures are saying the same thing over and over and over again, yet you dispute clear meanings all to mean something different.

1.2 Corinthians 5:14 
 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that *if one died for all,* then were all dead:

2.2 Corinthians 5:15 
And that *he died for all*, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

5.2 Peter 3:9 
 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.*

Can you not see in your own self what you are attempting to do to support a lie?  How many more scriptures with clear meaning will you continue to tear apart and reinterpret before you see what you're doing here?

----------


## erowe1

> When in Matthew, Jesus tells you Himself that it's His will that *none perish*.  When John tells you that God came to save the world that they might all be saved.


Could you please quote the exact verses from Matthew and John that you're referring to here?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Could you please quote the exact verses from Matthew and John that you're referring to here?


I may be wrong but I suspect that would be: *Matthew 18:14* and *John 12:47*.

----------


## Terry1

> Could you please quote the exact verses from Matthew and John that you're referring to here?


*4.Matthew 18:14 
Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.*  

Jesus is speaking to all here saying that we should all become as "little children".  There are many scriptures that refer to the Lords sheep as His "little children".

There are at least 19 or 20 scriptures that refer to believers as "little children" in the NT.

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  There is NOTHING in that verse about free will.  Paul is saying GOD is the one doing the reconciliation.   GOD is the one not imputing sins.  This is the same thing that he is saying in Romans 4, 5, and 8.
> 
> Justification is a legal action that takes place COMPLTELY APART from a man's will.


The passage shows that God can be reconciled to people who are not reconciled to Him.  Reconciliation comes in two parts.  Your error is that you believe that reconciliation is a one way street.

----------


## Terry1

> I may be wrong but I suspect that would be: *Matthew 18:14* and *John 12:47*.


Yes you were right Dr.3D, thank you.

----------


## erowe1

> *4.Matthew 18:14 
> Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.*   .


That is completely different from what you claimed it said.

John 12:47 doesn't say anything like what you claimed the verse in John said either.

Neither verse even remotely supports unlimited atonement.

The one in Matthew does support eternal security though, which is interesting, since that's something you've been arguing against.

----------


## Terry1

> That is completely different from what you claimed it said.
> 
> John 12:47 doesn't say anything like what you claimed the verse in John said either.
> 
> Neither verse even remotely supports unlimited atonement.
> 
> The one in Matthew does support eternal security though, which is interesting, since that's something you've been arguing against.


Then the burden is upon you to explain what Matthew 18:14 is saying.  I'll just leave you to that then and wait for your reply.  Because this is what Jesus is teaching in this chapter.  
*Matthew 18:3 
and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.*

----------


## erowe1

> Then the burden is upon you to explain what Matthew 18:14 is saying.  I'll just leave you to that then and wait for your reply.


Before I do, since it clearly doesn't teach anything remotely related to unlimited atonement, why is it even in this discussion?

----------


## jmdrake

> It looks to me like that post was directed at SF, not me.


Perhaps.  Not important.




> I agree. And my own explanation makes that clear.


Right.  But your "explanation" is wholly based on extra-biblical tradition.  Ironic to say the least.  To reach the unlimited atonement position, one only has to use the Bible.  In Sola_Fide's own example limiting the term "whole world", the term means "The unsaved portion of the world".  So, using *Sola_Fide's* analogy, 1 John 2:2 should read "Jesus was the propitiation for our sins, and for the unsaved as well."  Now, you, and Sola_Fide (and FreedomFanatic) want 1 John 2:2 to read "Jesus was the propitiation for our sins, and for the Christians in the rest of the world that are not a part of our special fellowship."  Ummm....okay.  If you want to believe that...okay.  But you can't get there just using the Biblical text.  




> I don't mean to overemphasize a distinction. I definitely don't think that they were a sect that separated itself from the churches of the other apostles. But it seems clear to me that there was this group of churches and their members that John had a special relationship with. When he refers to his children in 1 John 2:1 (the verse right before the one we're talking about), he must be talking about actual specific people that he had that relationship with. And these people are the ones he refers to as "us."


Really?  Remember that John was *the last living Apostle*.  So logic would dictate that he would consider *all* Christians throughout *the entire world* to be his "dear children."  Remember also that in Revelation, John wrote to churches that he did not plant.  So no, 1 John 2:1 does not get you where you are trying to go.




> That is not at all clear to me. He did write to churches that were in some of the same cities as churches that were started by Paul. But that doesn't mean that Paul's churches and John's were all intermixed. It may well be that the Ephesian churches to whom the letter to Ephesus in Revelation went were specifically those Ephesian churches with whom John had that special authoritative relationship, which might not include those started by Paul. Of course it may also be that John built up such a relationship with churches that were started by Paul.


In first Corinthians, Paul chided believers for saying "I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Paul."  That should tell you two things:

1) There were already a mixture of people baptized by various apostles in the different churches.
2) The apostles rejected the idea that some people should consider themselves connected to anyone but Jesus.

So no.  The idea that John would foster the idea of a "special group" isn't likely.  In fact it's patently absurd and would be considered heretical by Paul and the other apostles.  The Johannine community, which scholars aren't even sure actually existed, was not something that John would consider a special "our" group apart from the larger community of Christian believers.





> At any rate, even if the people John calls his children are disciples of Paul, it's still a specific original audience of people with whom John himself has this kind of relationship. These people, whoever they are and whatever their background in the faith, are the people he calls "us" in 1 John.
> 
> (This is not true throughout the letter, such as the beginning of chapter 1, where the "we" is authorial and does not include the audience, but it is the case in 1 John 2:2, which we are discussing.)


You're *assuming* that there is a special group that John has some special relationship with and decides to particularly address.  Considering how Paul rebuked believers for asserting such a special relationship, I believe your assumption to be without merit.




> No, I'm not. But it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura either. This is a historical question, and I'm investigating it historically, using the sources that are most relevant to the question. In this case, my primary sources of evidence for there having been a Johannine community are the Gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the book of Revelation. It is primarily from things I see in them that I get that idea, not from other sources.


The book of Revelation flatly refutes the concept of a special Johannine community as the letters were written to churches founded by other apostles.  





> But the passage doesn't mention free will. I still don't know what free will means. But leaving aside that term, what you just did is illustrate my point again. You yourself don't believe that every individual in the world is reconciled to God. You only believe that those who heed the call to be reconciled to God are. That's the same thing the limited atonement people believe.


You don't understand the passage or my belief.  The passage makes it clear that there are people who God has reconciled to Himself, but are not themselves reconciled to God.  Universal atonement is the belief that when it says that God reconciled the world to Himself, He reconciled the whole world.  Now that verse does not mention free will.  I didn't say it does.  I said "That's where free will comes in" as in "To understand how it's possible for God to reconcile someone to Himself that hasn't reconciled himself to God, you need to bring in freewill."  Limited atonement is the belief that God didn't really reconcile everyone to Himself.  So no, this is not the same thing as limited atonement.  I don't know why you keep trying to make them the same.  Again, a governor can offer a blanket pardon to 100 people and 50 of them can refuse the pardon.  Limited atonement says that only 50 people were offered the pardon.  Universal atonement says that 100 people were offered the pardon but only 50 people accepted.  Universal salvation teaches that 100 people are offered the pardon and 100 people receive it whether they want it or not.  There's no way you can look at that and honestly say all three scenarios are the same.




> You can't say that they're playing fast and loose with the text for claiming that God's reconciliation of the world unto himself only includes those who heed the call to be reconciled to God, but then turn around and say that you also believe that. Whether free will is involved or not, and whether predestination is involved or not, you both believe that only some people in the world actually end up reconciled to God, rather than every last individual. And it's the same with 1 John 2:2.


Except I don't believe that.  You are playing fast and loose with *my* statements if you think I'm agreeing with limited atonement.  I know Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic disagree with me on a lot of things.  But I'm sure they would agree that what I'm saying doesn't agree with limited atonement.

----------


## erowe1

> Right.  But your "explanation" is wholly based on extra-biblical tradition.


I can only think you must have me confused with someone else again. Where did I base anything here on extra biblical tradition?

----------


## jmdrake

> I can only think you must have me confused with someone else again. Where did I base anything here on extra biblical tradition?


I'm not confusing you.  There is no Biblical proof that John fostered the idea of a separate community within Christianity.  But maybe you read something into Revelation that isn't there.  Explain again how a letter written to a church founded by Paul is proof of John fostering a Johnanine community?

Edit: But note that in your initial post all you said was that you believed there was a Johnanine community and that was who John was referring to.  I will agree that in your next post you explained your Biblical reasons.  While I think that reasoning is absurd, it is at least Biblical reasoning.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not confusing you.  There is no Biblical proof that John fostered the idea of a separate community within Christianity.  But maybe you read something into Revelation that isn't there.  Explain again how a letter written to a church founded by Paul is proof of John fostering a Johnanine community?


I don't believe he fostered the idea of a separate community either. But I do believe there was a Johannine circle of influence. Like I said above, that idea is not based on anything extra biblical. So if you read something where someone based something on something extra biblical, it wasn't I. That's really not important to this discussion though. I shouldn't have brought it up.

Regardless of the hypothesis of a Johannine community, John wrote his epistle to specific people. And it is those people, that original intended audience of his book, whoever they were, and whatever relationship they had with Pauline Christianity, whom he calls "my children" and "us." These are people he had some kind of special relationship with, just like Paul had a relationship with the people he sent most of his epistles to (Romans being the one exception).

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't believe he fostered the idea of a separate community either. But I do believe there was a Johannine circle of influence. Like I said above, that idea is not based on anything extra biblical. So if you read something where someone based something on something extra biblical, it wasn't I. That's really not important to this discussion though. I shouldn't have brought it up.
> 
> Regardless of the hypothesis of a Johannine community, John wrote his epistle to specific people. And it is those people, that original intended audience of his book, whoever they were, and whatever relationship they had with Pauline Christianity, whom he calls "my children" and "us." These are people he had some kind of special relationship with, just like Paul had a relationship with the people he sent most of his epistles to (Romans being the one exception).


Sure.  And I believe that "specific group of people" were the Christian church in general.  Since he was writing to multiple churches in Revelation, I think he expected his other letters to be read to multiple churches.  Question.  Let's assume John was writing specifically to the Johannine community.  Why do you think he would need to make sure that they knew that Jesus died for other believers as well?  That seems to go without saying.  I don't think if Pope Francis wrote a letter to churches in Mexico and said "Jesus loves all of you" he would feel the need to add "And He loves Catholics around the world as well."

----------


## Terry1

> Before I do, since it clearly doesn't teach anything remotely related to unlimited atonement, why is it even in this discussion?


I'm too lazy to go back and check that one out, but someone must've said something to spur that on. 

Calvin was wrong.  He wasn't wrong on everything, just most of his doctrine.  He was just a man with an idea, a wrong one.  One thing I do believe is though, even some of the great reformers in their transformation from the Catholic faith to Protestant were used to perform a great act of God and that was freeing the Bible for personal interpretation, but then there's always the devil in the details.

Since at the time breaking away from the Catholic movement was a very daring feat for the reformers.  They managed to carry a lot of baggage with them that somewhat bled into their reformed doctrines.  We still have evidence of that today as more people subscribe to them still.

----------


## erowe1

> Sure.  And I believe that "specific group of people" were the Christian church in general.  Since he was writing to multiple churches in Revelation, I think he expected his other letters to be read to multiple churches.  Question.  Let's assume John was writing specifically to the Johannine community.  Why do you think he would need to make sure that they knew that Jesus died for other believers as well?  That seems to go without saying.  I don't think if Pope Francis wrote a letter to churches in Mexico and said "Jesus loves all of you" he would feel the need to add "And He loves Catholics around the world as well."


I believe that the Christian Church in general should read 1 John as scripture. I don't doubt that he expected his letters to circulate both within and beyond his initial intended audience, and even his circle of influence within the Church of his day. But that doesn't mean that he wrote them without regard for the specific situation of his initial intended audience. He could expect them to circulate, while also expecting those secondary audiences to be able to recognize that they were not the primary audience. The false teachers he was opposing were clearly specific people who were exercising influence on that specific audience. This is even more clear in 2-3 John, and the letters to the churches in Revelation 1-3, but it's clear enough in 1 John. And even the Gospel of John has certain details in it that are particularly relevant to the initial audience of that Gospel (such as the note about when Christians first started getting put out of the Synagogues). And the way we understand his original intent in his use of the pronouns "we" and "you" in 1 John should be based on that initial focus on that specific audience.

By analogy, Paul expected his epistle to the Colossians to be shared beyond that initial audience (Colossians 4:16). But that doesn't mean that those secondary audiences should read the pronoun "you" in the epistle and think it means them, which would make for a strange interpretation of things like Collosians 1:7.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm too lazy to go back and check that one out, but someone must've said something to spur that on.


The person who said something to spur it on was you when you completely misquoted the verse. Once you saw that it said nothing resembling what you had claimed, I would think that might put that particular point to rest.

----------


## Terry1

> The person who said something to spur it on was you when you completely misquoted the verse. Once you saw that it said nothing resembling what you had claimed, I would think that might put that particular point to rest.


I won't argue with you, I'd much rather stick to the message myself.  Believe as you wish.

----------


## Brett85

> I won't argue with you, I'd much rather stick to the message myself.  Believe as you wish.


I'm just curious, do you belong to a certain denomination or have a specific label for the theology that you believe in?

----------


## Terry1

> I'm just curious, do you belong to a certain denomination or have a specific label for the theology that you believe in?


To be perfectly honest TC, I used to attend a church many years ago and visited many others as well.  I saw people who loved the Lord in all of them to tell you the truth.  I guess it just wasn't my calling to attend a church of four walls and take up permanent residence there.  I never found what I was searching for in any of them, but I did with the Holy Spirit.   He's been my teacher through prayer and seeking. 

I believe I was also shown that in each different denominational church I attended, not only did I see people who loved the Lord, despite flawed doctrine, but I also saw each church has a great gift as a whole.  Where one denomination held what I saw as a gift for prophecy, the other a great message of faith and still another with a great gift of charity.  Even though I knew each one had this doctrine that I knew wasn't consistent with the word, I still saw Gods hand upon that church.  Still, there was no place for me and I always moved on to yet something else and now, I believe I know why God did this with me.

He answered my prayer that I prayed with tears one day knowing it was my hearts desire to know His real truth.  I'm not saying that I have it all because I know I don't, but I do believe I've been kept separated for a reason.   

I've been accused by some of a great heresy for not attending a church because they often want to define me by some denomination.  I guess it makes people rather angry when they can't find a label to pin on someone.  I just don't have one and I don't miss it either.  I figure if one's a true seeker and child of God, they'll recognize the truth when they see it or hear it.  I'm pretty sure I do, well at least most of the time. 

So then just what do I call myself?  I guess just a lone child of God in search of truth like everyone else.  I'm pretty happy this way actually.

----------


## eduardo89

> so FF, if you find out in the very end that you are going to hell, then who would be to blame for that?  You or God?


bump

----------


## Dr.3D

> So then just what do I call myself?  I guess just a lone child of God in search of truth like everyone else.  I'm pretty happy this way actually.


I believe you can call yourself a Christian.

----------


## Terry1

> I believe you can call yourself a Christian.



Great idea 3D!  Thanks.

----------


## Brett85

> I've been accused by some of a great heresy for not attending a church because they often want to define me by some denomination.  I guess it makes people rather angry when they can't find a label to pin on someone.  I just don't have one and I don't miss it either.  I figure if one's a true seeker and child of God, they'll recognize the truth when they see it or hear it.  I'm pretty sure I do, well at least most of the time. 
> 
> So then just what do I call myself?  I guess just a lone child of God in search of truth like everyone else.  I'm pretty happy this way actually.


Ok, fair enough.  I don't think that you have to attend church to be a Christian.

----------


## Miss Annie

> The passage shows that God can be reconciled to people who are not reconciled to Him.  Reconciliation comes in two parts.  Your error is that you believe that reconciliation is a one way street.


This comment brought to mind this scripture.... *
Re 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
*

You are right that it does come in two parts, he knocks, and part two..... we answer.  And notice that it says ANY man.  I am a firm believer that Jesus stands at the door and knocks on the hearts of all humanity!

----------


## Dr.3D

> This comment brought to mind this scripture.... *
> Re 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
> *
> 
> You are right that it does come in two parts, he knocks, and part two..... we answer.  And notice that it says ANY man.  I am a firm believer that Jesus stands at the door and knocks on the hearts of all humanity!


Just wait, somebody will say, "any" doesn't mean any.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> so FF, if you find out in the very end that you are going to hell, then who would be to blame for that?  You or God?


This isn't a possible scenario, but if it were, myself.  Human inability does not negate human responsibility.

----------


## Brett85

> Human inability does not negate human responsibility.


Why?  If you have no free will at all, then God is responsible for everything that you do, not yourself.

----------


## matt0611

> Just wait, somebody will say, "any" doesn't mean any.


No, we would say the same things that we say when discussing John 3:16.

Yes, "any" man who answers (or believes when discussing John 3:16) will be saved. But I don't see what this has to do with limited atonement or predestination.

I believe that any man who truly turns to Jesus will find him to be a perfect savior to them. But I still believe if you did so that then you were always predestined to do so by God.

----------


## Brett85

> I believe that any man who truly turns to Jesus will find him to be a perfect savior to them.


I don't really see how *any man* can turn to Jesus if Jesus only died for a small number of people, "the elect."  Everyone else Jesus didn't die for have no chance at salvation.  So according to this doctrine, not just "any man" can turn to Jesus, but only the elect.  Also, as Sola Fide has argued, no man can "turn to Jesus" since we don't have any free will.  Instead, God forces salvation on "the elect."

----------


## matt0611

> I don't really see how *any man* can turn to Jesus if Jesus only died for a small number of people, "the elect."  Everyone else Jesus didn't die for have no chance at salvation.  So according to this doctrine, not just "any man" can turn to Jesus, but only the elect.  Also, as Sola Fide has argued, no man can "turn to Jesus" since we don't have any free will.  Instead, God forces salvation on "the elect."


I didn't say that any man is able to turn to Jesus. I said any man that DOES turn to him will be saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't say that any man is able to turn to Jesus. I said any man that DOES turn to him will be saved.


Exactly.  God gives faith and repentance as a gift to His elect people.  

Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man.

----------


## Terry1

> Exactly.  God gives faith and repentance as a gift to His elect people.  
> 
> Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man.


We're "partakers" of the divine nature of God.  Since it was God who said it was His will that non should perish and that He died for all, then it's not all God that allows mankind to choose death over life.  God gave us a choice for a reason.  God won't touch our ability to choose even though He has the power to do so.  He gave us this one freedom for a specific purpose.  

Remember The Fall of a third of heaven.  A third of the angels chose to follow satan.  Gods most beloved Lucifer who betrayed God.  Was that God?  Obviously, God has the desire for His creation to want Him as much as He wants them, otherwise there would have been no Fall of a third of heaven.  Hence, we are tested and our faith tested just the same to ferret out those who are true.

Gods morality is instilled in us.  It is what sets the precedent for our morality, the way we have been designed to think, feel, love, hate with many of the very same attributes of God Himself.  

To believe that God simply would wipe out a third of heavenly angels as some part of His plans design to prove some point to Himself that you believe He had something to do with is not logical in a Biblical sense.  

This can only lead one to believe that God can and does limit Himself in foreknowledge as to whatever He chooses to know at some appointed time.  His word gives evidence of that simply by Him stating that He can blot something or someone from His memory "as if they never were" and to "remember our sin no more".  God can not lie, so we must believe what we can not fully grasp in light of being unable to see clearly through the glass at this time and in our human state.

----------


## jmdrake

> I believe that the Christian Church in general should read 1 John as scripture. I don't doubt that he expected his letters to circulate both within and beyond his initial intended audience, and even his circle of influence within the Church of his day. But that doesn't mean that he wrote them without regard for the specific situation of his initial intended audience. He could expect them to circulate, while also expecting those secondary audiences to be able to recognize that they were not the primary audience. The false teachers he was opposing were clearly specific people who were exercising influence on that specific audience. This is even more clear in 2-3 John, and the letters to the churches in Revelation 1-3, but it's clear enough in 1 John. And even the Gospel of John has certain details in it that are particularly relevant to the initial audience of that Gospel (such as the note about when Christians first started getting put out of the Synagogues). And the way we understand his original intent in his use of the pronouns "we" and "you" in 1 John should be based on that initial focus on that specific audience.
> 
> By analogy, Paul expected his epistle to the Colossians to be shared beyond that initial audience (Colossians 4:16). But that doesn't mean that those secondary audiences should read the pronoun "you" in the epistle and think it means them, which would make for a strange interpretation of things like Collosians 1:7.


_Colossians 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea._

Sorry, but that doesn't get you (pardon the pun) where you want to go.  Paul isn't saying something in Colossians 4:16 that should be generally understood to be applicable to all Christians.  Using your logic, Colossians 4:2 should be rewritten to say:

_2 Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful.  And all other Christians who read this later need to devote themselves to prayer as well._

Sorry, but that's tortured logic.

----------


## jmdrake

> This isn't a possible scenario, but if it were, myself.  Human inability does not negate human responsibility.


And you think it's impossible for you to be lost because of what?  You're correct belief?  How can you be so sure of that when you will quickly reinterpret scripture on the fly to fit whatever argument it is you are having at the moment?




> Did Luke 2:1 refer to the Native Americans being taxed?  No.
> 
> Does 2 Peter 3:8-10 have anything to do with those who are destined for Hell?  Nope.





> Of course it means people going to Hell.  When the heck did it say otherwise?  Its the word "All" that we disagree on.  "All" means all the elect, not every single person.


Now my getting a scripture wrong isn't bothersome for me because I have assurance from the verse "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."  But you've made it clear on multiple occasions that, while you don't go as far as Sola_Fide in this regard, you are certain that someone getting the wrong idea about salvation means they're going to hell.  I suppose you believe Martin Luther was going to hell when he was sincerely seeking God and climbing up steps on his knees in order to be saved (or for whatever reason it was that he was climbing steps on his knees).  I don't think he was lost at all.  I do think he learned valuable truths and shared them with the world, but I don't think someone sincerely seeking God is lost just because that person doesn't have a perfect understanding, or even a "good enough" understanding of what he is seeking.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Is there an overall Master List somewhere of Bible words that don't REALLY mean what they say?

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic  
> Of course it means people going to Hell. When the heck did it say otherwise? Its the word "All" that we disagree on. "All" means all the elect, not every single person.


If you say that "All" means only the elect, then you would have to reinterpret multiple other scriptures that indicate "the world" also. * John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
*

So what is the meaning of "world" then if it doesn't mean "all" as in---

Romans 6:10
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

2 Corinthians 5:14
For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;

2 Corinthians 5:15
and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again

2 Peter 3:9
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.

Take for example Acts 2:

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 *Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken[c] by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 For David says concerning Him:*

Obviouslsy, men are being held responsible for the death of Christ while Paul claims was already determined by purpose and foreknowledge of God.  How then can God hold mankind responsible for something God Himself caused to happen?  Does one truly believe that God would cause mankind to do something and then hold mankind responsible for that same act?

Then ask yourself this question.  If God was as cruel as some puppet master to cause mankind to be evil and then condemn mankind to an eternal torment for something He caused them to do would then fit the limited atonement theory, but would not make sense either.

At some point within the decree of God regarding His foreknowledge there must be some limitation that God has set upon Himself to allow mankind to be free from the bond of predestination according to their own will or choice and as scripture does indicate.

Also obviously, God gave a free will and choice to Lucifer and a third of heaven to rebel against God.  Did God want this to happen?  No, God didn't want that to happen.  It happened as a result of God allowing them the freedom to choose and not because of His foreknowledge or predestination.  This also indicates that God creates beings with His own attributes and freedom of will and choice because He wants them to love Him freely and not because He forces them to love Him or hate Him.

To believe that a loving God would create something to become evil on purpose and then torture them for eternity because of that is not biblically logical, nor does scripture indicate such.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't really see how *any man* can turn to Jesus if Jesus only died for a small number of people, "the elect."


Did you say a few days ago that a person can't have a chance to turn to Jesus if nobody reaches them with the Gospel?

If so, then even after your rejection of the doctrine of unconditional election, you still don't really believe that *any man* can turn to Jesus.

----------


## erowe1

> Obviouslsy, men are being held responsible for the death of Christ while Paul claims was already determined by purpose and foreknowledge of God.


Bingo. The fact that God predestined men to do something does not mitigate their responsibility for doing it. You may not have meant to, but you just proved the other side's point. The Bible is full of examples of this. On the other hand, the number of times the Bible mentions anyone ever doing anything that was not predestined is zero.

If you go on to describe this situation as God being a cruel puppet master, then you should rethink that. Perhaps God's holding people responsible for the things he predestined them to do does not make him a cruel puppet master after all.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> To believe that a loving God would create something to become evil on purpose and then torture them for eternity because of that is not biblically logical.



Ya just gotta scare 'em and keep 'em scared so those contributions (bribes) will keep rolling in.

----------


## Terry1

> Did you say a few days ago that a person can't have a chance to turn to Jesus if nobody reaches them with the Gospel?
> 
> If so, then even after your rejection of the doctrine of unconditional election, you still don't really believe that *any man* can turn to Jesus.


If what you say is true that "all" is only the elect and that God has predestined everything by His own foreknowledge, then answer this question for me.  Did God create evil on purpose simply to have something to play with for eternity?  

Did God screw up somewhere by creating beings capable of the same thing God Himself is capable of?  Why would a loving God create evil simply for the enjoyment of torturing them for eternity because of it?  This is what your belief encompasses.

----------


## Terry1

> Ya just gotta scare 'em and keep 'em scared so those contributions (bribes) will keep rolling in.


And that's true on so many levels. lol

----------


## TER

> If you go on to describe this situation as God being a cruel puppet master, then you should rethink that. Perhaps God's holding people responsible for the things he predestined them to do does not make him a cruel puppet master after all.


Yes, it does, erowe, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do to try to change it.  If God causes men to sin and then punishes them for the sin He made them do, then that is the exact definition of a cruel puppet master.  No way getting around it!

----------


## Terry1

> Bingo. The fact that God predestined men to do something does not mitigate their responsibility for doing it. You may not have meant to, but you just proved the other side's point. The Bible is full of examples of this. On the other hand, the number of times the Bible mentions anyone ever doing anything that was not predestined is zero.
> 
> If you go on to describe this situation as God being a cruel puppet master, then you should rethink that. Perhaps God's holding people responsible for the things he predestined them to do does not make him a cruel puppet master after all.


Well then, how amazing that I had the foreknowledge you would reply in just this manner.  So what you're saying is that yes you agree that God caused the evil to happen just so He could then condemn them for it.  So then God created evil at the same time He also created good for no other purpose than to Decree that He would never be bored throughout eternity without something to play with to keep Himself busy.

----------


## moostraks

> If what you say is true that "all" is only the elect and that God has predestined everything by His own foreknowledge, then answer this question for me.  Did God create evil on purpose simply to have something to play with for eternity?  
> 
> Did God screw up somewhere by creating beings capable of the same thing God Himself is capable of?  Why would a loving God create evil simply for the enjoyment of torturing them for eternity because of it?  This is what your belief encompasses.


Here's one thread where this was discussed. I am fairly certain there are several others but well, the search engine here and my brain aren't cooperating, but it will give you some insight on this argument regarding several of us who post regularly here in this section.

Lol! Helps if I give you the link. OY!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Gordon-Clark)/

----------


## Brett85

> Did you say a few days ago that a person can't have a chance to turn to Jesus if nobody reaches them with the Gospel?


I don't know if I necessarily said that.  I don't know if it's impossible for someone to know about Jesus if they haven't been reached by a missionary with the good news.  It's possible that God could reach people in other ways, like through a vision or through a dream.  But the fact that he calls us to go spread the gospel around the world demonstrates that he wants everyone to have knowledge of the gospel and be saved.

----------


## Brett85

> Well then, how amazing that I had the foreknowledge you would reply in just this manner.  So what you're saying is that yes you agree that God caused the evil to happen just so He could then condemn them for it.  So then God created evil at the same time He also created good for no other purpose than to Decree that He would never be bored throughout eternity without something to play with to keep Himself busy.


That's what I was thinking about as well.  If sin is the result of people intentionally disobeying God, how can something even be called a "sin" if it's something that God causes and wants to happen?  That would mean that every time we sin, we're simply carrying out God's will and doing exactly what he wants us to do.

----------


## moostraks

> That's what I was thinking about as well.  If sin is the result of people intentionally disobeying God, how can something even be called a "sin" if it's something that God causes and wants to happen?  That would mean that every time we sin, we're simply carrying out God's will and doing exactly what he wants us to do.


So then are all saved as they have followed through on His will? Hmm...

----------


## Terry1

> That's what I was thinking about as well.  If sin is the result of people intentionally disobeying God, how can something even be called a "sin" if it's something that God causes and wants to happen?  That would mean that every time we sin, we're simply carrying out God's will and doing exactly what he wants us to do.


Yes, and that is what their theology encompasses within this illogical belief.  If I believed as they do, I would simply put an end to myself as the ancient philosophers did who didn't believe in the concept of God, hence suicide was was more favorable to suffering physical torment in this life.

Their theology turns mankind into some cosmic joke as if we were some kind of toy for God to have to play with causing them to be and do whatever He wanted then smashing that toy and burning it because He became bored with it.

----------


## Terry1

> Here's one thread where this was discussed. I am fairly certain there are several others but well, the search engine here and my brain aren't cooperating, but it will give you some insight on this argument regarding several of us who post regularly here in this section.
> 
> Lol! Helps if I give you the link. OY!
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Gordon-Clark)/


Thanks I was hoping for the link.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't know if I necessarily said that.  I don't know if it's impossible for someone to know about Jesus if they haven't been reached by a missionary with the good news.  It's possible that God could reach people in other ways, like through a vision or through a dream.  But the fact that he calls us to go spread the gospel around the world demonstrates that he wants everyone to have knowledge of the gospel and be saved.


Which is it? You seem to be saying two different things right here in this very post.

How could the fact that he calls us to go spread the Gospel around the world demonstrate that he wants everyone to have knowledge of the gospel and be saved, unless it were the case that people having knowledge of the Gospel and being saved somehow depended on us spreading the Gospel?

----------


## erowe1

> Well then, how amazing that I had the foreknowledge you would reply in just this manner.  So what you're saying is that yes you agree that God caused the evil to happen just so He could then condemn them for it.  So then God created evil at the same time He also created good for no other purpose than to Decree that He would never be bored throughout eternity without something to play with to keep Himself busy.


That's a caricature. Who ever said "just so He could then condemn them for it"? Who ever said, "for no other purpose than to decree that He would never be bored throughout eternity without something to play with to keep Himself busy"?

Whatever his reasons, he clearly did it, as you already demonstrated.

This is one of the things I notice Arminians doing a lot. They imagine God to be like a human, and when they encounter what the Bible says about God's predestination of things that he commands people not to do, they ask, "Why would God do that?" and demand that they get an answer to that question before they are willing to believe that He's telling us the truth.

----------


## erowe1

> That's what I was thinking about as well.  If sin is the result of people intentionally disobeying God, how can something even be called a "sin" if it's something that God causes and wants to happen?  That would mean that every time we sin, we're simply carrying out God's will and doing exactly what he wants us to do.


First of all, we have to understand that when we talk about God "willing" anything, we're speaking analogically. God is not a human. He doesn't have emotions like we do, although we (as well as the biblical authors) can sometimes do no better in describing what He does by using the language of human emotion. His willing of things resembles our willing of things in certain ways, but the two things are not the same.

Second of all, we have to recognize that the term "will" can be, and is, used in various ways. In the case of what God "wills," on the one hand we have what he commands of us. This is what we ought to do, our moral obligation. On the other hand we have what he decrees will happen. This is what we will do, regardless whether it's morally what we ought to do.

Biblically, it's impossible to deny that we have both of those things. It's positively indisputable that all throughout scripture the things that God decrees will happen sometimes go against the things that He commands people to do. Since there are so many examples, I'm sure you're well aware of them. The example Terry already gave is proof enough on its own, but of course there are many others. On this point hopefully we won't have any disagreement.

----------


## Terry1

This same limited atonement theory would also indicate that Jesus did not choose to die for mankind, but that God literally chose that for Him.  Even though Jesus prayed at one point that "this cup" should pass from Him, He willingly chose to be crucified for mankind Himself knowing what the alternative would be if He didn't.  

Jesus had fear of what He knew laid before Him and so much that He was sweating blood because of it.  There is a profound mystery in the element of free will and our choice which is the same as Gods own attribute regarding His will and His own freedom to allow whatever He chooses to hasten or tarry His plans design.

Another question that has been discussed in this Religion forum is Judas.  Did Jesus know from the beginning that Judas would betray Him?  Or, was Jesus kept from that knowledge until an appointed time for a reason?

----------


## Terry1

> That's a caricature. Who ever said "just so He could then condemn them for it"? Who ever said, "for no other purpose than to decree that He would never be bored throughout eternity without something to play with to keep Himself busy"?
> 
> Whatever his reasons, he clearly did it, as you already demonstrated.
> 
> This is one of the things I notice Arminians doing a lot. They imagine God to be like a human, and when they encounter what the Bible says about God's predestination of things that he commands people not to do, they ask, "Why would God do that?" and demand that they get an answer to that question before they are willing to believe that He's telling us the truth.


*"They imagine God to be like a human"*?  

Are we not created in the very same image and likeness of God, despite our depraved state because of evil and sin?

Then it wouldn't be imprudent or improper to also say that we are like God Himself to a very great degree being sons and heirs to the very throne of God the same.  We are His children for that reason understanding our place and purpose as His children.  We're also given the same freedom within our will to choose what God has allowed us by inheritance of one of those same attributes and likeness.  

Also understanding that we will some day judge the very angels of God in our perfected state.  How could one then assume "humans" are not like God? 

*""Why would God do that?" and demand that they get an answer to that question before they are willing to believe that He's telling us the truth."*

But we are not the one's attempting to redefine clear scripture here, you are in attempts to support what you have chosen to believe.  So then I ask you, who is truly not accepting the truth in Gods word, us or you?

----------


## erowe1

> This same limited atonement theory would also indicate that Jesus did not choose to die for mankind, but that God literally chose that for Him.  Even though Jesus prayed at one point that "this cup" should pass from Him, He willingly chose to be crucified for mankind Himself knowing what the alternative would be if He didn't.  
> 
> Jesus had fear of what He knew laid before Him and so much that He was sweating blood because of it.  There is a profound mystery in the element of free will and our choice which is the same as Gods own attribute regarding His will and His own freedom to allow whatever He chooses to hasten or tarry His plans design.


I have a different take on that. What Jesus prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Father did give him (see Hebrews 5:7). The cup did pass from him, when he rose from the dead. He willingly went to the cross without fear. For the joy set before him, he thought little of its shame (Hebrews 12:2).




> Another question that has been discussed in this Religion forum is Judas.  Did Jesus know from the beginning that Judas would betray Him?  Or, was Jesus kept from that knowledge until an appointed time for a reason?


Yes. Jesus knew about Judas all along. He knew that Judas did not and would not believe in Him because the Father didn't grant that to Judas.

John 6:63-65:



> 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

----------


## erowe1

> *"They imagine God to be like a human"*?  
> 
> Are we not created in the very same image and likeness of God, despite our depraved state because of evil and sin?
> 
> Then it wouldn't be imprudent or improper to also say that we are like God Himself to very great degree being sons and heirs to the very throne of God the same.  We are His children for that reason understanding our place and purpose as His children.  We're also given the same freedom within our will to choose that God has allowed us by inheritance of one of those same attributes and likeness.


No, being made in God's image and likeness doesn't make it prudent to imagine him to be like a human. See, among many other verses, Numbers 23:19:



> God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?





> Also understanding that we will some day judge the very angels of God in our perfected state.  How could one then assume "humans" are not like God?


There are many ways that humans are not like God. We change. We don't know the future. We are not almighty. We are wholly within creation, and not above it. We could go on.




> But we are not the one's attempting to redefine clear scripture here, you are in attempts to support what you have chosen to believe.  So then I ask you, who is truly not accepting the truth in Gods word, us or you?


Could you please provide the quote where I do that.

I'm not sure if you are or not. But you yourself quoted biblical proof that God predestines acts of disobedience against Himself. Are you trying to get out of accepting that? Or do you accept it? If you do, then I don't see what you're disagreeing with me about.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's what I was thinking about as well.  If sin is the result of people intentionally disobeying God, how can something even be called a "sin" if it's something that God causes and wants to happen?  That would mean that every time we sin, we're simply carrying out God's will and doing exactly what he wants us to do.


This is where two wills theology comes in.  I forget the technical terminology (I know Sola knows it, Erowe almost certainly does as well) but I've heard a preacher one time describe them as God's "Secret" and "Revealed" will.  God's revealed will is that everyone follow his commandments, and people can rebel and violate those commandments, but those people are ultimately following God's will.  As per Romans 9:17.

----------


## erowe1

> This is where two wills theology comes in.  I forget the technical terminology (I know Sola knows it, Erowe almost certainly does as well) but I've heard a preacher one time describe them as God's "Secret" and "Revealed" will.  God's revealed will is that everyone follow his commandments, and people can rebel and violate those commandments, but those people are ultimately following God's will.  As per Romans 9:17.


I've heard different terms used. But the terms I used above were "prescribed" and "decreed."

I don't think this needs any special label, like "two wills theology." Are there Christians who don't see this distinction in the Bible? It seems impossible to me not to.

----------


## Terry1

> I have a different take on that. What Jesus prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Father did give him (see Hebrews 5:7). The cup did pass from him, when he rose from the dead. He willingly went to the cross without fear. For the joy set before him, he thought little of its shame (Hebrews 12:2).


Jesus was praying for the cup of crucifixion to pass which did not pass.  He knew he had to be crucified to finish His work on that cross.  The cup did not pass.  His resurrection was the result of His crucifixion and not the cup passing from Him.  It was His choice to die for mankind.





> Yes. Jesus knew about Judas all along. He knew that Judas did not believe in Him because the Father didn't grant that to Judas.
> 
> John 6:63-65:


Did Jesus know when Judas became one of the twelve?  Did Judas himself know that he would betray Jesus when he became one of the twelve?

----------


## erowe1

> Did Jesus know when Judas became one of the twelve?  Did Judas himself know that he would betray Jesus when he became one of the twelve?


I don't know how much Judas knew. But from what Jesus says in John 6, it looks like He knew about Judas all along, and that it was all part of His and the Father's plan.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't know how much Judas knew. But from what Jesus says in John 6, it looks like He knew about Judas all along, and that it was all part of His and the Father's plan.


Yes, I would agree with that.

----------


## Brett85

> First of all, we have to understand that when we talk about God "willing" anything, we're speaking analogically. God is not a human. He doesn't have emotions like we do, although we (as well as the biblical authors) can sometimes do no better in describing what He does by using the language of human emotion. His willing of things resembles our willing of things in certain ways, but the two things are not the same.


I don't see where in the Bible it says that God doesn't have emotions.  I know that the Bible says that God is perfect and doesn't sin, but you can have emotions and still be perfect and not sin.  If God was so pained by his son's death that he turned his back, which caused the earth to become dark, isn't that an emotion?  Also, the Bible says that we were created in the image of God, and although we obviously aren't exactly like him, it seems to mean that we were created with some of the same characteristics as him.

----------


## jmdrake

> Which is it? You seem to be saying two different things right here in this very post.
> 
> How could the fact that he calls us to go spread the Gospel around the world demonstrate that he wants everyone to have knowledge of the gospel and be saved, unless it were the case that people having knowledge of the Gospel and being saved somehow depended on us spreading the Gospel?


I believe there is a hidden question that you didn't directly ask.  That being "So what happens to those people who didn't get a chance to hear the gospel before they died?"  Some people believe all of those people are automatically lost.  I do not believe that.

_Acts 17:29-31 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”_

_James 4:17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them._

So why spread the gospel?  Why not just let people stay in ignorance in the hopes that they get "winked" at?  Two reasons.  One is the sincere belief that Christianity leads to a better life here and now.  _John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly._ and _Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you._  The other is to help people have assurance of salvation.  It's better than hoping they get "winked at".

----------


## erowe1

> I don't see where in the Bible it says that God doesn't have emotions.  I know that the Bible says that God is perfect and doesn't sin, but you can have emotions and still be perfect and not sin.  If God was so pained by his son's death that he turned his back, which caused the earth to become dark, isn't that an emotion?  Also, the Bible says that we were created in the image of God, and although we obviously aren't exactly like him, it seems to mean that we were created with some of the same characteristics as him.


Emotions are passions. They are cases of us being moved by what is outside us, things that are outside our control. They are also inextricably linked with the element of surprise, and experiencing something different at one moment than at another moment. They can't be separated from the things that are inherent to us as created beings who are within time and who cannot control everything that happens to us. We have no other way of conceiving of them. When we impute emotions to God, we have to recognize that we're speaking analogically, and that we're not claiming that God is actually experiencing the same thing we experience when we describe ourselves as experiencing those emotions.

----------


## Brett85

> This is where two wills theology comes in.  I forget the technical terminology (I know Sola knows it, Erowe almost certainly does as well) but I've heard a preacher one time describe them as God's "Secret" and "Revealed" will.  *God's revealed will is that everyone follow his commandments*, and people can rebel and violate those commandments, but those people are ultimately following God's will.  As per Romans 9:17.


But if human beings have no free will, as your theology seems to state, then we aren't responsible for disobeying God's commandments.  God would be responsible for that, since we have no free will, and God simply forced his will on us and caused us to sin.  Human beings can't be responsible for sin if we don't have the free will to choose whether or not to sin.  

As Castellion wrote to Calvin:




> Let us assume that the charge is true, and that I really stole wood because I, in the terms
> of your doctrine, was predestined to do so. Why should you revile me on that account?
> Should you not rather have compassion on me because God foreordained me to such a fate,
> and therefore made it impossible that I should not steal? If that be so, why should you fill
> the heavens with outcries and denunciations? To prevent my stealing any more? But if I am a
> thief because of divine predestination, you must in your writings acquit me of blame, since
> I act under coercion. On your own showing I could as little refrain from theft as, by taking
> thought, add a cubit to my stature.

----------


## erowe1

> But if human beings have no free will, as your theology seems to state, then we aren't responsible for disobeying God's commandments. God would be responsible for that, since we have no free will, and God simply forced his will on us and caused us to sin. Human beings can't be responsible for sin if we don't have the free will to choose whether or not to sin.


Once again, as I've said to you before, including quite recently, whether or not I believe in free will depends on how it is defined. I see it as a very difficult term to define. You seem to have no trouble tossing it around as if its meaning is completely obvious.

If you define "free will" in such a way that excludes human responsibility for our actions, then I agree, the Bible does not teach "free will" by that definition. The Bible does teach that we are responsible for our actions. It also teaches that God's having predestined us to perform those actions does not lessen that responsibility.

And, once again, you choose to inject your own term "forced" here. Where have I ever used that word for God's predestination of a human decision?

Finally, notice what you're doing in this post. It's the same kind of thing I mentioned above. Instead of just accepting that there's a mystery that goes beyond your understanding of how everything the Bible teaches about human responsibility and predestination is true. You revert to this philosophizing, where you say things the Bible never teaches, about how you think predestination would eliminate human responsibility, and so the former must be rejected in order to maintain the latter. It's more of the "Why would God do that?" sort of argument, where you won't believe what he tells you until you resolve the unknowable.

----------


## Terry1

> No, being made in God's image and likeness doesn't make it prudent to imagine him to be like a human. See, among many other verses, Numbers 23:19:


Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, *God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,* and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Philippians 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the *form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:*






> There are many ways that humans are not like God. We change. We don't know the future. We are not almighty. We are wholly within creation, and not above it. We could go on.


We are not God obviously, but we are made in His image and likeness being that we have inherited many of the same spiritual attributes of God Himself because He instilled them in us.  Otherwise, there would have been nothing to set the precedent for Gods morality in and amongst mankind.  Mankind would not have a set of moral principles other than what mankind has decided for themselves which could only be pure evil.





> Could you please provide the quote where I do that.


Promoting the idea that "all" does not mean "all" and "world" does not mean "world".




> I'm not sure if you are or not. But you yourself quoted biblical proof that God predestines acts of disobedience against Himself. Are you trying to get out of accepting that? Or do you accept it? If you do, then I don't see what you're disagreeing with me about.


You didn't understand what was saying.  Since I believe that the free will and predestination work harmoniously and simultaneously to bring about the will of God just the same as I believe that grace and faith work the very same way.  One without the other makes them both of no effect because they were designed to work together to bring about salvation and the will of God.  Then it would be impossible to say that one alone does the work for the other, regarding the free will or predestination or grace and faith.  

To separate grace from faith as both needing the other to fulfill Gods plans design, then it is the same to say that to separate predestination from the free will or choice of man.  Both parts are needed to fulfill a state of elect in an individual same as grace and faith.  As Gods word says without separation, that we are saved by grace through faith.  Faith is an action on the part of the believer and grace the empowering element to enable that believer to then act upon that same faith to reveal evidence of that same belief through the actions and deeds of the believer.  This is our fruit--the branch that bears the fruit of the true Vine, that being Jesus.  John 15:1, without fruit which is the evidence of belief, that branch is then cut off from the true vine and burned.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, it does, erowe, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do to try to change it.  If God causes men to sin and then punishes them for the sin He made them do, then that is the exact definition of a cruel puppet master.  No way getting around it!



No TER.  That is what evil,  sinful men think of the sovereign Lord.  That is what the men say to Paul in Romans 9 when they question God's sovereignty.   "Why does God still blame us?  For who can resist his will?"

And you and I both know what the apostles response was to that.   It AMAZES me that even after Paul condemns this kind of thinking as evil, you still engage in it.

----------


## moostraks

> No, being made in God's image and likeness doesn't make it prudent to imagine him to be like a human. See, among many other verses, Numbers 23:19:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ways that humans are not like God. We change. We don't know the future. We are not almighty. We are wholly within creation, and not above it. We could go on.





> Emotions are passions. They are cases of us being moved by what is outside us, things that are outside our control. They are also inextricably linked with the element of surprise, and experiencing something different at one moment than at another moment. They can't be separated from the things that are inherent to us as created beings who are within time and who cannot control everything that happens to us. We have no other way of conceiving of them. When we impute emotions to God, we have to recognize that we're speaking analogically, and that we're not claiming that God is actually experiencing the same thing we experience when we describe ourselves as experiencing those emotions.


You have a ***** way of processing what emotions are. It as if you just discarded one third of His triune nature. Without grasping what emotions are and how they shape our interactions, I am not sure one can begin to make anything more than head driven decisions which leaves one in the flesh. Look at the words used for differentiating those who walk by the Spirit and those who walk by the flesh:

Galatians 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh [g]sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you [h]please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law

Many of the words are specific to emotions. The love you have is Love. Meaning the Spirit within you. The joy you have is from Love, the Spirit within you. The peace you have is from Love, the Spirit within you. The patience you have is Love, the Spirit within you.

1 John 4: Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is [a]born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested [b]in us,

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it.

The Witness John

6 There [c]came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 [d]He came [e]as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 [f]He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 There was the true Light [g]which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [h]own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were [i]born, not of [j]blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

----------


## moostraks

> No TER.  That is what evil,  sinful men think of the sovereign Lord.  That is what the men say to Paul in Romans 9 when they question God's sovereignty.   "Why does God still blame us?  For who can resist his will?"
> 
> And you and I both know what the apostles response was to that.   It AMAZES me that even after Paul condemns this kind of thinking as evil, you still engage in it.



You think that you can start up these same arguments as if they have not transpired before and you haven't just walk out of every thread this has been argued. You like to stir trouble and run. You have a particular way of parsing a verse from Romans 9 which lacks any willingness to consider the context of what was being discussed so you can feel validated in your particular version of sinners in the hands of your blood thirsty god. Just cause you say so doesn't mean it's right...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You think that you can start up these same arguments as if they have not transpired before and you haven't just walk out of every thread this has been argued. You like to stir trouble and run. You have a particular way of parsing a verse from Romans 9 which lacks any willingness to consider the context of what was being discussed so you can feel validated in your particular version of sinners in the hands of your blood thirsty god. Just cause you say so doesn't mean it's right...


Your god who has no wrath is not Yahweh.  Your god is an idol, and idols cannot save.  This is why I implore you to repent and turn to the Sovereign Lord, because Yahweh is a jealous God, and He is bringing down His wrath on the idolatry of men.  This is what Romans chapter 1 is about?  Have you ever read Romans chapter 1?

----------


## Terry1

> Your god who has no wrath is not Yahweh.  Your god is an idol, and idols cannot save.  This is why I implore you to repent and turn to the Sovereign Lord, because Yahweh is a jealous God, and He is bringing down His wrath on the idolatry of men.  This is what Romans chapter 1 is about?  Have you ever read Romans chapter 1?


Before you go telling someone on the right track to "repent", I suggest you first answer the question I've asked you over and over.  Do you understand the difference between a "work of the old law" and a "work of faith"?  You've accused some of us here of attempting salvation through works.  Now you really need to back that up with something more substantial than that which you've given.

Question to you once again, do you understand the difference between a work of the old law and a work of faith?  Thanks

----------


## moostraks

> Your god who has no wrath is not Yahweh.  Your god is an idol, and idols cannot save.  This is why I implore you to repent and turn to the Sovereign Lord, because Yahweh is a jealous God, and He is bringing down His wrath on the idolatry of men.  This is what Romans chapter 1 is about?  Have you ever read Romans chapter 1?


You know I have because I went through the entire book with you around the time you said I was a pagan among other things you accused me of being. Your lack of fruits of the Spirit and  similarity to those of the flesh tell me what I need to know about your philosophy. Did I say there is no wrath? Funny...putting words in my mouth again? There's something new. What's the matter, get bored on some other board and thought you needed to stir some strife here again? 

Guess you are so busy slapping people around with your view of Romans you can't see the neighbors as individuals anymore and keep track of whom you've been laying your special love down with anymore...

Yep, I read Romans and went over it with you awhile back S_F so try again...

----------


## dinosaur

Does this apply to "all have sinned.." ?

----------


## Brett85

> Once again, as I've said to you before, including quite recently, whether or not I believe in free will depends on how it is defined. I see it as a very difficult term to define. You seem to have no trouble tossing it around as if its meaning is completely obvious.
> 
> If you define "free will" in such a way that excludes human responsibility for our actions, then I agree, the Bible does not teach "free will" by that definition. The Bible does teach that we are responsible for our actions. It also teaches that God's having predestined us to perform those actions does not lessen that responsibility.
> 
> And, once again, you choose to inject your own term "forced" here. Where have I ever used that word for God's predestination of a human decision?
> 
> Finally, notice what you're doing in this post. It's the same kind of thing I mentioned above. Instead of just accepting that there's a mystery that goes beyond your understanding of how everything the Bible teaches about human responsibility and predestination is true. You revert to this philosophizing, where you say things the Bible never teaches, about how you think predestination would eliminate human responsibility, and so the former must be rejected in order to maintain the latter. It's more of the "Why would God do that?" sort of argument, where you won't believe what he tells you until you resolve the unknowable.


But weren't you the one arguing that God always intended for Adam to eat the forbidden fruit?  If that's the case, how exactly did Adam disobey God when he ate the forbidden fruit?  He would've simply been doing God's will, doing exactly what God wanted him to do.  And if God was responsible for Adam eating the forbidden fruit, then how can man bear any responsibility for his own sin?  If God coerces us into sinning, then we aren't responsible for our own sin.  And I know that you didn't explicitly use the word "coerced," but it just seems like what you're arguing can be summarized that way.  And even if you dispute that and say that you don't believe that, I wasn't necessarily just referring to you, or referring to you at all, at least with my earlier comments.  I was just saying that the theology of Calvinism and limited atonement in general denies the concept of free will.  And Sola Fide definitely denies the concept of free will.  He's said that over and over again.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know I have because I went through the entire book with you around the time you said I was a pagan among other things you accused me of being. Your lack of fruits of the Spirit and  similarity to those of the flesh tell me what I need to know about your philosophy. Did I say there is no wrath? Funny...putting words in my mouth again? There's something new. What's the matter, get bored on some other board and thought you needed to stir some strife here again? 
> 
> Guess you are so busy slapping people around with your view of Romans you can't see the neighbors as individuals anymore and keep track of whom you've been laying your special love down with anymore...
> 
> Yep, I read Romans and went over it with you awhile back S_F so try again...


Oh you went over it with me?  Ok, does Romans 1 say that God is revealing His wrath against mankind?  Yes or no?

----------


## moostraks

> Oh you went over it with me?  Ok, does Romans 1 say that God is revealing His wrath against mankind?  Yes or no?


Again you are the one who twists my words of a blood thirsty god to mean something different. You created an image so that you can fantasize about how you are special and chosen whilst you go around insulting and  insinuating things about your neighbor. Then you claim Paul gives you the right to be nasty to others and you don't have any accountability for your behavior as you are a chosen one, a member of the elect, who can do no wrong that won't be forgiven. So is your Bible devoid of anything other than the book of Romans that you, imo, erroneously interpret? Do you have any knowledge of Love?

1 John 4:6 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has [d]for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear [e]involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

May He grant me the patience to learn to love the mean people that exalt themselves on the backs of others. Would you like to talk about rape and incest again? Tell us about your god, S_F, and how I am wrong in my understanding of love...

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh you went over it with me?  Ok, does Romans 1 say that God is revealing His wrath against mankind?  Yes or no?


No.  It says that the wrath of God is revealed against the *ungodly deeds* of mankind.

_18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,_ 

You are misreading Romans 1:18 to say:

_18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all men_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No.  It says that the wrath of God is revealed against the *ungodly deeds* of mankind.
> 
> _18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,_ 
> 
> You are misreading Romans 1:18 to say:
> 
> _18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all men_


The Bible doesn't make the distinction that you are presenting here.  It's popular today that "God loves everybody" but it's not Biblical.  In the same chapter,  when Paul says God gave them over to a depraved mind to things which ought not to be done, it is clear that this judgment is very personal and it is directed toward people,  not actions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again you are the one who twists my words of a blood thirsty god to mean something different. You created an image so that you can fantasize about how you are special and chosen whilst you go around insulting and  insinuating things about your neighbor. Then you claim Paul gives you the right to be nasty to others and you don't have any accountability for your behavior as you are a chosen one, a member of the elect, who can do no wrong that won't be forgiven. So is your Bible devoid of anything other than the book of Romans that you, imo, erroneously interpret? Do you have any knowledge of Love?
> 
> 1 John 4:6 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has [d]for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear [e]involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
> 
> May He grant me the patience to learn to love the mean people that exalt themselves on the backs of others. Would you like to talk about rape and incest again? Tell us about your god, S_F, and how I am wrong in my understanding of love...
> 
> Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.


I'm sorry, but you're worthless to discuss things with.  At least jmdrake attempted to answer the question.   You didn't even mention Romans 1, which confirms in my mind that you have probably never read it and surely don't understand it.

----------


## TER

> It's popular today that "God loves everybody" but it's not Biblical.


lol, it's been popular since the NT was written and we learn from Jesus Christ that He gave His life for all the world!  God loves everybody, for all are His children!  What a wonderful thing to know!  What good news!  That God is our Father and that He loves us, and that He will forgive us as we forgive others!  Blessed is the man who can forgive even his enemies, for he will find forgiveness!

----------


## Brett85

> lol, it's been popular since the NT was written and we learn from Jesus Christ that He gave His life for all the world!  God loves everybody, for all are His children!  What a wonderful thing to know!  What good news!  That God is our Father and that He loves us, and that He will forgive us as we forgive others!  Blessed is the man who can forgive even his enemies, for he will find forgiveness!


+Rep.  Sola Fide would have us believe that the same God who told us to love our enemies hates his enemies.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've heard different terms used. But the terms I used above were "prescribed" and "decreed."
> 
> I don't think this needs any special label, like "two wills theology." Are there Christians who don't see this distinction in the Bible? It seems impossible to me not to.


I know of some hyper Calvinists, like some of the people at Pristine Grace, who believe that God's decreed ("secret" in my terminology) will is the only will that he has, and that having two wills for God is irrational.  I don't know if Arminians will put it this way, but it seems like they think God's prescribed ("revealed" in my terminology) will is the only will that God has.  TC's comment strongly implies this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> +Rep.  Sola Fide would have us believe that the same God who told us to love our enemies hates his enemies.


As per Matthew 5:45, I disagree with Sola on this point, I think he shows love even to his enemies, thus we are supposed to do the same.  But I do not believe God's enemies are his children, we are adopted into his family when he justifies us and cleanses us from our sins.  So I agree with Sola, and not with you, on that point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Bible doesn't make the distinction that you are presenting here.  It's popular today that "God loves everybody" but it's not Biblical.  In the same chapter,  when Paul says God gave them over to a depraved mind to things which ought not to be done, it is clear that this judgment is very personal and it is directed toward people,  not actions.


I'm a logical sort of person in general, but I don't think you can reconcile the Bible without a certain degree of "paradox" as you call it, because there are other passages that clearly show God showing love to his enemies.

----------


## moostraks

> I'm sorry, but you're worthless to discuss things with.  At least jmdrake attempted to answer the question.   You didn't even mention Romans 1, which confirms in my mind that you have probably never read it and surely don't understand it.


I am worthless because you took something I said and went on your Romans tangent? I am worthless because I won't play your game of answer this statement I am twisting out of the Bible (or specifically your version of the Bible which is limited to Romans) based upon my putting words in your mouth? I answered your question by pointing out that your position is invalid by using another verse from a book outside of Romans. I don't have to obey your commands. I knew the point you were making. Apparently you are not astute enough to understand I was refuting your position because I dared to tackle the discussion outside of your commands.

Tell us about your god of love that makes people commit the act of rape and incest for his pleasure of punishment of all parties involved. Tell us about the fruits of the spirit of your god. Tell us about how you don't have to be loving towards others because you are a member of the elect and we are all irrelevant who disagree with you. Tell us how Paul provides the proper manner for dealing with those who disagree. Oh please inform those of us wayward souls you have condemned to hell because you have the authority to define who is and is not Christian.

----------


## otherone

> I don't think you can reconcile the Bible without a certain degree of "paradox"


There.  Problem solved.  Everyone wins!
(not sure what definition of "everyone" to use, here.)

----------


## jmdrake

> The Bible doesn't make the distinction that you are presenting here.  It's popular today that "God loves everybody" but it's not Biblical.  In the same chapter,  when Paul says God gave them over to a depraved mind to things which ought not to be done, it is clear that this judgment is very personal and it is directed toward people,  not actions.


Ummmmm.....I quoted the Bible.  So unless you can come up with some interpretation, other than from your on fallible mind, where Romans 1:18 reads "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all men", you need to admit that you just making your argument up out of thin air.  And as for your point about "judgment being directed against people, not actions" *SO WHAT?*  The Bible teaches that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.  (I know, I know...you don't think "all" means "all" except for when it is convenient for you for it to mean "all".)  The Bible also teaches that hell was created for the devil and his angels.  The exclusion of man in the list of entities hell was created for means that hell was not created for man.  Yes men will end up in hell.  But that was not the purpose for hell.  You can't punish and "action".  You can only punish the actor of that action.  That doesn't mean that God had wrath for the actors before they were even born.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 14:16-17 NASB
> 
> *I will ask the Father, and He will give you* another Helper, that He may be with you forever;  that is *the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive*, because it does not see Him or know Him, *but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.*


In the Bible, world does not mean world and all does not mean all.

----------


## Terry1

> In the Bible, world does not mean world and all does not mean all.


Well of course and once again, because you can't reconcile your belief with clear context of scripture that you would have to literally *redefine* what Gods word is actually saying.  This is the problem with what you believe, Gods word doesn't reconcile with your belief, so then you pervert the context to mean whatever you choose as "none should perish", or that "all" doesn't mean "all" or that "world" doesn't mean world and you fallaciously believe that you've already been "perfected".  

God hasn't chosen you yet, you've chosen yourself and have redesigned the scriptures to agree with you and not God.  You haven't finished this life yet, your course and race is not finished yet and while Jesus wasn't even perfected until after His death, neither will you be and that's *IF* God has indeed chosen you at all by your "works of faith" that you'll most certainly be judged by God for while in this life.  Those "works of faith" can only happen if a believer believes in repentance, which you do not, hence--it would then be impossible for you to be in a state of elect at any point during the course of this life.  Answer the question yourself then based upon this knowledge---are you indeed "chosen" and "perfected"?  No---it would be impossible given your current state of belief.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

Why is SF not banned yet?
Every thread I read from this guy is religious dogma.
This is a political forum, if he wants to preach some crazy religion crap, maybe he should find a different forum.

Can't we just feel bad for him that he lives in some fantasy world, ban him, and move on?

----------


## erowe1

> Why is SF not banned yet?
> Every thread I read from this guy is religious dogma.
> This is a political forum, if he wants to preach some crazy religion crap, maybe he should find a different forum.
> 
> Can't we just feel bad for him that he lives in some fantasy world, ban him, and move on?


These threads you're talking about, what forum topic are they in?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why is SF not banned yet?
> Every thread I read from this guy is religious dogma.
> This is a political forum, if he wants to preach some crazy religion crap, maybe he should find a different forum.
> 
> Can't we just feel bad for him that he lives in some fantasy world, ban him, and move on?


This is the religion forum.  What's the problem?

Instead of whining about the discussion and trying to control it, why not offer your own religious dogma?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is the problem with what you believe, Gods word doesn't reconcile with your belief, so then you pervert the context to mean whatever you choose as "none should perish", or that "all" doesn't mean "all" or that "world" doesn't mean world and you fallaciously believe that you've already been "perfected".


What does the word "world" mean in John 14:16?

It doesn't mean "every person without exception", does it?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is the religion forum.  What's the problem?
> 
> Instead of whining about the discussion and trying to control it, why not offer your own religious dogma?


Yes.

I actually enjoy these conversations.  I post in the political forums as well, but there really is no more important issue than the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Its so easy to lose sight of that sometimes, sinful human beings that we are.

If you don't like these types of conversations, avoid the religion subforum.

Ron Paul is a baptist, just for the record.

----------


## Terry1

> What does the word "world" mean in John 14:16?
> 
> It doesn't mean "every person without exception", does it?


Then what is Jesus talking about when He says this:

1.Matthew 18:14 
*   13 And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.  Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
*

I guess you could come back and say that He's only talking about the "elect", but then you'd have to ask yourself ---why is Jesus indicating that it's possible that they can perish at all?

----------


## Brett85

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is, is.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is, is.


That was our take on it too.



> 





> To quote someone we all know, "It all depends on what the meaning of is is."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is, is.




What does the word "world" mean in John 14:16?

It doesn't mean "every person without exception", does it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then what is Jesus talking about when He says this:
> 
> 1.Matthew 18:14 
> *   13 And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.  Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
> *
> 
> I guess you could come back and say that He's only talking about the "elect", but then you'd have to ask yourself ---why is Jesus indicating that it's possible that they can perish at all?


Where is the answer about John 14:16?  You know, earlier in this thread you mocked me for missing the "clear meaning" of the word world.  Yet you have no answer when I clearly show that world does not mean "every person without exception" in every instance.

----------


## Brett85

> What does the word "world" mean in John 14:16?
> 
> It doesn't mean "every person without exception", does it?


It seems to be every single person in the entire world.  The father sent the son to be the savior of the entire world.  The Bible says that God isn't willing that any should perish, that all should come to repentance.  So he sent Jesus to die so that the entire world could be saved.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people will reject Christ's free gift and go against God's will, and only some will actually be justified.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It seems to be every single person in the entire world.  The father sent the son to be the savior of the entire world.  The Bible says that God isn't willing that any should perish, that all should come to repentance.  So he sent Jesus to die so that the entire world could be saved.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people will reject Christ's free gift and go against God's will, and only some will actually be justified.


What? 

The verse says "the WORLD cannot receive Him"..."but you know Him because He abides in you".




> John 14:16-17 NASB
> 
> I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;  *that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive*, because it does not see Him or know Him, *but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.*


There is a differentiation between "world" and "you".  How could "world" there mean every single person without exception?   Are you insane?

----------


## Dr.3D

Here is the same word for world, used again.



> NRS John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.



Edit:
Ahh.. I see this has already been covered..... 

Never mind then.

----------


## Brett85

> What? 
> 
> The verse says "the WORLD cannot receive Him"..."but you know Him because He abides in you".
> 
> 
> 
> There is a differentiation between "world" and "you".  How could "world" there mean every single person without exception?   Are you insane?


You just said John 14:16 at first, and the word "world" isn't in that verse at all, so I just figured you were talking about 1 John, and I typed that in on Google, and 1 John 14:14-16 was the first result, and it uses the word "world," so I was talking about those verses.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It seems to be every single person in the entire world.  The father sent the son to be the savior of the entire world.  The Bible says that God isn't willing that any should perish, that all should come to repentance.  So he sent Jesus to die so that the entire world could be saved.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people will reject Christ's free gift and go against God's will, and only some will actually be justified.


Wouldn't that make God a failure?

Why couldn't God have created people with wills that would accept him rather than wills that would reject him?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 12:19
> 
> So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the *whole world* has gone after him!"



Did every single person without exception go after Jesus?  Did even the Jews who were complaining that the whole world was going after Jesus go after Jesus?

In the Bible, all does not mean all, and world does not mean world.

----------


## Brett85

> In the Bible, all does not mean all, and world does not mean world.


You can say that "all" doesn't mean every single person in the world every time it's used, and you can say that "world" doesn't mean "everyone" every time it's used, but to say that these words never refer to every person in the world simply isn't true.  Those words refer to every single person in the world a lot of the time that they're used.

----------


## Brett85

> Wouldn't that make God a failure?
> 
> Why couldn't God have created people with wills that would accept him rather than wills that would reject him?


It wouldn't make God a failure.  If someone refused to accept Christ and gets thrown into the lake of fire, it means that we've failed to convince that person to accept Christ.  Christ said to go throughout all the world and preach the good news; the Bible says that God isn't willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  If God created people with wills that would accept him, that would contradict the idea of free will.  Free will means that you can choose to reject God's will for your life.  If God created people to only be able to accept him, and didn't give them the option of rejecting him, there would be no such thing as free will.

----------


## erowe1

> If someone refused to accept Christ and gets thrown into the lake of fire, it means that we've failed to convince that person to accept Christ.


That sounds like you think someone's salvation can depend on how good of a salesman of the Gospel someone else is.




> If God created people to only be able to accept him, and didn't give them the option of rejecting him, there would be no such thing as free will.


Why do you believe that?

Do you think that when you're in Heaven you won't have free will? Does God himself not have free will?

----------


## Brett85

> Why do you believe that?
> 
> Do you think that when you're in Heaven you won't have free will? Does God himself not have free will?


In heaven we'll have free will, but we won't have a sinful nature, so we will choose with our own free will to do what is right.

----------


## erowe1

> In heaven we'll have free will, but we won't have a sinful nature, so we will choose with our own free will to do what is right.


What, then, did you mean when you just said a few minutes ago that if people were only able to accept him, and didn't give them the option of rejecting him, there would be no such thing as free will?

Also, a corollary of what you say here is that Adam, since he did choose to sin, must have had a sinful nature. Is that your view?

----------


## Brett85

> What, then, did you mean when you just said a few minutes ago that if people were only able to accept him, and didn't give them the option of rejecting him, there would be no such thing as free will?
> 
> Also, a corollary of what you say here is that Adam, since he did choose to sin, must have had a sinful nature. Is that your view?


Adam had the ability to choose sin.  He didn't have a sinful nature in the sense of something he inherited from the time he was born.  

I have to go somewhere and won't be able to comment for a while.

----------


## erowe1

> Adam had the ability to choose sin.  He didn't have a sinful nature in the sense of something he inherited from the time he was born.


But you just used the lack of a sinful nature as your reason for why people in Heaven will never sin.

----------


## Brett85

> But you just used the lack of a sinful nature as your reason for why people in Heaven will never sin.


Maybe people will never sin in heaven because the rules will be different.  We don't even know what "sin" will actually be in heaven.  The Bible doesn't seem to be specific on that.  We only "sin" when we do something that God told us not to do.  We don't know what the rules will be in heaven, so it's hard to even have a hypothetical conversation about why there will be no sin in heaven.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe people will never sin in heaven because the rules will be different.  We don't even know what "sin" will actually be in heaven.  The Bible doesn't seem to be specific on that.  We only "sin" when we do something that God told us not to do.  We don't know what the rules will be in heaven, so it's hard to even have a hypothetical conversation about why there will be no sin in heaven.


But do you still believe this?



> If God created people to only be able to accept him, and didn't give them the option of rejecting him, there would be no such thing as free will.


If so, then you must believe that under all possible rules the existence of free will must entail the option of rejecting God.

Or, given the question of whether or not God could have created this world with 100% certainty that no one would ever sin, you can't fall back on saying that the only way he could have done that would have been by not creating beings with free will. You must say that He could have done that and still given his creatures free will, but that he chose instead to create this world where there would be sin.

----------


## Brett85

> But do you still believe this?
> 
> 
> If so, then you must believe that under all possible rules the existence of free will must entail the option of rejecting God.
> 
> Or, given the question of whether or not God could have created this world with 100% certainty that no one would ever sin, you can't fall back on saying that the only way he could have done that would have been by not creating beings with free will. You must say that He could have done that and still given his creatures free will, but that he chose instead to create this world where there would be sin.


Maybe in heaven we'll still have the free will to reject God, just as we do on earth, but as saved and immortal human beings, we'll simply choose with our own free will to never reject or disobey God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It wouldn't make God a failure.  If someone refused to accept Christ and gets thrown into the lake of fire, it means that we've failed to convince that person to accept Christ.  Christ said to go throughout all the world and preach the good news; the Bible says that God isn't willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  If God created people with wills that would accept him, that would contradict the idea of free will.  Free will means that you can choose to reject God's will for your life.  If God created people to only be able to accept him, and didn't give them the option of rejecting him, there would be no such thing as free will.


Why would a being as powerful as God care about "free will" anyway? 

TC, who created your mind?  Who created it with the thoughts that it has?

The obvious answer is "God".

God could simply have chosen to only create people with wills that would choose him, so why didn't he?

The obvious answer is found in Romans 9.

----------


## TER

> Why would a being as powerful as God care about "free will" anyway?


because our very salvation through theosis consists of us 'growing in the likeness and stature of Jesus Christ', that is, eternally growing in the likeness of God, and this would be impossible if we did not have free will (in the image of God).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> because our very salvation through theosis consists of us 'growing in the likeness and stature of Jesus Christ', that is, eternally growing in the likeness of God, and this would be impossible if we did not have free will (in the image of God).


 Theosis is so important it deserves its own thread someday.  For now-
http://www.antiochian.org/content/th...-divine-nature



> _by Mark Shuttleworth_ I said, “You _are_ gods,
>  And all of you _are_ children of the Most High.” (Psalm 82:6)
>  This is a verse that most Protestants do not underline in their Bibles. What on earth does it mean—“you are gods”? Doesn’t our faith teach that there is only one God, in three Persons? How can human beings be gods?
>  In the Orthodox Church, this concept is neither new nor startling. It even has a name: _theosis_.  Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with  God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the  divine nature. Also referred to as _deification_, _divinization_, or _illumination_, it is a concept derived from the New Testament regarding the goal of our relationship with the Triune God. (_Theosis_ and _deification_ may be used interchangeably. We will avoid the term _divinization,_ since it could be misread for _divination_, which is another thing altogether!)
>  Many Protestants, and even some Roman Catholics,  might find the Orthodox concept of theosis unnerving. Especially when  they read a quote such as this one from St. Athanasius: “God became man  so that men might become gods,” they immediately fear an influence of Eastern mysticism from Hinduism or pantheism.
>  But such an influence could not be further from the Orthodox  understanding. The human person does not merge with some sort of  impersonal divine force, losing individual identity  or consciousness. Intrinsic divinity is never ascribed to humankind or  any part of the creation, and no created thing is confused with the  being of God. Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological  equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with  the being of God as He is in His essence.
>  In fact, to safeguard against any sort of misunderstanding of this  kind, Orthodox theologians have been careful to distinguish between  God’s essence and His energies. God is incomprehensible in His essence.  But God, who is love, allows us to know Him through His divine energies,  those actions whereby He reveals Himself to us in creation, providence,  and redemption. It is through the divine energies, therefore, that we  achieve union with God.
>  We become united with God by grace in the Person of Christ, who is  God come in the flesh. The means of becoming “like God” is through  perfection in holiness, the continuous process of acquiring the Holy Spirit by grace through ascetic devotion. Some Protestants might refer to this process as _sanctification._ Another term for it, perhaps more familiar to Western Christians, would be _mortification_—putting sin to death within ourselves.
>  In fact, deification is very akin to the Wesleyan understanding of  holiness or perfection, with the added element of our mystical union  with God in Christ as both the means and the motive for attaining  perfection. Fr. David Hester, in his booklet, _The Jesus Prayer_,  identifies theosis as “the gradual process by which a person is renewed  and unified so completely with God that he becomes by grace what God is  by nature.” Another way of stating it is “sharing in the divine nature  through grace.”
> ...

----------


## Brett85

> Why would a being as powerful as God care about "free will" anyway? 
> 
> TC, who created your mind?  Who created it with the thoughts that it has?
> 
> The obvious answer is "God".
> 
> God could simply have chosen to only create people with wills that would choose him, so why didn't he?
> 
> The obvious answer is found in Romans 9.


So every time I picture having sex with a woman that I'm not married to in my mind, those thoughts actually come from God?  If so, then there must be nothing wrong with those thoughts.  You can never do anything wrong as long as you're following God's will for your life.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So every time I picture having sex with a woman that I'm not married to in my mind, those thoughts actually come from God?  If so, then there must be nothing wrong with those thoughts.  You can never do anything wrong as long as you're following God's will for your life.


God has predestined the evil thoughts of evil men, yes.  He has predestined everything.  God holds men accountable for the evil thoughts of men as well.

----------


## eduardo89

> God has predestined the evil thoughts of evil men, yes.  He has predestined everything.  God holds men accountable for the evil thoughts of men as well.


How is that just?

Clue: it isn't, therefore that is not what God does.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How is that just?


I'll let Paul answer your objection to God's sovereignty:




> Romans 9:19-21 NIV
> 
> One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will? 
> 
> But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this?   
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?


It's just because God has the right to make some pots for glory and some for destruction.   You can't answer back to the Lord.  Whatever He does is right.

----------


## Brett85

> God has predestined the evil thoughts of evil men, yes.  He has predestined everything.  God holds men accountable for the evil thoughts of men as well.


That's ridiculous.  So God holds people accountable for things that he forced them to do?  You just have a completely warped view of God and his character.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'll let Paul answer your objection to God's sovereignty:
> 
> It's just because God has the right to make some pots for glory and some for destruction.   You can't answer back to the Lord.  Whatever He does is right.


I had a very good reply that I posted to that a while ago, I'm going to look it up to show you your error in your interpretation of that verse.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's ridiculous.  So God holds people accountable for things that he forced them to do?  You just have a completely warped view of God and his character.


I wouldn't use the word "forced".  I would not claim to know how all these things work together.

What I will say is, God created you, and yet, yes, you're still accountable for your sins.  They are paid for either by you, or by Christ.  But either way, all sins will be paid for.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@TC- Are you talking about God's prescriptive will or his decretive will?

Isaiah 10:5-19 refutes the belief that God cannot hold people responsible for that which he predestines to come to pass.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's ridiculous.  So God holds people accountable for things that he forced them to do?  You just have a completely warped view of God and his character.


The Bible is replete with examples of God predestining the evil of men and then holding them accountable for that evil.

Your view of a god who is not the Potter who molds the clay is the most ridiculous and worthless idol that can be dreamed up.

----------


## Brett85

> @TC- Are you talking about God's prescriptive will or his decretive will?
> 
> Isaiah 10:5-19 refutes the belief that God cannot hold people responsible for that which he predestines to come to pass.


God predestines everything to happen, but you're wrong to say that that predestination doesn't involve free will.  Predestination is always based on foreknowledge, it's based on what God knows we will choose with our own free will.

----------


## TER

> The Bible is replete with examples of God predestining the evil of men and then holding them accountable for that evil.
> 
> Your view of a god who is not the Potter who molds the clay is the most ridiculous and worthless idol that can be dreamed up.


No, it is not 'replete' with such examples.  It has a small handful (if that).  You are taking rare occurrences and making it a rule.  To do this you have to completely ignore the majority of Scripture.  If you abandoned your innovative doctrines, then you wouldn't have to ignore the majority of Scriptures.

----------


## fr33

_Oh wearisome condition of Humanity!
Born under one law, to another bound,
Vainly begot and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound:
What meaneth Nature by these diverse laws?
Passion and reason self-division cause.
Is it the mask or majesty of Power
To make offences that it may forgive?_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, it is not 'replete' with such examples.  It has a small handful (if that).  You are taking rare occurrences and making it a rule.  To do this you have to completely ignore the majority of Scripture.  If you abandoned your innovative doctrines, then you wouldn't have to ignore the majority of Scriptures.


Here is something that will blow your mind TER:

By logical necessity, if God predestined _ something_, He predestined _ everything_ .

1. There is no logical way out.  If you admit that God destined for one thing to happen, by necessity every other thing that led to it or is a consequence of it must have been destined as well.

2. Furthermore, God knew every possible world He could have created, and every possible storyline of every possible world He could have created, yet He chose to create this one, knowing the storyline and outcome. 

Predestination is an inescapable concept.

----------


## TER

> Here is something that will blow your mind TER:
> 
> By logical necessity, if God predestined _ something_, He predestined [/I] everything [/I].
> 
> 1. There is no logical way out.  If you admit that God destined for one thing to happen, by necessity every other thing that led to it or is a consequence of it must have been destined as well.
> 
> 2. Furthermore, God knew every possible world He could have created, and every possible storyline of every possible world He could have created, yet He chose to create this one, knowing the storyline and outcome. 
> 
> Predestination is an inescapable concept.


The only thing that blows my mind is how you speak about a Sovereign God and then limit His power.

----------


## erowe1

> So God holds people accountable for things that he forced them to do?


First, notice that SF didn't use the word "forced." I've noticed that you repeatedly use that word to make a caricature of predestination.

But that aside, then if we just replace the word "forced" with "predestined" in your quote, then yes, we know for sure from the Bible that God does that. There are so many examples in the Bible of it that I don't see how it could be disputable.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> First, notice that SF didn't use the word "forced." I've noticed that you repeatedly use that word to make a caricature of predestination.
> 
> But that aside, then if we just replace the word "forced" with "predestined" in your quote, then yes, we know for sure from the Bible that God does that. There are so many examples in the Bible of it that I don't see how it could be disputable.


That's right.  If predestination simply involved one will (God's will only), then we could say it was completely forced.

But since predestination involves other wills (the wills of men who want to do their sin) we cannot say it is forced, even though God is the ultimate cause.

----------


## moostraks

> That's right.  If predestination simply involved one will (God's will only), then we could say it was completely forced.
> 
> But since predestination involves other wills (the wills of men who want to do their sin) we cannot say it is forced, even though God is the ultimate cause.


It is not man's will though if he is created with no other option as you claim.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is not man's will though if he is created with no other option as you claim.


Yes it is.  The murderers of Jesus were predestined to do what they did, yet all the parties who were involved in Jesus' murder wanted to the sin they did.  They were unaware that they were carrying out the decree of God.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes it is.  The murderers of Jesus were predestined to do what they did, yet all the parties who were involved in Jesus' murder wanted to the sin they did.  They were unaware that they were carrying out the decree of God.


Foreknew then predestined. They chose to do what they did and the solution was predestined for us through those which were foreknown to act as they did. Still does not change the fact that your position is not man's will when he is created without another option. The option they chose they were foreknown for choosing not predestined prior to foreknowledge.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Foreknew then predestined. They chose to do what they did and the solution was predestined for us through those which were foreknown to act as they did. Still does not change the fact that your position is not man's will when he is created without another option. The option they chose they were foreknown for choosing not predestined prior to foreknowledge.


Did God know every act that would happen before He created the world?

----------


## moostraks

> Did God know every act that would happen before He created the world?


The emphasis upon which you make Him the author of evil is so repugnant. In order for free will to exist so that mankind is not merely a puppet for a blood thirsty being means there are those who suffer the consequences of their hardened hearts.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The emphasis upon which you make Him the author of evil is so repugnant. In order for free will to exist so that mankind is not merely a puppet for a blood thirsty being means there are those who suffer the consequences of their hardened hearts.


Did God know every act that would happen before He created the world?  Yes or no?

----------


## moostraks

> Did God know every act that would happen before He created the world?  Yes or no?


Already dealt with this see above^^

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Already dealt with this see above^^


Yes or no?

----------


## Brett85

> First, notice that SF didn't use the word "forced." I've noticed that you repeatedly use that word to make a caricature of predestination.
> 
> But that aside, then if we just replace the word "forced" with "predestined" in your quote, then yes, we know for sure from the Bible that God does that. There are so many examples in the Bible of it that I don't see how it could be disputable.


Yes, and no one disputes the idea of predestination.  But I think the concept of predestination is always based on foreknowledge; it's based on the foreknowledge that God has about what people will choose to do in the future.

----------


## erowe1

> So every time I picture having sex with a woman that I'm not married to in my mind, those thoughts actually come from God?


Not immediately. But those thoughts come from something, right? They don't just emerge without cause. I won't pretend to be able to identify the whole chain of causes, but those thoughts are caused by your mind having the nature that it does such that it comes up with the thoughts that it does under whatever circumstances it is in. And that mind complete with the nature that it has came about from causes prior to it. And ultimately, behind all those causes is one single first cause, which is God.




> If so, then there must be nothing wrong with those thoughts.


You keep repeating variations of this argument. But it's clearly unbiblical.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, and no one disputes the idea of predestination.  But I think the concept of predestination is always based on foreknowledge; it's based on the foreknowledge that God has about what people will choose to do in the future.


Many people dispute both predestination and foreknowledge. One major reason for this is that they follow some of the arguments you're using against predestination and they recognize that rejecting predestination requires them to reject absolute foreknowledge too.

Let's say that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of what they will choose. But then what is the cause behind the fact that anyone will choose what they will choose, such that their choice is already determined and knowable before they make it? Ultimately, that must also be God.

----------


## Brett85

> Let's say that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of what they will choose. But then what is the cause behind the fact that anyone will choose what they will choose? Ultimately, that must also be God.


Why is that?  From the very beginning of the Bible, we see that Satan caused Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.  Satan was the one responsible for convincing her to eat the fruit, and then as a result Eve convinced Adam to eat the forbidden fruit.  So Satan was responsible for sin first entering the world.  The Bible clearly teaches that Satan still exists today and tempts us to do evil, so it seems as though when we do evil it's caused by Satan, not God.  God is sovereign and everything that happens God allows to happen, but God doesn't *cause* everything to happen that happens.

----------


## RJB

Predestination is a subject I have many questions on.  I'm enjoying the dialogue.  Thanks to all the participants and points of view.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why is that?  From the very beginning of the Bible, we see that Satan caused Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.  Satan was the one responsible for convincing her to eat the fruit, and then as a result Eve convinced Adam to eat the forbidden fruit.  So Satan was responsible for sin first entering the world.  The Bible clearly teaches that Satan still exists today and tempts us to do evil, so it seems as though when we do evil it's caused by Satan, not God.  God is sovereign and everything that happens God allows to happen, but God doesn't *cause* everything to happen that happens.



Did God know everything that was going to happen before He created this world?

----------


## erowe1

> Why is that?  From the very beginning of the Bible, we see that Satan caused Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.  Satan was the one responsible for convincing her to eat the fruit, and then as a result Eve convinced Adam to eat the forbidden fruit.  So Satan was responsible for sin first entering the world.


Nowhere does the Bible say that Satan is the cause for sin entering the world. Romans 5:12-21 says Adam was. In fact, up until the book of Revelation, which was the last book of the Bible written, the Bible doesn't even reveal that Satan was involved in that first sin. Genesis 3 only tells us it was "the serpent."




> The Bible clearly teaches that Satan still exists today and tempts us to do evil, so it seems as though when we do evil it's caused by Satan, not God.


Let's say that Satan has all the responsibility for sin that you give him. We still have God as the ultimate first cause. Satan's choices were caused by Satan's mind complete with the nature that it had. And ultimately this mind being what it was resulted from a chain of causes that could only go back to the one uncaused first cause.




> God is sovereign and everything that happens God allows to happen, but God doesn't *cause* everything to happen that happens.


I don't say that we have to make God the direct cause of everything that happens. But he does have to be the ultimate first cause.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes or no?


I answered you. We have had this conversation before, numerous times. This is why I knew to cut to the chase and dealt with the argument you were going to propose. If I know you have a propensity for violence and I allow a situation to unfold based upon this knowledge then you still are responsible for your behavior. You claim there is no free will but then state man has his own will when without a choice to be made he is only doing the will which was thrust upon him. I disagree with your belief because I believe in free will and believe that due to this free will some folks suffer consequences for their choices and will carry through on some heinous acts. It is the thorny part of the rose of free will.

----------


## Brett85

> Did God know everything that was going to happen before He created this world?


We know that God has the ability and the power to have known everything that was going to happen before he created the world.  But since God has the power to do everything, then it seems as though God also has the power to limit his own foreknowledge.  This is the point that Terry has brought up.  Do you think that God has the power to limit his own foreknowledge?

----------


## erowe1

> We know that God has the ability and the power to have known everything that was going to happen before he created the world.  But since God has the power to do everything, then it seems as though God also has the power to limit his own foreknowledge.  This is the point that Terry has brought up.  Do you think that God has the power to limit his own foreknowledge?


Could you say more about what you mean by saying that God has the power to do everything? What is your basis for saying that?

----------


## Brett85

> Could you say more about what you mean by saying that God has the power to do everything? What is your basis for saying that?


Because since the Bible says that God is all powerful, then he has the power to do everything.  (Except for sin.)

----------


## erowe1

> Because since the Bible says that God is all powerful, then he has the power to do everything.  (Except for sin.)


First of all, could you quote the verses you have in mind here?

Second of all, if the Bible does say that God is all-powerful, and if this does mean that he has the power to do everything, then what justification would you have for adding that little exception at the end? Why can't there be other exceptions?

That actually gets to the problem with the argument you were giving. God has a nature, and he is bound to be what his nature is and to behave according to that nature. This nature entails all the perfections that the Bible reveals him to have. And he can't be something different than his own nature.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We know that God has the ability and the power to have known everything that was going to happen before he created the world.  But since God has the power to do everything, then it seems as though God also has the power to limit his own foreknowledge.  This is the point that Terry has brought up.  Do you think that God has the power to limit his own foreknowledge?


Let's examine this insane and unbiblical assertion that "God limits His own knowledge"...

 If God knows everything,  wouldn't He know the knowledge that He has limited for Himself?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You can say that "all" doesn't mean every single person in the world every time it's used, and you can say that "world" doesn't mean "everyone" every time it's used, but to say that these words never refer to every person in the world simply isn't true. * Those words refer to every single person in the world a lot of the time that they're used*.


Wrong.  Quoting from the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon:




> The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, *and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually.* 
> 
> The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...


"Very rarely".  Not "a lot of the time".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's right.  If predestination simply involved one will (God's will only), then we could say it was completely forced.
> 
> But since predestination involves other wills (the wills of men who want to do their sin) we cannot say it is forced, even though God is the ultimate cause.


I mostly agree with you, but I still want to devil's advocate the science fiction argument.

If I invented a device that could manipulate the desires of your mind and control your actions, and I used that device to make you want to murder someone and then caused you to do it, would you be responsible, or would I?

You might be able to respond to this by saying that human moral law simply doesn't apply to God.  But I don't think you can get out of it simply by saying man wants to do those sins, because of the above example.  Because I suspect you would deny personal responsibility for the murder you committed in the scenario I gave you.

----------


## erowe1

> I mostly agree with you, but I still want to devil's advocate the science fiction argument.
> 
> If I invented a device that could manipulate the desires of your mind and control your actions, and I used that device to make you want to murder someone and then caused you to do it, would you be responsible, or would I?
> 
> You might be able to respond to this by saying that human moral law simply doesn't apply to God.  But I don't think you can get out of it simply by saying man wants to do those sins, because of the above example.  Because I suspect you would deny personal responsibility for the murder you committed in the scenario I gave you.


I don't think that what God does is analogous to that.

Our sins arise from our own natures, not from something else that is not a part of us manipulating us to do things differently than what we would pursuant to our own natures.

In fact, this kind of determinism must be the case in order for us to be responsible for our sins. If "free will" meant something incompatible with determinism, as some make it out to be, such that our sinful choices happened to us without cause, haphazard, rather than being caused by our natures, then God would be unjust to blame us for them. And since God cannot be unjust, and God does hold us responsible for our sins, determinism must be true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I mostly agree with you, but I still want to devil's advocate the science fiction argument.
> 
> If I invented a device that could manipulate the desires of your mind and control your actions, and I used that device to make you want to murder someone and then caused you to do it, would you be responsible, or would I?
> 
> You might be able to respond to this by saying that human moral law simply doesn't apply to God.  But I don't think you can get out of it simply by saying man wants to do those sins, because of the above example.  Because I suspect you would deny personal responsibility for the murder you committed in the scenario I gave you.


Remember the thread I started about the logical fallacies of synergism?  Your example is based on one of those fallacies. 

Man's responsibility does not come from the fact that he has some measure of freedom.  Man's responsibility comes from the fact that God is above him as his judge.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think that what God does is analogous to that.
> 
> Our sins arise from our own natures, not from something else that is not a part of us manipulating us to do things differently than what we would pursuant to our own natures.
> 
> In fact, this kind of determinism must be the case in order for us to be responsible for our sins. If "free will" meant something incompatible with determinism, as some make it out to be, such that our sinful choices happened to us without cause, haphazard, rather than being caused by our natures, then God would be unjust to blame us for them. And since God cannot be unjust, and God does hold us responsible for our sins, determinism must be true.


I agree with what you say.  But... and maybe I'm wrong about this, but your version of predestination seems different than SF's, in a subtle way.  And I think that subtlety is also where I disagree with SF.  I can't quite articulate it, though.




> Remember the thread I started about the logical fallacies of synergism?  Your example is based on one of those fallacies. 
> 
> Man's responsibility does not come from the fact that he has some measure of freedom.  Man's responsibility comes from the fact that God is above him as his judge.


Then you can't really use the fact that man has a non-autonomous will as a refutation to the puppet analogy.  You should simply skip straight to the "God is God and can do what he wants" argument.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then you can't really use the fact that man has a non-autonomous will as a refutation to the puppet analogy.  You should simply skip straight to the "God and can do what he wants" argument.


Yes, you can still use the argument.   It's not analogous because men have wills and puppets don't.  Puppets don't want to do anything.   They have no volition.  Men have volition.

But I still get the idea that you are looking for some kind of wiggle room for will in my view of sovereignty, and I'll just admit right now that there is none.  Men's wills are subservient to God's will.  The Potter fashions the pots for glory and destruction.

----------


## Brett85

> First of all, could you quote the verses you have in mind here?


http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow....eat-scriptures

----------


## Brett85

> Let's examine this insane and unbiblical assertion that "God limits His own knowledge"...
> 
>  If God knows everything,  wouldn't He know the knowledge that He has limited for Himself?


God being all powerful, he has the power to prevent himself from knowing something, if that's what he chooses to do.  The Bible doesn't necessarily say that he ever limits his own foreknowledge, but it doesn't say that he doesn't do that either.  God has the power to choose to limit his own foreknowledge any time he wants to.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God being all powerful, he has the power to prevent himself from knowing something, if that's what he chooses to do.  The Bible doesn't necessarily say that he ever limits his own foreknowledge, but it doesn't say that he doesn't do that either.  God has the power to choose to limit his own foreknowledge any time he wants to.


You're right.   It doesn't say that insane, irrational thing anywhere in the Bible.  Quite the opposite.   God is consistently described as the one who "knows the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10).

_But take a step back and look at how much you distort the Biblical view of God in order to maintain your unbiblical view of free will._  You deny His sovereignty, and when the logic of it is pressed, you deny omniscience as well!

But this is EXACTLY how open theism came to be.  And the only consistent Arminians are open theists.  And if you are an open theist, you might as well not even pretend you worship the God of the Bible.

Why not instead throw away your idols and turn to the sovereign Potter?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, you can still use the argument.   It's not analogous because men have wills and puppets don't.  Puppets don't want to do anything.   They have no volition.  Men have volition.


But this is a faulty argument, because of my science fiction example.  Unless you have a specific Biblical reason for why a mind-control device could not be invented, it is theoretically possible that such a device could be invented.  It is theoretically possible that this device could not only cause a person to commit murder, but could also change the way their mind works so they WANT to murder.  If I invented such a device, used it on you, and made you commit murder, all the while causing you to WANT to commit murder, would you be responsible for the action?  If not, that's an invalid argument.

Now, I understand that you can then flip back and say that it would be wrong for men to do that but its not wrong for God because God is the potter and can do what he wants.  I don't even really object to this.  But, in that case, that should be your argument, not the "puppets don't have wills" argument.  If you are going to use the will argument than, to be consistent, you MUST say that you would be morally guilty of murder, and should be held legally responsible for murder, in the scenario I present to you above.

I know you can laugh this off because no such technology actually exists, and in 2014 the only being in the universe that can manipulate minds is God.  But... if your ethical system cannot sustain such a hypothetical, which could actually be the reality at some point in the future, I don't think its really valid, UNLESS you have some scriptural proof that such technology could not possibly be created.



> But I still get the idea that you are looking for some kind of wiggle room for will in my view of sovereignty, and I'll just admit right now that there is none.  Men's wills are subservient to God's will.  The Potter fashions the pots for glory and destruction.


I'm not looking for wiggle room.  I don't go to quite the extreme that you do on the predestination end for a couple of reasons, but I think I understand what your position is, and I think my position is closer to yours than it is to the Arminian position.  I just don't think you're being completely logically consistent in the light of the above argument.  I think your "puppets don't have wills" argument is refuted by science fiction.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're right.   It doesn't say that insane, irrational thing anywhere in the Bible.  Quite the opposite.   God is consistently described as the one who "knows the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10).
> 
> _But take a step back and look at how much you distort the Biblical view of God in order to maintain your unbiblical view of free will._  You deny His sovereignty, and when the logic of it is pressed, you deny omniscience as well!
> 
> But this is EXACTLY how open theism came to be.  And the only consistent Arminians are open theists.  And if you are an open theist, you might as well not even pretend you worship the God of the Bible.
> 
> Why not instead throw away your idols and turn to the sovereign Potter?


Didn't Jesus limit his own foreknowledge while he was on earth?  (Luke 2:52)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Didn't Jesus limit his own foreknowledge while he was on earth?  (Luke 2:52)


When Jesus put on flesh, He veiled some of His glory.  But what does something that was a result of the incarnation have to do with the omniscience of God?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When Jesus put on flesh, He veiled some of His glory.  But what does something that was a result of the incarnation have to do with the omniscience of God?


I've actually never thought about this issue this way before.  Because I think its clear from scripture that God knows everything, and that the only time that it could ever be said that God did not know everything was when Jesus was on earth, God the Son did not know everything (But the Father and the Holy Spirit still did know everything).  Asking whether God "could" limit his foreknowledge in any other situation seems pointless to me, because we know that he does not in fact do so.

If TC is saying that its actually possible that God did not know everything in any situation except for Jesus when he was incarnated, I'd agree with you that that's a problem.  I actually had a problem with what he said when he said it as well, and I agreed with you that it logically leads to open theism, but then I thought of the incarnation and figured we'd better clarify what exactly we are talking about.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is theoretically possible that this device could not only cause a person to commit murder, but could also change the way their mind works so they WANT to murder.  If I invented such a device, used it on you, and made you commit murder, all the while causing you to WANT to commit murder, would you be responsible for the action?  If not, that's an invalid argument.
> 
> Now, I understand that you can then flip back and say that it would be wrong for men to do that but its not wrong for God because God is the potter and can do what he wants.  I don't even really object to this.  But, in that case, that should be your argument, not the "puppets don't have wills" argument.  If you are going to use the will argument than, to be consistent, you MUST say that you would be morally guilty of murder, and should be held legally responsible for murder, in the scenario I present to you above.


No, God cannot be held responsible for murder though He sovereignty controls the wills of evil men to murder other people.  Why?  _Because there is no one above God to hold Him responsible._ 

This is an issue of metaphysics.  When Paul gets down to the nitty gritty in Romans 9, when he answers the hypothetical objector,  his answer was basically "Shut your mouth.  Who are you, a pot turn around to the Potter and object to how you were made".

Paul's answer to the issue of the justness of God's sovereignty is to assert God's metaphysical difference from man.

----------


## erowe1

> http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow....eat-scriptures


I don't see any verses in there that would support the claim that God can do anything. And I especially don't see any that say that he can violate his own nature as God. Do you?

----------


## erowe1

> I agree with what you say.  But... and maybe I'm wrong about this, but your version of predestination seems different than SF's, in a subtle way.  And I think that subtlety is also where I disagree with SF.  I can't quite articulate it, though.


You might be right. I think this is related to the difference you had with SF about whether God's predestining of sin were via just a withholding of grace or something more active than that. I recall in that conversation that I remarked that I didn't think that just saying withholding of grace were enough, and that because God is the creator and sustainer of all things, it had to be more than that. But I do think that describing his predestination of sin as a withholding of grace is a major part of it, and that the way he predestines sin and unbelief is not the same as the way he predestines faith and good works. To predestine us to sin, all God has to do is let us go according to our natures. It's true that our having of these natures in the first place ultimately goes back to God as the first cause of this universe in which it would be the case that we would have these natures. But when he brings people to faith, he intervenes by changing our natural inclination from disbelief to belief.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree with what you say.  But... and maybe I'm wrong about this, but your version of predestination seems different than SF's, in a subtle way.  And I think that subtlety is also where I disagree with SF.  I can't quite articulate it, though.


I don't think the removal of restraint interpretation is Biblical.  The Bible teaches that God hardens the heart.  The removal of restraint view is the opposite of God hardening the heart. 

Here is an excellent short explanation of active reprobation:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...probate-Hearts

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, God cannot be held responsible for murder though He sovereignty controls the wills of evil men to murder other people.  Why?  _Because there is no one above God to hold Him responsible._ 
> 
> This is an issue of metaphysics.  When Paul gets down to the nitty gritty in Romans 9, when he answers the hypothetical objector,  his answer was basically "Shut your mouth.  Who are you, a pot turn around to the Potter and object to how you were made".
> 
> Paul's answer to the issue of the justness of God's sovereignty is to assert God's metaphysical difference from man.


Again, I'm fine with that, but then, the fact that puppets don't have wills is not really relevant.  The will to commit sin is not the fundamental reason why men are held responsible for sin.  The reason men are held responsible for sin is because God is his judge and God chooses to hold him responsible.  But that doesn't change the fact that science fiction refutes the "puppets don't have wills" argument.




> You might be right. I think this is related to the difference you had with SF about whether God's predestining of sin were via just a withholding of grace or something more active than that. I recall in that conversation that I remarked that I didn't think that just saying withholding of grace were enough, and that because God is the creator and sustainer of all things, it had to be more than that. But I do think that describing his predestination of sin as a withholding of grace is a major part of it, and that the way he predestines sin and unbelief is not the same as the way he predestines faith and good works. To predestine us to sin, all God has to do is let us go according to our natures. It's true that our having of these natures in the first place ultimately goes back to God as the first cause of this universe in which it would be the case that we would have these natures. But when he brings people to faith, he intervenes by changing our natural inclination from disbelief to belief.


Yes, I completely,  100% agree with this post.  

I'm not sure if Sola's difference with us on this issue is simply coming down to the wording we choose to use to describe certain concepts or if its actually substantial.  

Sola, just out of curiosity, do you accept or reject equal ultimacy?

I'll take a look at your link.

----------


## Brett85

> You're right.   It doesn't say that insane, irrational thing anywhere in the Bible.  Quite the opposite.   God is consistently described as the one who "knows the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10).
> 
> _But take a step back and look at how much you distort the Biblical view of God in order to maintain your unbiblical view of free will._  You deny His sovereignty, and when the logic of it is pressed, you deny omniscience as well!
> 
> But this is EXACTLY how open theism came to be.  And the only consistent Arminians are open theists.  And if you are an open theist, you might as well not even pretend you worship the God of the Bible.
> 
> Why not instead throw away your idols and turn to the sovereign Potter?


And you are ignoring plain and explicit verses in the Bible that teach free will, including this one.

Matthew 23:37

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, *and you were not willing.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think the removal of restraint interpretation is Biblical.  The Bible teaches that God hardens the heart.  The removal of restraint view *is the opposite of God hardening the heart. 
> *
> Here is an excellent short explanation of active reprobation:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...probate-Hearts


I don't understand your point with the bold.  God hardened Pharaoh's heart BY removing his grace.  I'm not sure how that's the "opposite" at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you are ignoring plain and explicit verses in the Bible that teach free will, including this one.
> 
> Matthew 23:37
> 
> Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, *and you were not willing.*


And here we go with the same old already refuted arguments for free will.  

1.  This portion of Scripture is describing the judgment that is coming on the leaders of Israel.  

2.  There is a difference between God's prescriptive will (I wanted to gather your children but you were not willing), and God's predestinating decree (I declare the end from the beginning).  Evil men don't follow the prescriptive will of God, but they always follow the decree of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God hardened Pharaoh's heart BY removing his grace.


That makes no sense.  "Hardening" describes something *God is doing to a heart,* not something He is not doing to a heart.

----------


## Brett85

> And here we go with the same old already refuted arguments for free will.  
> 
> 1.  This portion of Scripture is describing the judgment that is coming on the leaders of Israel.  
> 
> 2.  There is a difference between God's prescriptive will (I wanted to gather your children but you were not willing), and God's predestinating decree (I declare the end from the beginning).  Evil men don't follow the prescriptive will of God, but they always follow the decree of God.


You're just reading things into this verse that aren't there.  This verse states plainly that God wanted Jerusalem to do something, and they went against what he wanted them to do.  It says nothing about him having some "secret will" that is the exact opposite of what this verse describes his will as being.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That makes no sense.  "Hardening" describes something *God is doing to a heart,* not something He is not doing to a heart.


Isn't deliberately going out of one's way to remove previously given grace "doing something"?

Say I fed a three year old child daily.  Then I stopped for two months straight.  It would not be inaccurate to say I starved him to death, despite the fact that I didn't physically prevent him from finding his own food.  It was inevitable that he could not do so.  By not feeding him, I guaranteed that he would die.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Isn't deliberately going out of one's way to remove previously given grace "doing something"?


Previously given grace?  That sounds very Arminian to me...like prevenient grace or something.   The Bible just does not teach that God gives grace to the reprobate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Previously given grace?  That sounds very Arminian to me...like prevenient grace or something.   The Bible just does not teach that God gives grace to the reprobate.


To my understanding, which could be wrong, "pervenient grace" means that God gives everyone grace so that they can choose whether or not to believe in him.  I do NOT agree with that.  Only the elect are capable of believing, because of salvific grace.  Nobody else is given grace which can possibly lead to salvation.

However, I do believe in common grace.  Even ignoring the good things that God gives to the reprobate in this life, and delaying their punishment, most reprobates aren't Adolf Hitler.  Most reprobates weren't placed right in front of Jesus Christ while he was doing miracles (Which would have increased their knowledge and thus their culpability.)  Biblically the degree of one's suffering in Hell is based in part on whether and to what extent the person knew they were doing wrong (Luke 12:47.)

As for sounding Arminian... I dunno... I'm definitely not... I'm a 5-point Calvinist, but I guess even most 5 pointers would probably seem "Arminian" to you.  I don't mean this in a bad way but you're definitely a lot more radical when it comes to your predestination theology when compared to most Calvinists.  Which is fine, but it doesn't make those of us who are closer to moderate Calvinism "Arminians."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This verse states plainly that God wanted Jerusalem to do something, and they went against what he wanted them to do.


Yes.  There are all kinds of verses in the Bible where men are disobeying God.

The problem with only focusing on the parts of the Bible where men disobey God, is that you ignore all the other parts of the Bible that teach God is in sovereign control of all things, including when men disobey Him.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes.  There are all kinds of verses in the Bible where men are disobeying God.
> 
> The problem with only focusing on the parts of the Bible where men disobey God, is that you ignore all the other parts of the Bible that teach God is in sovereign control of all things, including when men disobey Him.


Yes, but believing that God is in sovereign control of everything doesn't mean that he forces a certain outcome to happen.  (And yes I'm using the word "forced," if Erowe brings it up, because from everything you say it just seems to me that you're saying that everything that happens God actually forces to happen)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes.  There are all kinds of verses in the Bible where men are disobeying God.
> 
> The problem with only focusing on the parts of the Bible where men disobey God, is that you ignore all the other parts of the Bible that teach God is in sovereign control of all things, including when men disobey Him.


Personally, I think you go a little too far and ignore the genuine emotion that seems to be present in Luke 13:34.  Yes, obviously God's ultimate plan was not for them to be saved, but Jesus seemed to desire their salvation in a real sense, not just "Oh, you had a duty to repent but you didn't so now you're going to be punished."  Jesus genuinely wanted these reprobates to repent.




> Yes, but believing that God is in sovereign control of everything doesn't mean that he forces a certain outcome to happen.  (And yes I'm using the word "forced," if Erowe brings it up, because from everything you say it just seems to me that you're saying that everything that happens God actually forces to happen)


I can't sit here and try to figure out God.  He's infinitely beyond my conception.  I'm thinking of Chris Tomlin's "indescribable" song here.  God put the stars in the sky and he knows them all by name.  Who am I to claim I have him figured out?

God says that we make real choices and are responsible for those choices.  He also says that he is in sovereign control of who he will save and who he will not.  How to reconcile those together, I don't know.

----------


## Brett85

> He also says that he is in sovereign control of who he will save and who he will not.  How to reconcile those together, I don't know.


It says that God is in sovereign control of who will be saved based on his foreknowledge of what we will choose.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It says that God is in sovereign control of who will be saved based on his foreknowledge of what we will choose.


That does NOT make sense, and I'd argue that your lack of balance here is far greater than Sola's.

"sovereign control" does not go with "foreknowing what we will choose."  God determined who will and will not be saved.  Romans 9 makes that very clear.

Then again, I don't think the whole "common grace" debate is really going to make any sense to someone who doesn't already accept limited atonement and unconditional election.  So, I'm not really sure if I can explain the nuance of what I'm getting at here.

----------


## Brett85

> God determined who will and will not be saved.  Romans 9 makes that very clear.


Yes, and Romans 8:29 makes it clear that God's determination of who will and won't be saved is based on his foreknowledge.  

For those whom He *foreknew*, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

----------


## Petar

> Yes, and Romans 8:29 makes it clear that God's determination of who will and won't be saved is based on his foreknowledge.  
> 
> For those whom He *foreknew*, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.


Humanity must be a really boring show if he already knows everything that is supposed to happen...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, and Romans 8:29 makes it clear that God's determination of who will and won't be saved is based on his foreknowledge.  
> 
> For those whom He *foreknew*, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.


That is not a foreknowledge of choices, it is a foreknowledge of actual people.  "For THOSE whom He foreknew..."

To "know" someone in the Bible is a term of intimacy.   Adam "knew" Eve, for example.   If God "knew" you before He created you, it means He decided to enter into a relationship with you.

Proginosko in no way means God simply sees your choices.  This has been refuted I don't know how many times on these forums, yet people just continue to ignore it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, and Romans 8:29 makes it clear that God's determination of who will and won't be saved is based on his foreknowledge.  
> 
> For those whom He *foreknew*, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.





> That is not a foreknowledge of choices, it is a foreknowledge of actual people.  "For THOSE whom He foreknew..."
> 
> To "know" someone in the Bible is a term of intimacy.   Adam "knew" Eve, for example.   If God "knew" you before He created you, it means He decided to enter into a relationship with you.
> 
> Proginosko in no way means God simply sees your choices.  This has been refuted I don't know how many times on these forums, yet people just continue to ignore it.


This...

----------


## moostraks

> That is not a foreknowledge of choices, it is a foreknowledge of actual people.  "For THOSE whom He foreknew..."
> 
> To "know" someone in the Bible is a term of intimacy.   Adam "knew" Eve, for example.   If God "knew" you before He created you, it means He decided to enter into a relationship with you.
> 
> Proginosko in no way means God simply sees your choices.  This has been refuted I don't know how many times on these forums, yet people just continue to ignore it.


To this end, therefore, brethren, He is long-suffering, foreseeing how the people whom He has prepared shall with guilelessness believe in His Beloved. For He revealed all these things to us beforehand, that we should not rush forward as rash acceptors of their laws.
Saint Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter III.


Behold, therefore, we have been refashioned, as again He says in another prophet, "Behold, saith the Lord, I will take away from these, that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and I will put hearts of flesh within them," because He was to be manifested in flesh, and to sojourn among us. For, my brethren, the habitation of our heart is a holy temple to the Lord.
Saint Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.


We, -who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation-, have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity.
Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies,
Book V, Chapter I.


"And in short, sirs," said I, "by enumerating all the other appointments of Moses I can demonstrate that they were types, and symbols, and declarations of those things which would happen to Christ, of those who it was foreknown were to believe in Him, and of those things which would also be done by Christ Himself. But since what I have now enumerated appears to me to be sufficient, I revert again to the order of the discourse."
Saint Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher,
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XLII.


And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were fore-known to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding.
Saint Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher,
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXX.


And we have not in vain believed in Him, and have not been led astray by those who taught us such doctrines; but this has come to pass through the wonderful foreknowledge of God, in order that we, through the calling of the new and eternal covenant, that is, of Christ, might be found more intelligent and God-fearing than yourselves, who are considered to be lovers of God and men of understanding, but are not.
Saint Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher,
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXVIII.


Furthermore, I have proved in what has preceded, that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God's fault, but each man by his own fault is what he will appear to be.
Saint Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher,
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXL.


But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin "; that is, having repented of his sins, that he may receive remission of them from God; and not as you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say, that even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them. We have as proof of this the one fall of David, which happened through his boasting, which was forgiven then when he so mourned and wept, as it is written.
Saint Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher,
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXLI.


And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal. And he is called God [qeon] on account of His having placed [teqeikenai] all things on security afforded by Himself; and on account of qeein, for qeein means running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive.
Saint Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus,
Book I, Chapter IV.


For the divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Saint Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus,
Book II, Chapter X.


For the heavenly Logos, a spirit emanating from the Father and a Logos from the Logos-power, in imitation of the Father who begat Him made man an image of immortality, so that, as incorruption is with God, in like manner, man, sharing in a part of God, might have the immortal principle also. The Logos, too, before the creation of men, was the Framer of angels. And each of these two orders of creatures was made free to act as it pleased, not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone, but is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault, but the just man be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God. Such is the constitution of things in reference to angels and men. And the power of the Logos, having in itself a faculty to foresee future events, not as fated, but as taking place by the choice of free agents, foretold from time to time the issues of things to come; it also became a forbidder of wickedness by means of prohibitions, and the encomiast of those who remained good.
Tatian, Address to the Greeks, Chapter VII.


He was asked respecting those things on account of which He descended, which He inculcates, which He teaches, which He offers, in order to show the essence of the Gospel, that it is the gift of eternal life. For He foresaw as God, both what He would be asked, and what each one would answer Him. For who should do this more than the Prophet of prophets, and the Lord of every prophetic spirit?
Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved ?


Now then, ye dogs, whom the apostle puts outside, and who yelp at the God of truth, let us come to your various questions. These are the bones of contention, which you are perpetually gnawing! If God is good, and prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why did He permit man, the very image and likeness of Himself, and, by the origin of his soul, His own substance too, to be deceived by the devil, and fall from obedience of the law into death? For if He had been good, and so unwilling that such a catastrophe should happen, and prescient, so as not to be ignorant of what was to come to pass, and powerful enough to hinder its occurrence, that issue would never have come about, which should be impossible under these three conditions of the divine greatness. Since, however, it has occurred, the contrary proposition is most certainly true, that God must be deemed neither good, nor prescient, nor powerful. For as no such issue could have happened had God been such as He is reputed-good, and prescient, and mighty-so has this issue actually happened, because He is not such a God. In reply, we must first vindicate those attributes in the Creator which are called in question-namely, His goodness and foreknowledge, and power. But I shall not linger long over this point for Christ's own definition comes to our aid at once. From works must proofs be obtained. The Creator's works testify at once to His goodness, since they are good, as we have shown, and to His power, since they are mighty, and spring indeed out of nothing. And even if they were made out of some (previous) matter, as some will have it, they are even thus out of nothing, because they were not what they are. In short, both they are great because they are good; and God is likewise mighty, because all things are His own, whence He is almighty. But what shall I say of His prescience, which has for its witnesses as many prophets as it inspired? After all, what title to prescience do we look for in the Author of the universe, since it was by this very attribute that He foreknew all things when He appointed them their places, and appointed them their places when He fore knew them? There is sin itself. If He had not foreknown this, He would not have proclaimed a caution against it under the penalty of death. Now if there were in God such attributes as must have rendered it both impossible and improper for any evil to have happened to man, and yet evil did occur, let us consider man's condition also-whether it were not, in fact, rather the cause why that came to pass which could not have happened through God. I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body, though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form of God; but he showed his stamp in that essence which he derived from God Himself (that is, the spiritual, which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him. For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. So in the Creator's subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.
Tertullian, Against Marcion,
Book II, Chapter V.


He foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order words, in the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord's sheep, as a persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which means that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the Gentiles.
Tertullian, Against Marcion,
Book V, Chapter I.


For who will grant to you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling of any water whatever? To approach it by stealth, indeed, and to get the minister appointed over this business misled by your asseverations, is easy; but God takes foresight for His own treasure, and suffers not the unworthy to steal a march upon it. What, in fact, does He say? "Nothing hid which shall not be revealed." Draw whatever (veil of) darkness you please over your deeds, "God is light." But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death, then He does so unwilling. But who permits a gift to be permanently retained which he has granted unwillingly? For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken away from many? These, no doubt, are they who do steal a march upon (the treasure), who, after approaching to the faith of repentance, set up on the sands a house doomed to ruin. Let no one, then, flatter himself on the ground of being assigned to the "recruit-classes" of learners, as if on that account he have a licence even now to sin. As soon as you know the Lord, you should fear Him; as soon as you have gazed on Him, you should reverence Him. But what difference does your "knowing" Him make, while you rest in the same practises as in days bygone, when you knew Him not?
Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter VI.


7. For though He is called Good, and Just, and Almighty and Sabaoth, He is not on that account diverse and various; but being one and the same, He sends forth countless operations of His Godhead, not exceeding here and deficient there, but being in all things like unto Himself. Not great in loving-kindness only, and little in wisdom, but with wisdom and loving-kindness in equal power: not seeing in part, and in part devoid of sight; but being all eye, and all ear, and all mind: not like us perceiving in part and in part not knowing; for such a statement were blasphemous, and unworthy of the Divine substance. He foreknoweth the things that be; He is Holy, and Almighty, and excelleth all in goodness, and majesty, and wisdom: of Whom we can declare neither beginning, nor form, nor shape. For ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape, saith Holy Scripture. Wherefore Moses saith also to the Israelites: And take ye good heed to your own souls, for ye saw no similitude. For if it is wholly impossible to imagine His likeness, how shall thought come near His substance?

8. There have been many imaginations by many persons, and all have failed. Some have thought that God is fire; others that He is, as it were, a man with wings, because of a true text ill understood, Thou shalt hide me under the shadow of Thy wings. They forgot that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, speaks in like manner concerning Himself to Jerusalem, How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. For whereas God's protecting power was conceived as wings, they failing to understand this sank down to the level of things human, and supposed that the Unsearchable exists in the likeness of man. Some again dared to say that He has seven eyes, because it is written, seven eyes of the Lord looking upon the whole earth. For if He has but seven eyes surrounding Him in part, His seeing is therefore partial and not perfect: but to say this of God is blasphemous; for we must believe that God is in all things perfect, according to our Saviour's word, which saith, Your Father in heaven is perfect: perfect in sight, perfect in power, perfect in greatness, perfect in foreknowledge, perfect in goodness, perfect in justice, perfect in loving-kindness: not circumscribed in any space, but the Creator of all space, existing in all, and circumscribed by none. Heaven is His throne, but higher is He that sitteth thereon: and earth is His footstool, but His power reacheth unto things under the earth.

9. One He is, everywhere present, beholding all things, perceiving all things, creating all things through Christ: For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture VI.


Man was first made "in the image of God ": and this conception excludes the idea of distinction of sex. In the first creation of man all humanity is included, according to the Divine foreknowledge: "our whole nature extending from the first to the last " is "one image of Him Who is." But for the Fall, the increase of the human race would have taken place as the increase of the angelic race takes place, in some way unknown to us. The declension of man from his first estate made succession by generation necessary: and it was because this declension and its consequences were present to the Divine mind that God "created them male and female." In this respect, and in respect of the need of nourishment by food, man is not "in the image of God," but shows his kindred with the lower creation. But these necessities are not permanent: they will end with the restoration of man to his former excellence
Gregory of Nyssa, Note on the Treatise 
On the Making of Man.


God did not, on account of His foreknowledge of the evil that would result from man's creation, leave man uncreated; for it was better to bring back sinners to original grace by the way of repentance and physical suffering than not to create man at all. The raising up of the fallen was a work befitting the Giver of life, Who is the wisdom and power of God; and for this purpose He became man.
Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 
Summary of Chapters VII and VIII.


Do you not see that your dilemma has landed you in a deep abyss of blasphemy? Whichever way you take it, God is either weak or malevolent, and He is not so much praised because He is the author of good and gives His help, as abused for not restraining evil. Blame Him, then, because He allows the existence of the devil, and has suffered, and still suffers, evil to be done in the world. This is what Marcion asks, and the whole pack of heretics who mutilate the Old Testament, and have mostly spun an argument something like this: Either God knew that man, placed in Paradise, would transgress His command, or He did not know. If He knew, man is not to blame, who could not avoid God's foreknowledge, but He Who created him such that he could not escape the knowledge of God. If He did not know, in stripping Him of foreknowledge you also take away His divinity. Upon the same showing God will be deserving of blame for choosing Saul, who was to prove one of the worst of kings. And the Saviour must be convicted either of ignorance, or of unrighteousness, inasmuch as He said in the Gospel, "Did I not choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil ?" Ask Him why He chose Judas, a traitor? Why He entrusted to him the bag when He knew that he was a thief? Shall I tell you the reason? God judges the present, not the future. He does not make use of His foreknowledge to condemn a man though He knows that he will hereafter displease Him; but such is His goodness and unspeakable mercy that He chooses a man who, He perceives, will meanwhile be good, and who, He knows, will turn out badly, thus giving him the opportunity of being converted and of repenting. This is the Apostle's meaning when he says, "Dost thou not know that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to every man according to his works." For Adam did not sin because God knew that he would do so; but God inasmuch as He is God, foreknew what Adam would do of his own free choice. You may as well accuse God of falsehood because He said by the mouth of Jonah: "Yet three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." But God will reply by the mouth of Jeremiah, "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to break down, and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jonah, on a certain occasion, was indignant because, at God's command, he had spoken falsely; but his sorrow was proved to be ill founded, since he would rather speak truth and have a countless multitude perish, than speak falsely and have them saved. His position was thus illustrated: "Thou grievest over the ivy (or gourd), for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow, which came up in a night, and perished in a night; and should not I have pity on Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand ?" If there was so vast a number of children and simple folk, whom you will never be able to prove sinners, what shall we say of those inhabitants of both sexes who were at different periods of life? According to Philo, and the wisest of philosophers, Plato (so the Timaeus tells us), in passing from infancy to decrepit old age, we go through seven stages, which so gradually and so gently follow one another that we are quite insensible of the change.
Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Book III.


Heliodorus the Presbyter wrote a book entitled An introductory treatise on the nature of things, in which he showed that the beginning of things was one, that nothing was coaeval with God, that God was not the creator of evil, but in such wise the creator of all good, that matter, which is used for evil, was created by God after evil was discovered, and that nothing material whatever can be regarded as established in any other way than by God, and that there was no other creator than God, who, when by His foreknowledge He knew that nature was to be changed, warned of punishment.
Gennadius, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter VI.


II. The Divine Foreknowledge Does Not Account for the Jews'wickedness So as to Excuse Them.

Since then all things which Jewish ungodliness committed against the Lord of Majesty were foretold so long before, and the language of the prophets is concerned not so much with things to come as with things last, what else is thereby revealed to us but the unchangeable order of God's eternal decrees, with Whom the things which are to be decided are already determined, and what will be is already accomplished? For since both the character of our actions and the fulfilment of all our wishes are fore-known to God,. how much better known to Him are His own works? And He was rightly pleased that things should be recorded as if done which nothing could hinder from being done. And hence when the Apostles also, being full of the Holy Ghost, suffered the threats and cruelty of Christ's enemies, they said to God with one consent, "For truly in this city against Thy holy Servant Jesus, Whom Thou hast anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel were gathered together to do what Thy hand and Thy counsel ordained to come to pass." Did then the wickedness of Christ's persecutors spring from God's plan, and was that unsurpassable crime prefaced and set in motion by the hand of God? Clearly we must not think this of the highest Justice: that which was fore-known in respect of the Jews' malice is far different, indeed quite contrary to what was ordained in respect of Christ's Passion. Their desire to slay Him did not proceed from the same source as His to die: nor were their atrocious crime and the Redeemer's endurance the offspring of One Spirit. The Lord did not incite but permit those madmen's naughty hands: nor in His foreknowledge of what must be accomplished did He compel its accomplishment, even though it was in order to its accomplishment that He had taken flesh.

III. Christ Was in No Sense the Author of His Murderer's Guilt.

In fact, the case of the Crucified is so different from that of His crucifiers that what Christ undertook could not be reversed, while what they did could be wiped out. For He Who came to save sinners did not refuse mercy even to His murderers, but changed the evil of the wicked into the goodness of the believing, that God's grace might be the more wonderful, being mercifully put in force, not according to men's merits, but according to the multitude of the riches of God's wisdom anti knowledge, seeing that they also who had shed the Saviour's blood were received into the baptismal flood. For, as says the Scripture, which contains the Apostles' acts when the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter pierced the hearts of the Jews, and they acknowledged the iniquity of their crime, saying, "what shall we do, brethren ?" the same Apostle said, "Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For to you is the promise, and to your sons, and to all that are afar off, whomsoever our Lord God has called," and soon after the Scripture goes on to say: "they therefore that received his word were baptized, and there were added on that day about 3,000 souls." And so, in being willing to suffer their furious rage, the Lord Jesus Christ was in no way the Author of their crimes; nor did He force them to desire this, but permitted them to be able, and used the madness of the blinded people just as He did also the treachery of His betrayer, whom by kindly acts and words He vouchsafed to recall from the awful crime he had conceived, by taking him for a disciple, by promoting him to be an apostle, by warning him with signs, by admitting him to the revelation of holy mysteries, that one who had lacked no degree of kindness to correct him, might have no pretext for his crime at all.
Leo the Great, Sermons, Sermon LXVII.


But it is upon God’s knowledge that he has cast the whole, and this no one would venture to gainsay, though he were ever so frantic. “For the children being not yet born,” he says, “it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And he shows that noble birth after the flesh is of no avail, but we must seek for virtue of soul, which even before the works of it God knoweth of. For “the children,” he says, “being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said unto her that the elder shall serve the younger ”: for this was a sign of fore-knowledge, that they were chosen from the very birth. That the election made according to foreknowledge, might be manifestly of God, from the first day He at once saw and proclaimed which was good and which not. Do not then tell me that thou hast read the Law (he means) and the Prophets, and hast been a servant for such a long time. For He that knoweth how to assay the soul, knoweth which is worthy of being saved. Yield then to the incomprehensibleness of the election. For it is He alone Who knoweth how to crown aright.
Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, 
Homily XVI, on Rom. ix. 1.


After quite some time, three men of high rank, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, and the patricians Paul and Theodosius, were sent by Constans and Patriarch Peter to win over the saint. They were joined by the Bishop of Bizye, and alternately flattered and threatened Maximus, testing his faith and posing various questions. They began by introducing themselves, then requested Maximus to sit down.

Bishop Theodosius asked, "How are you faring, my lord Abba Maximus?"

"Exactly as God knew I would before the ages," replied the saint. "He foreordained the circumstances of my life, which is guarded by providence."

"How can that be?" objected Theodosius. "Did God foreknow and actually foreordain our deeds from eternity?"

The saint said, "He foreknew our thoughts, words, and deeds, which nevertheless remain within our power to control; and He foreordained what befalls us. The latter is not subject to our control, but to the divine will."

"Explain more exactly what is in our power, and what is not," requested Bishop Theodosius.

"My lord, you know all this," answered Saint Maximus. "You only ask to try your servant."

The Bishop admitted, "Truly, I do not know. I wish to understand what we can control and what we cannot, and how God foresaw one and foreordained the other."

The venerable Maximus explained, "We do not directly control whether blessings will be showered upon us or chastisements will befall us, but our good and evil deeds most certainly depend on our will. It is not ours to choose whether we are in health or sickness, but we make determinations likely to lead to one or the other. Similarly, we cannot simply decide that we shall attain the kingdom of heaven or be plunged into the fire of Gehenna, but we can will to keep the commandments or transgress them."
The Life of Our Holy Monastic Father Maximus the Confessor and Martyr
Based on the Life by His Disciple Anastasius the Apocrisarios of Rome

Translated by Father Christopher Birchall
Holy Transfiguration Monastery
Boston, Massachusetts, 1982
pages 17-18

http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot...knowledge.html

Same page courtesy of comments section:
After quite some time, three men of high rank, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, and the patricians Paul and Theodosius, were sent by Constans and Patriarch Peter to win over the saint. They were joined by the Bishop of Bizye, and alternately flattered and threatened Maximus, testing his faith and posing various questions. They began by introducing themselves, then requested Maximus to sit down. 

Bishop Theodosius asked, "How are you faring, my lord Abba Maximus?" 

"Exactly as God knew I would before the ages," replied the saint. "He foreordained the circumstances of my life, which is guarded by providence." 

"How can that be?" objected Theodosius. "Did God foreknow and actually foreordain our deeds from eternity?" 

The saint said, "He foreknew our thoughts, words, and deeds, which nevertheless remain within our power to control; and He foreordained what befalls us. The latter is not subject to our control, but to the divine will." 

"Explain more exactly what is in our power, and what is not," requested Bishop Theodosius. 

"My lord, you know all this," answered Saint Maximus. "You only ask to try your servant." 

The Bishop admitted, "Truly, I do not know. I wish to understand what we can control and what we cannot, and how God foresaw one and foreordained the other." 

The venerable Maximus explained, "We do not directly control whether blessings will be showered upon us or chastisements will befall us, but our good and evil deeds most certainly depend on our will. It is not ours to choose whether we are in health or sickness, but we make determinations likely to lead to one or the other. Similarly, we cannot simply decide that we shall attain the kingdom of heaven or be plunged into the fire of Gehenna, but we can will to keep the commandments or transgress them." 

(The Life of Our Holy Monastic Father Maximus the Confessor and Martyr )

Why limit the knowledge of our Creator? Is He not great enough to utilize His senses and foresight with regards to whom the intimacy would be shared? Foreknowledge precedes predestined. To me, the order carries some importance (foreknew then predestined). If we find the idea of creating our perfect mate (think Stepford wives) a bit on the creepy side rather than choosing one who embodies that which we find attractive why would we think we are greater than the Creator in this respect? The Calvinist position seems contrary to the writings of the Church fathers understanding.

----------


## TER

I love the smell of Patristic teachings in the morning! 

Thank you moostraks for injecting into this thread these illuminated Christian teachings.

----------


## moostraks

> I love the smell of Patristic teachings in the morning! 
> 
> Thank you moostraks for injecting into this thread these illuminated Christian teachings.


 Good morning TER! Have a blessed day...

----------


## Terry1

moostraks, I really enjoyed reading that piece you posted.  How refreshing it is to read such wisdom and truth.  I particularly liked the part on God's foreknowledge and Decree.  Few there are that understand the difference between God's foreknowledge and Decree 

Lots of good things in that teaching there that everyone should read, I recommend it highly and thanks for sharing it.

----------


## Brett85

> That is not a foreknowledge of choices, it is a foreknowledge of actual people.  "For THOSE whom He foreknew..."
> 
> To "know" someone in the Bible is a term of intimacy.   Adam "knew" Eve, for example.   If God "knew" you before He created you, it means He decided to enter into a relationship with you.
> 
> *Proginosko in no way means God simply sees your choices.*  This has been refuted I don't know how many times on these forums, yet people just continue to ignore it.


It can mean that.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...roginosko.html

*to have knowledge before hand*
to foreknow 
of those whom God elected to salvation
to predestinate

----------


## moostraks

> moostraks, I really enjoyed reading that piece you posted.  How refreshing it is to read such wisdom and truth.  I particularly liked the part on God's foreknowledge and Decree.  Few there are that understand the difference between God's foreknowledge and Decree 
> 
> Lots of good things in that teaching there that everyone should read, I recommend it highly and thanks for sharing it.


You are welcome  Glad you are enjoying it! Hope it proves to be illuminating for others who might be curious.

----------


## erowe1

> That makes no sense.  "Hardening" describes something *God is doing to a heart,* not something He is not doing to a heart.


The heart starts out in enmity against God by its own nature. A hard heart is one that is not receptive to acts of God that would otherwise bring that heart to repentance were it not so hard, such as the plagues in Exodus 4-12. So all that God does to a heart in hardening it is make it so that it remains the way it was in the first place. The end result is the same. But God doesn't take a heart that would have believed in him without his help and then make it so that it can't believe in him. There is no such heart in anyone but Jesus. He only takes hearts that require his help in believing and causes them to remain what they would be without that help.

----------


## erowe1

> It can mean that.


It can when the direct object of the verb is a fact. But it can't when the direct object is a person. Knowing a person is not the same kind of knowledge as knowing a fact. In Romans 8:29 it is certain people whom God foreknew. It isn't that he foreknew that they will believe, it's that he foreknew them as people. And he didn't foreknow others.

Aside from the fact that the direct object in Romans 8:29 is explicitly people, even if that could mean just foreknowing what the people would do, then how could there be any people whom God didn't foreknow? He would have foreknown everybody, foreknowing that some would believe and foreknowing that the others wouldn't. But in Romans 8:29 he didn't foreknow everybody. The only ones he foreknew were strictly those who would go on to be predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The heart starts out in enmity against God by its own nature. A hard heart is one that is not receptive to acts of God that would otherwise bring that heart to repentance were it not so hard, such as the plagues in Exodus 4-12. So all that God does to a heart in hardening it is make it so that it remains the way it was in the first place. The end result is the same. But God doesn't take a heart that would have believed in him without his help and then make it so that it can't believe in him. There is no such heart in anyone but Jesus. He only takes hearts that require his help in believing and causes them to remain what they would be without that help.


Yet another post I agree with

----------


## Brett85

> It can when the direct object of the verb is a fact. But it can't when the direct object is a person. Knowing a person is not the same kind of knowledge as knowing a fact. In Romans 8:29 it is certain people whom God foreknew. It isn't that he foreknew that they will believe, it's that he foreknew them as people. And he didn't foreknow others.
> 
> Aside from the fact that the direct object in Romans 8:29 is explicitly people, even if that could mean just foreknowing what the people would do, then how could there be any people whom God didn't foreknow? He would have foreknown everybody, foreknowing that some would believe and foreknowing that the others wouldn't. But in Romans 8:29 he didn't foreknow everybody. The only ones he foreknew were strictly those who would go on to be predestined, called, justified, and glorified.


When God knows someone, that entails knowing their characteristics, including their heart and whether their heart would be open to the gospel.  So if you say that God "knew" all of the Christians from the beginning of time, then you have to say that he knew everything about them, including their heart and their openness to hearing the gospel and accepting the gospel with their own free will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When God knows someone, that entails knowing their characteristics, including their heart and whether their heart would be open to the gospel.  So if you say that God "knew" all of the Christians from the beginning of time, then you have to say that he knew everything about them, including their heart and their openness to hearing the gospel and accepting the gospel with their own free will.


No.  No one is "open to hearing the gospel".  Man is dead in sin and is the enemy of God.  It is not that God looks forward in time to see what someone will choose, it is that God sovereignly decides to enter into a relationship with that individual and open their heart.

You still have the unbiblical idea that a sinful man can turn to God.  This is wrong.

----------


## Brett85

> No.  No one is "open to hearing the gospel".  Man is dead in sin and is the enemy of God.  It is not that God looks forward in time to see what someone will choose, it is that God sovereignly decides to enter into a relationship with that individual and open their heart.
> 
> You still have the unbiblical idea that a sinful man can turn to God.  This is wrong.


Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, *choose* you this day whom ye will serve ; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

1 Kings 18:21

"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions ? if the LORD be God, *follow* him: but if Baal, then follow him . And the people answered him not a word."

Deuteronomy 30:19

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore *choose* life , that both thou and thy seed may live:"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Joshua 24:15
> 
> And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, *choose* you this day whom ye will serve ; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
> 
> 1 Kings 18:21
> 
> "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions ? if the LORD be God, *follow* him: but if Baal, then follow him . And the people answered him not a word."
> 
> Deuteronomy 30:19
> ...


"Choose life so that you may live" is a command of God.  A command says NOTHING about the ability of man to obey that command.  And we see in Scripture time and time again the inability of man to keep the commands of God.

The heretic Pelagius said that God would never command men to do something they couldn't do.  But is that the case?

No. God is perfectly just to command people to do something they are not capable of doing. Here are 3 examples:

1. Ezekiel was obeying God when he commanded the field of dry bones to rise up.

2. Jesus was perfectly just when he commanded the man with the withered arm to stretch forth his hand (Luke 6:10).

3. Jesus was perfectly just when he commanded Lazarus to emerge from his tomb.

All of these examples involve commands that the subjects could not obey, but God was still just in ordering them to obey those commands.It is the same with salvation. God is entirely just to command men to repent even though they cannot do it. Man cannot turn to God. God is the one who grants the repentance. Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man.

----------


## erowe1

> When God knows someone, that entails knowing their characteristics, including their heart and whether their heart would be open to the gospel.  So if you say that God "knew" all of the Christians from the beginning of time, then you have to say that he knew everything about them, including their heart and their openness to hearing the gospel and accepting the gospel with their own free will.


But in the sense of "foreknow" that you're trying to use, God would also have foreknown all nonchristians from the beginning of time.

But according to Romans 8:29, God didn't foreknow nonchristians, he only foreknew Christians or those who would eventually become Christians.

It's not that he foreknew them because they believed, it's that they believed because he foreknew them.

Compare this with Jeremiah 1:4-8. Jeremiah's will was against becoming a prophet. But he was going to be one anyway, because God knew him in a relational sense before hand, and this personal relationship that God chose to have with Jeremiah before Jeremiah ever had any say in the matter involved God's setting him apart to be a prophet.



> 4 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
> 
> 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
> Before you were born I sanctified you;
> I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
> 6 Then said I:
> 
> “Ah, Lord God!
> Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.”
> ...

----------


## erowe1

> Joshua 24:15
> 
> And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, *choose* you this day whom ye will serve ; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
> 
> 1 Kings 18:21
> 
> "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions ? if the LORD be God, *follow* him: but if Baal, then follow him . And the people answered him not a word."
> 
> Deuteronomy 30:19
> ...


Did you see SF's post of the 4 fallacies?

Because it seems like every single time you post some Bible verse that you think supports your view, the only way to make it support you is by making one of those 4 assumptions.

----------


## Brett85

> But in the sense of "foreknow" that you're trying to use, God would also have foreknown all nonchristians from the beginning of time.
> 
> But according to Romans 8:29, God didn't foreknow nonchristians, he only foreknew Christians or those who would eventually become Christians.
> 
> It's not that he foreknew them because they believed, it's that they believed because he foreknew them.
> 
> Compare this with Jeremiah 1:4-8. Jeremiah's will was against becoming a prophet. But he was going to be one anyway, because God knew him in a relational sense before hand, and this personal relationship that God chose to have with Jeremiah before Jeremiah ever had any say in the matter involved God's setting him apart to be a prophet.


No, I think that God can foreknow the saved from the beginning of time, and foreknow their heart and that their heart will be open to accepting the gospel, without foreknowing the unsaved.  God can determine that a certain group of people will be open to the gospel without having to foreknow those who won't be open to the gospel.  God's mind doesn't work like ours, so he doesn't have to read the hearts of every single person to know who the saved will be.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I think that God can foreknow the saved from the beginning of time, and foreknow their heart and that their heart will be open to accepting the gospel, without foreknowing the unsaved.  God can determine that a certain group of people will be open to the gospel without having to foreknow those who won't be open to the gospel.  God's mind doesn't work like ours, so he doesn't have to read the hearts of every single person to know who the saved will be.


What a bunch of unbiblical garbage.  Look at the hoops you have to go through to maintain your almighty will of man.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I think that God can foreknow the saved from the beginning of time, and foreknow their heart and that their heart will be open to accepting the gospel, without foreknowing the unsaved.  *God can determine that a certain group of people will be open to the gospel without having to foreknow those who won't be open to the gospel.*  God's mind doesn't work like ours, so he doesn't have to read the hearts of every single person to know who the saved will be.


I agree. It looks like you now take the view of Romans 8:29 that most would label "Calvinist."

In order for what you just said to work, it must be that faith is the result of God's foreknowing of the person, and not vice versa. God chooses to foreknow certain people irrespective of anything about them that might commend them to him, and he chooses not to foreknow others without respect to anything about them. And the result is that those whom he foreknows get predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, and called, justified, and glorified.

God doesn't have to foreknow those who won't be open to the Gospel. The fact that he didn't foreknow them guarantees that they won't be.

----------


## Brett85

> No. God is perfectly just to command people to do something they are not capable of doing.


The verse says that Joshua *chose* to serve the Lord, not that God commanded him to do something that he couldn't do.

*But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.*

----------


## Brett85

> I agree. What you just described is normally called Calvinism.


No, because Calvinism doesn't involve free will.  I'm saying that those whom God predestined to be saved, he knew their heart and that in their heart they had the characteristic of acceptance, that in their heart they would be open to the gospel and would choose with their own free will to accept the gospel.

----------


## erowe1

> No, because Calvinism doesn't involve free will.


What's your basis for saying this?

----------


## Brett85

> What's your basis for saying this?


From all of the research I've been doing.  Or if they do believe in free will, they believe that the "total depravity" of man basically makes it impossible for people to ever exercise their free will.

----------


## erowe1

> From all of the research I've been doing.  Or if they do believe in free will, they believe that the "total depravity" of man basically makes it impossible for people to ever exercise their free will.


Can you be more specific about your research? Is this just Arminian opponents of Calvinists who characterize them as not believing in free will?

"Calvinist" is a problematic term, and so is "free will." But Jonathan Edwards certainly affirmed all the beliefs that most people would associate with Calvinism, and he had no problem affirming something that he could call free will. And I don't think he's unique in that.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html

----------


## Brett85

> Can you be more specific about your research? Is this just Arminian opponents of Calvinists who characterize them as not believing in free will?
> 
> "Calvinist" is a problematic term, and so is "free will." But Jonathan Edwards certainly affirmed all the beliefs that most people would associate with Calvinism, and he had no problem affirming something that he could call free will. And I don't think he's unique in that.
> https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html


http://thomastaylorministries.org/bl...tal-depravity/




> Calvinism says man does not have a free-will. Mans will is bound by sin and Satan so that it does not have the ability to choose God.  Calvinism believes man cannot perceive the Truth to be saved; God does it all for us. But if we could not perceive the Truth, then why did Jesus preach It to us? Calvinism also believes that man cannot choose God to be saved; again, God does it all  He chooses us but we do not choose Him. But if sinners cannot choose God, then why did God tell them to choose Him?

----------


## erowe1

> http://thomastaylorministries.org/bl...tal-depravity/


OK. So it's exactly what I thought. Your "research" which is your basis for claiming that Calvinists don't believe in free will is another Arminian writing something to debunk Calvinists in which he says that that's what they believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://thomastaylorministries.org/bl...tal-depravity/





> But if sinners cannot choose God, then why did God tell them to choose Him?


Haha...it never ends.  * This is fallacy number 1.*   Instead of blindly engaging in this fallacy and repeating others who engage in this fallacy, why don't you think deeper about these things? 

I'll give you a hint here TC.  I can speak for myself and I think I can speak for Erowe1:  we know every Arminian argument and every rebuttal to the arguments.  Copy/pasting from other people who engage in these fallacies are not going to help your case.  Think for yourself.

----------


## Brett85

> Haha...it never ends.  * This is fallacy number 1.*   Instead of blindly engaging in this fallacy and repeating others who engage in this fallacy, why don't you think deeper about these things? 
> 
> I'll give you a hint here TC.  I can speak for myself and I think I can speak for Erowe1:  we know every Arminian argument and every rebuttal to the arguments.  Copy/pasting from other people who engage in these fallacies are not going to help your case.  Think for yourself.


You copy and paste from all of your Calvinist/Limited Atonement websites all the time, which is where you get all of your ridiculous parsing of words; "all" doesn't mean "all," "is" doesn't mean "is," up means down.

----------


## moostraks

> OK. So it's exactly what I thought. Your "research" which is your basis for claiming that Calvinists don't believe in free will is another Arminian writing something to debunk Calvinists in which he says that that's what they believe.


The logic employed to redefine free will is intriguing. Here is one from a Calvinist to cut to the chase for y'all.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...-of-free-will/

It ain't really free will if there isn't a choice but seems to help some folks sleep at night with the doctrine.

----------


## TER

> The logic employed to redefine free will is intriguing. Here is one from a Calvinist to cut to the chase for y'all.
> 
> http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...-of-free-will/
> 
> It ain't really free will if there isn't a choice but seems to help some folks sleep at night with the doctrine.


It is astounding the mental gymnastics required to 'rationalize' some of the more western innovative doctrines.  Back flip here, somersault there, and by the end, so exhausted that they just pass out and consider themselves saved anyway!  Oh the joys of creating one's own religion.  To be your own Pope!  Cafeteria Christianity!  The Church of Burger King (have it your way!)  Anything so that they do not have to face the fact that they are being judged right now for the way they treat their family and neighbors and will have to answer for all the things they have ever done.

----------


## erowe1

> The logic employed to redefine free will is intriguing. Here is one from a Calvinist to cut to the chase for y'all.
> 
> http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...-of-free-will/
> 
> It ain't really free will if there isn't a choice but seems to help some folks sleep at night with the doctrine.


If anything that link undermines what TC said. Was that your intent?

Just from skimming that article. It looks pretty good, and it makes a lot of the same points I try to It also shows why defining "free will" is important before saying who does and doesn't believe in it, and why it's not as simple to define as some people make it out to be.

Moostraks, what specifically did you see as redefining "free will" in that article? What is the right definition, and how did they redefine it?

----------


## moostraks

> If anything that link undermines what TC said. Was that your intent?
> 
> Just from skimming that article. It looks pretty good, and it makes a lot of the same points I try to It also shows why defining "free will" is important before saying who does and doesn't believe in it, and why it's not as simple to define as some people make it out to be.
> 
> Moostraks, what specifically did you see as redefining "free will" in that article? What is the right definition, and how did they redefine it?


I figured you would agree with it as I had seen your position before on this issue. I think it is a shell game on the term free will. I am headed out the door to the store before we get nailed with another snow and ice storm so going to make this quick. Long and short as I understand it and correct me if it isn't your position but an elephant cannot wish itself to be human or a star. So humans are, from a Calvinist stand point, depraved utterly and completely, so we merely have free will in doing evil.
My views are not quite so pessimistic and I think it is a bit of a stretch to call it free will if there is not an alternative road one can take. I favor the EO position on ancestral sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The heart starts out in enmity against God by its own nature. A hard heart is one that is not receptive to acts of God that would otherwise bring that heart to repentance were it not so hard, such as the plagues in Exodus 4-12. So all that God does to a heart in hardening it is make it so that it remains the way it was in the first place. The end result is the same. But God doesn't take a heart that would have believed in him without his help and then make it so that it can't believe in him. There is no such heart in anyone but Jesus. He only takes hearts that require his help in believing and causes them to remain what they would be without that help.





> Yet another post I agree with


Yeah, I would differ with that.  I used to believe something along those lines, but I believe the Lord showed me that there were some logical holes in that theory.  The OP in the thread entitled God's Sovereignty In Hardening Reprobate Hearts said this:




> It is precisely the Lords constant determination of the condition of each and every heart that is the basis of the foreordaining of evil. If evil is unleashed merely by a removal of restraint, the exact course of that evil is somewhat unpredictable. So the doctrine that God merely permits or allows evil by removing his restraining presence must logically view history as a synthesis of Gods predetermination and mere foreknowledge of what will happen (in the case of evil bearing fruit), as does the Arminian. Such a synthesis completely fails to reconcile the paradox that the lack of pre-determination of the precise course of evil, which would be accomplished by controlling the exact sentiments of the hearts of creatures at all times, makes the pre-determination of a desired part of history (the triumph of Grace and salvation) in jeopardy. There can be no reconciliation between a teaching of absolute foreordination and one of partial abstract foreknowledge, ever.


I do think that having any kind of conditionality in God's decree is the seed for all kinds of heresies.  And I think, as the quote above shows, the removal of restraint interpretation does not follow from the absolute sovereignty of God in all things.  It tries to combine predetermination with simple foreknowledge...which is not Biblically or logically satisfying in my view.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I would differ with that.  I used to believe something along those lines, but I believe the Lord showed me that there were some logical holes in that theory.  The OP in the thread entitled God's Sovereignty In Hardening Reprobate Hearts said this:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that having any kind of conditionality in God's decree is the seed for all kinds of heresies.  And I think, as the quote above shows, the removal of restraint interpretation does not follow from the absolute sovereignty of God in all things.  It tries to combine predetermination with simple foreknowledge...which is not Biblically or logically satisfying in my view.


I guess the way I look at this is, its not like the starting point is that we're all morally neutral and then God makes some people reject him and some accept him.  We all start out, because of Adam's sin, being totally depraved.  So, how can God make us evil when we already are?

----------


## Christian Liberty

With regards to the specific types of evil men commit being predetermined, I don't know the answer to this, but I think I would say that God creates each person with his own unique personality and, as such, a disposition to certain sins.  When God created me, he created me the way I am, knowing every single sin I would commit, and he created me exactly the way I am because it was ultimately his plan that those sins would be committed, and he works them together for good.  But, I don't believe that when I sin, God is somehow "causing" me to sin, when looked at from the present time.  In the year 2014, if I commit a sin, than I am committing that sin by my own choice.  God doesn't cause me to sin the same way he caused me to believe, and causes me to commit good works.  But ultimately, the way God created me still disposes me toward certain sins and not others, and God planned that out before the foundation of the world.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah, I would differ with that.  I used to believe something along those lines, but I believe the Lord showed me that there were some logical holes in that theory.  The OP in the thread entitled God's Sovereignty In Hardening Reprobate Hearts said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				...If evil is unleashed merely by a removal of restraint, the exact course of that evil is somewhat unpredictable.....
> 			
> ...


I don't accept the quote within the quote above. Evil beings perform evil according to their natures. Their natures are a given, and their natures are certain to bring about precisely the actions that they do and no others.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Frankly, I think the bottom line with all of this quibbling is that God is so much bigger than we are and that God can work together seemingly irreconcilable concepts in ways that are beyond our finite understanding.  I don't know how, on the one hand, God controls absolutely everything and, on the other hand, man makes real choices and is responsible for all of those choices.  But God, who has understanding much greater than mine, can bring those concepts together.

----------


## Terry1

> Frankly, I think the bottom line with all of this quibbling is that God is so much bigger than we are and that God can work together seemingly irreconcilable concepts in ways that are beyond our finite understanding.  I don't know how, on the one hand, God controls absolutely everything and, on the other hand, man makes real choices and is responsible for all of those choices.  But God, who has understanding much greater than mine, can bring those concepts together.


That might lead you to the understanding then just as grace and faith work in hand in hand to bring about a state of salvation, so does free will and predestination just the same.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That might lead you to the understanding then just as grace and faith work in hand in hand to bring about a state of salvation, so does free will and predestination just the same.


Grace and faith do work together.  But both grace and faith are things that God gives a man.  Faith does not come from man, as if he is offering it to God in exchange for grace.  Faith is a gift that God gives a man when He justifies Him.  

Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man.

----------


## Terry1

> Grace and faith do work together.  But both grace and faith are things that God gives a man.  Faith does not come from man, as if he is offering it to God in exchange for grace.  Faith is a gift that God gives a man when He justifies Him.  
> 
> Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man.


God can give you a car, but unless you get in it and drive it what good is it.

God can give you a house, but unless you maintain that house, it rots and falls apart.

God can give you, food, clothes, money, all kinds of things God can give us, but unless we use them as He instructed us--they're all dead things of no use to God, us or anyone else.

No one is arguing that everything comes from God---NO ONE.  You have to use those gifts as God has instructed you to do by doing them, acting upon them in accordance with His word.  This is called "a work of faith"--these are called "fruits of the Spirit"--this is called "answering our calling".

----------


## Terry1

*Joshua 24:15 
And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God can give you a car, but unless you get in it and drive it what good is it.
> 
> God can give you a house, but unless you maintain that house, it rots and falls apart.
> 
> God can give you, food, clothes, money, all kinds of things God can give us, but unless we use them as He instructed us--they're all dead things of no use to God, us or anyone else.
> 
> No one is arguing that everything comes from God---NO ONE.  You have to use those gifts as God has instructed you to do by doing them, acting upon them in accordance with His word.  This is called "a work of faith"--these are called "fruits of the Spirit"--this is called "answering our calling".


Here's Terry1 again with her "work of faith" phrase she puts in quotes as if she is paraphrasing some biblical truth.  She isn't.  

Secondly, you say "no one is arguing that everything doesn't come from God, but you have to use the gifts by doing them".  Well right there you are arguing that not everything comes from God.  You are saying that the "using" of the gifts comes from man's power and will.

The Bible teaches that the very ability and desire to follow God's commands is from God himself:



> Philippians 2:12-13 NIV
> 
> Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—*continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.*

----------


## Terry1

> Here's Terry1 again with her "work of faith" phrase she puts in quotes as if she is paraphrasing some biblical truth.  She isn't.  
> 
> Secondly, you say "no one is arguing that everything doesn't come from God, but you have to use the gifts by doing them".  Well right there you are arguing that not everything comes from God.  You are saying that the "using" of the gifts comes from man's power and will.
> 
> The Bible teaches that the very ability and desire to follow God's commands is from God himself:


You keep accusing me of "paraphrasing"  the phrase "work of faith" as if Paul doesn't say to do exactly that, but what you can not do is reconcile what Paul is telling you to do with what you believe.  Until you can reconcile what Paul is telling you to do as in a "work of faith", then refrain from accusing me of making something up as if it doesn't exist.  

So you do that now and then come back when you think you have a good reconciliation between what you believe and what the Apostle Paul is saying and not me just "paraphrasing" or making something up.

How many times have you accused me now of quoting something that doesn't exist and I've proven to you each and every time it does.  This tells me that you're not very well read when it comes to the word of God and that you've been cherry picking verses all along that only seem to support what you've chosen to believe.

Yes---do exactly what it says and what Paul and all of the Apostles along with Jesus tell you to do and that is *continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,*--as in a "work of faith" and with "fear and trembling".  What has someone to fear if they believe they're once saved always saved?  Nothing-nadda--  The fear is all about remaining and abiding in Christ because if we don't--then the word tells us what will happen to us as in John 15:1-5 where we are then "cut off and away from the true Vine, being Jesus Himself and are burned.  Don't argue with me---argue with God if you can't accept this.

----------


## Beorn

I was just reading something and found it interesting that Madison had a preference for "every" instead of "all" because he didn't think that "all" necessarily extended to each individual. 

I'll post the source if I can find it again.

----------


## erowe1

> I was just reading something and found it interesting that Madison had a preference for "every" instead of "all" because he didn't think that "all" necessarily extended to each individual. 
> 
> I'll post the source if I can find it again.


Please do if you can.

In what context was this? "All men are created equal"?

----------


## Beorn

It's from an analysis of Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.

http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...-rhetoric.html

"The recurrent phrase “every man,” rather than “all men” as in the Declaration of Independence, carries a subtle emphasis: as Madison’s logic notes from college point out, when one turns “all” into “every,” the predicate is logically distributed so that it “belongs to every individual.”[15] Since religion consists of “voluntary acts of individuals singly and voluntarily associated,” Madison’s use of “every” rather than “all” conveys the individual nature of religion implied by the fundamental axiom: No religious dogma is to be imposed and no religious exercise interfered with—the First Amendment in germ."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's from an analysis of Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.
> 
> http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...-rhetoric.html
> 
> "The recurrent phrase “every man,” rather than “all men” as in the Declaration of Independence, carries a subtle emphasis: as Madison’s logic notes from college point out, when one turns “all” into “every,” the predicate is logically distributed so that it “belongs to every individual.”[15] Since religion consists of “voluntary acts of individuals singly and voluntarily associated,” Madison’s use of “every” rather than “all” conveys the individual nature of religion implied by the fundamental axiom: No religious dogma is to be imposed and no religious exercise interfered with—the First Amendment in germ."


+rep

----------


## Sola_Fide

*Bump.*

I will be quoting from the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon




> _Pas_,Adjective
> 
> *Definition*
> 
> individually, each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything collectively, some of all types
> 
> "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? 
> 
> "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? 
> ...


All does not mean "every single person".  And world does not mean "every single person in the world".  

I want to leave this thread open for people to post Scripture verses that give examples of this Greek word usage.

----------


## Brett85

"individually, each, *every*, any, *all*, *the whole*, *everyone*, *all things*, *everything collectively*, some of all types."

At the very least, every word that I bolded means every single person or every single thing without exception.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The NAS Greek Lexicon says:




> The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. 
> 
> The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...

----------


## Terry1

> The NAS Greek Lexicon says:


So you've manage to change every single scripture in the Bible indicating that "all" and "world" don't mean what they say?  LOL

----------


## Dr.3D

Bill Clinton would be proud.

----------


## Brett85

> Bill Clinton would be proud.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you've manage to change every single scripture in the Bible indicating that "all" and "world" don't mean what they say?  LOL


The NAS Greek Lexicon says:




> "the whole world has gone after him"  *Did all the world go after Christ?*
> 
> "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."  *Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?*
> 
> "Ye are of God, little children, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one".  *Does the whole world there mean everybody?*


In other words, you're wrong.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 





> *The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually.*
> 
> The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...
> 
> *


...

----------


## Brett85

There may be times in the Bible where "all" and "world" don't mean every single person without exception, but you're essentially asking us to believe that those words never mean every single person without exception, and most people just aren't going to buy that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There may be times in the Bible where "all" and "world" don't mean every single person without exception, but you're essentially asking us to believe that those words never mean every single person without exception, and most people just aren't going to buy that.


Let me quote the NAS Greek Lexicon:




> The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually.
> 
> The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...

----------


## Nang

> There may be times in the Bible where "all" and "world" don't mean every single person without exception, but you're essentially asking us to believe that those words never mean every single person without exception, and most people just aren't going to buy that.


Even in non-biblical literature, the word "all" is never used to denote universality.  It is always qualified and/or quantified by subject description.

I doubt you can quote anything you have ever read in any book, newspaper, or correspondence of any kind, where "all" was used in a universal mode.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There may be times in the Bible where "all" and "world" don't mean every single person without exception, but you're essentially asking us to believe that those words never mean every single person without exception, and most people just aren't going to buy that.



When the Bible wants to refer to every person without exception it always adds some other term for emphasis, like "All men everywhere" (Acts 17:30), "Down to the last man" or other similar thngs.

----------


## Brett85

> Even in non-biblical literature, the word "all" is never used to denote universality.  It is always qualified and/or quantified by subject description.


Then what word can ever be used that would describe "every single person without exception?"  If words like "all" or "world" don't mean "every single person without exception," then there's really no other word that the authors of the books in the Bible could've used to get the idea across that Jesus died for every single person without exception.

----------


## Brett85

> When the Bible wants to refer to every person without exception it always adds some other term for emphasis, like "All men everywhere" (Acts 17:30), "Down to the last man" or other similar thngs.


How about saying that Jesus died for "every man?"  Does it get any more clear than that?

Hebrews 2:9

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for *every man.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How about saying that Jesus died for "every man?"  Does it get any more clear than that?
> 
> Hebrews 2:9
> 
> But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for *every man.*


Every man without distinction.

----------


## Brett85

> Every man without distinction.


  Then if the authors of the books in the Bible wanted to convey to people that Jesus died for every single person in the world, there's simply no possible way that they could actually say it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Then if the authors of the books in the Bible wanted to convey to people that Jesus died for every single person in the world, there's simply no possible way that they could actually say it.


Frustrating isn't it?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

"For every man." 

This rendering is quite misleading. "Anthropos," the Greek word for "man" is not in the verse at all. Thus, one of the principal texts relied  upon by Arminians in their unscriptural contention for a general atonement vanishes into thin air. The Revised Version places the word "man" in italics to show that it is not found in the original. The Greek is "panta" and signifies "every one," that is, every one of those who form the subjects of the whole passage—every one of "the heirs of salvation" (Heb. 1:14), every one of the "sons" (Heb. 2:10), every one of the "brethren" (Heb. 2:11). We may say that this is the view of the passage taken by Drs. Gouge and J. Brown, by Saphir, and a host of others who might be mentioned. Theologically it is demanded by the "tasted death for every one," i.e., substitutionally, in the room of, that they might not. Hence, every one for whom He tasted death shall themselves never do so (see John 8:52), and this is true only of the people of God.  (A.W.Pink)

----------


## Brett85

I don't see how the language being "everyone" instead of "every man" makes any difference.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then if the authors of the books in the Bible wanted to convey to people that Jesus died for every single person in the world, there's simply no possible way that they could actually say it.


FI just gave you a verse that does that. "All men everywhere" in Acts 17:30.

----------


## Brett85

I generally don't like this guy's website and think that he's a nut, but I agree with what's said in this article here.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False..._atonement.htm

One believer who was not committed to the belief that Christ died for all men made this remarkable concession: *"If Christ really did die for all men, then I don't know how the Bible could say it any clearer than it does."*

----------


## Brett85

> FI just gave you a verse that does that. "All men everywhere" in Acts 17:30.


I don't see how "all men everywhere" is much different than "every man."  "Every man" is just as clear as "all men everywhere."  My guess is that if there were a verse in the Bible which used the exact phrase "Christ died for all men everywhere," you would just claim that the verse is just saying that Christ died for all types of people everywhere.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't see how "all men everywhere" is much different than "every man."  "Every man" is just as clear as "all men everywhere."  My guess is that if there were a verse in the Bible which used the exact phrase "Christ died for all men everywhere," you would just claim that the verse is just saying that Christ died for all types of people everywhere.


Why is this so hard for you to accept?  Why don't you accept what Greek lexicographers have said?

----------


## Brett85

> Why is this so hard for you to accept?  Why don't you accept what Greek lexicographers have said?


Do you have the names of these Greek lexicographers?  Who is responsible for running the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you have the names of these Greek lexicographers?  Who is responsible for running the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon?


* The New American Standard New Testament Greek Lexicon is based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary, plus others. It is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."*

----------


## Brett85

> * The New American Standard New Testament Greek Lexicon is based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary, plus others. It is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."*


But specifically, what person or persons wrote this commentary?

"The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But specifically, what person or persons wrote this commentary?
> 
> "The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile"


I'm not sure, but even if Thayer wrote it, he was not even a Christian...so what is your point?

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not sure, but even if Thayer wrote it, he was not even a Christian...so what is your point?


Everyone has their own biases; even different English translators have biases, although they may not even realize it, when they translate the Greek Bible to English.  I don't know whether the people who wrote this commentary have any biases or not, but it's something that would be worth looking into.  If the person who wrote that is a Calvinist, then they may have simply been trying to prove their own theology.  Again, I don't know who actually wrote it or whether or not they have an agenda.  Either way, a summary of a Bible passage or a Greek Word isn't equivalent to the Bible.  It's the opinion of whoever wrote that summary.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Everyone has their own biases; even different English translators have biases, although they may not even realize it, when they translate the Greek Bible to English.  I don't know whether the people who wrote this commentary have any biases or not, but it's something that would be worth looking into.  If the person who wrote that is a Calvinist, then they may have simply been trying to prove their own theology.  Again, I don't know who actually wrote it or whether or not they have an agenda.  Either way, a summary of a Bible passage or a Greek Word isn't equivalent to the Bible.  It's the opinion of whoever wrote that summary.


That is not what lexicographers do.  Lexicographers use every scholarly means to determine how the language was used in the time it was written.

----------


## Terry1

> The NAS Greek Lexicon says:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're wrong.


So then how do you interpret "that none should perish" then?  Does "none" not mean none now too?  I think you're attempting to paddle your boat up a dry stream here Sola.  You're playing with fire attempting to rewrite all of the scriptures that refer to "all" and the "world" when it comes to whom Jesus came to save.

You might be able to make that reference to "All" fit some scripture with regard to context, but attempting to change all of those scriptures that refer to all and "world" regarding the salvation of mankind is treading on dangerous spiritual ground to support your belief.

----------


## Terry1

> * The New American Standard New Testament Greek Lexicon is based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary, plus others. It is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."*



No matter whatever Bible you can dig up amongst the various interpretations that indicate that "all" doesn't mean "all" or that "world" doesn't mean world---God told you that you're not even supposed to go there with regard to whomever He decides to choose.  What's happened with you as that you've already chosen yourself and those who believe like you do.

There's no way that you can un-reconcile those scriptures that are "ALL" saying the same thing with regard to the salvation of mankind.  Like I said---you might be able to use that reference in some contexts of scripture, but when you have to change that many verses in the word of God that are "ALL" saying the very same thing and reconciling with each other with regard to the salvation of mankind and what Jesus did on that cross for them---you are indeed treading on dangerous ground messing with the word of God like that.

If the doctrine of John Calvin can't support the word of God as it stands---then it's time you abandon that belief and seek it out with God which path you should take.

----------


## Terry1

*Titus 2:
 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

 John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 2 Corinthians 5:19 
 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation

 Galatians 6:14 
 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

1 John 4:14 
 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

 1 Timothy 4:15 
 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

 James 1:5 
 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 

2 Peter 3:9 
 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*.

----------


## Terry1

So let's see here now how many words Sola would have to change and entire context of meaning in scriptures that are currently *ALL* saying the same thing and reconciling with each other regarding the salvation of mankind.  These are the only ones that I remember and could find, I'm sure there's more with regard to whom God meant to save.

*"not any should perish"

"none should perish"

"For God so loved the world"

"that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself"

"Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

"Son to be the Saviour of the world"

"that thy profiting may appear to all."

"God, that giveth to all men liberally,"

"not willing that any should perish"

"but that all should come to repentance. "*

----------


## Terry1

> Even in non-biblical literature, the word "all" is never used to denote universality.  It is always qualified and/or quantified by subject description.
> 
> I doubt you can quote anything you have ever read in any book, newspaper, or correspondence of any kind, where "all" was used in a universal mode.


Well then you do have a problem, because now you're attempting to say that universally they don't all mean what they say and that would also include the words "any should perish" and "none should perish" as well. Then you're looking at having to use entire context of meanings which then negates your belief in Sola scripture too.  Now you've got another problem as well.

You know---it should be a glaring and blatant error staring you in the face when you all have to change the meaning of so much scripture to support your belief.

All doesn't mean all or world doesn't mean world, "partaker doesn't mean partaker" in Hebrews 6:4 and James isn't saying the faith is "dead" when James 2:17 is clearly saying *17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone*.

You Calvinists spend more time attempting to rewrite and change the meaning of scripture to support this heretical doctrine of yours than you do attempting to understand the word of God as it's written and reconcile that will the rest of the word of God.

When will you see that what you're believing just isn't of God period?

----------


## moostraks

> Even in non-biblical literature, the word "all" is never used to denote universality.  It is always qualified and/or quantified by subject description.
> 
> I doubt you can quote anything you have ever read in any book, newspaper, or correspondence of any kind, where "all" was used in a universal mode.


Such as "All people need oxygen but we usually get sufficient oxygen from the air we breathe."

http://www.sequoiahospital.org/stell...e-jan-2013.pdf

He is great enough for it to be all people.

----------


## Terry1

> Such as "All people need oxygen but we usually get sufficient oxygen from the air we breathe."
> 
> http://www.sequoiahospital.org/stell...e-jan-2013.pdf
> 
> He is great enough for it to be all people.


Hey moos---you've got me cracking up here.  That was a really great link revealing how to manage one's meds. LOL

----------


## moostraks

> Hey moos---you've got me cracking up here.  That was a really great link revealing how to manage one's meds. LOL


Not intended lest someone things I was sarcastic. Was first legit link to subject matter I found. I located line I was searching for and didn't even read the rest. Am sure someone will be demanding an apology now for some perceived insensitive slight because all people are not created equal. Hmmm...there's that word again.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *John 15:19
> 
> If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
> 
> *


In the Bible, all does not mean all, and world does not mean world.

----------


## Brett85

In John 15:19 "world" basically means "unbelievers."  It certainly doesn't mean "the elect."  So I don't really see your point by citing that verse.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In John 15:19 "world" basically means "unbelievers."  It certainly doesn't mean "the elect."  So I don't really see your point by citing that verse.


His point is that the meaning of "world" depends on context and that it doesn't always mean every single person without exception.  In that verse its talking about unbelievers.  And in passages where its referring to the atonement, it is referring to the elect.

----------


## Brett85

> His point is that the meaning of "world" depends on context and that it doesn't always mean every single person without exception.  In that verse its talking about unbelievers.  And in passages where its referring to the atonement, it is referring to the elect.


I've acknowledged that "world" doesn't mean "every single person without exception" every time it's used.  At the same time, I don't believe that "world" never means "every single person without exception."  If God wanted to get across to people that Christ only died for the elect, using words like "world" and "all" seems like a very strange way to do it.  Why isn't there verse after verse in the Bible which states that Jesus died for "the elect?"  Why doesn't the Bible just use that actual wording rather than repeatedly using the words "world" and "all?"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've acknowledged that "world" doesn't mean "every single person without exception" every time it's used.  At the same time, I don't believe that "world" never means "every single person without exception."  If God wanted to get across to people that Christ only died for the elect, using words like "world" and "all" seems like a very strange way to do it.  Why isn't there verse after verse in the Bible which states that Jesus died for "the elect?"  Why doesn't the Bible just use that actual wording rather than repeatedly using the words "world" and "all?"


The reason why relates back to 1st century culture.  The Jews believed in election, it wasn't really disputed at the time, but the Jews believed they were the only ones who were elect.  So, if you take terms like "all" and "world" in the cultural context that they were written in, its easy to see why the Bible writers would use this terminology.  The point was to convey that all nations were covered by the atonement, not just the Israeli nation.  And usiing the terms that way would have been completely normal in that culture.

BTW: I could ask the same question about this passage.  If Jesus meant unbelievers why not say so?  Why say "world"?  If Jesus wanted to convey the idea that "world" meant every single person without exception in that passage, how could he do so?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The reason why relates back to 1st century culture.  The Jews believed in election, it wasn't really disputed at the time, but the Jews believed they were the only ones who were elect.  So, if you take terms like "all" and "world" in the cultural context that they were written in, its easy to see why the Bible writers would use this terminology.  The point was to convey that all nations were covered by the atonement, not just the Israeli nation.  And usiing the terms that way would have been completely normal in that culture.
> 
> BTW: I could ask the same question about this passage.  If Jesus meant unbelievers why not say so?  Why say "world"?  If Jesus wanted to convey the idea that "world" meant every single person without exception in that passage, how could he do so?


Correct.

----------


## Brett85

> If Jesus wanted to convey the idea that "world" meant every single person without exception in that passage, how could he do so?


It depends on the context.  In this specific context, it's clear that "world" refers to the unsaved.  In other contexts, I think it's clear that "world" refers to everyone.  It just depends on the context of the verse.  In this specific verse, "world" refers to those who live by their own standards rather than God's standards.

----------


## RJB

So he came to save the world but the world hates us?  I'm on neither side of this argument.  Just thinking in print...

Carry on.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In John 15:19 "world" basically means "unbelievers."  It certainly doesn't mean "the elect."  So I don't really see your point by citing that verse.


Quoting from the Greek lexicon in the OP:




> *The words "world" and "all" are used in some SEVEN or EIGHT senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. 
> 
> The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...*

----------


## Christian Liberty

Bump...




> Solo_Fide: So do you believe that the admonition in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 to "pray for all men" is really a admonition to "pray for all kinds of men"?  So as long as you pray for at least one Jew and one Gentile you have followed the admonition?  Because...otherwise...your argument makes no sense.  (Your theological arguments rarely do.)


By contrast, is this really saying that one must pray for every single person by name, or that one is in sin?  No, it is indeed talking about all kinds of men.  It would have been a shock to the Jews back then that they should pray for kings and those in authority, or that such people could be elect.  That was Paul's point.

----------


## Theocrat

> That's right TC!  So, do you know how we decipher what _pas_ means in any given verse?  *Context.*  The word _pas_ is qualified by the context of what is being described.   
> 
> Very soon, I'll post some examples so that it will be easier to understand.


I very much agree with Sola_Fide about understanding the context of any Biblical passage to decipher what words like "all" and "world" mean. I'll use two simple examples from the Scriptures to prove that point (my apologies if these examples have been used already).

In Luke 2:1-3, it says:




> And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that *all the world* should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. [Emphasis mine]


Now, if "all the world" means every person in the entire globe living at that time, then did that include people of other nations, such as the Mayans and Incas? Of course not. Caesar did not have jurisdiction over those tribal nations, nor anywhere else in the globe. Obviously, when "all the world" was to be taxed, it is referring to all of the "Roman world," that is, the citizens under the authority of the Roman Empire.

In John 3:16, we have the oft-quoted passage, "For God so loved the *world* that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life [emphasis mine]." However, we're told in 1 John 2:15, "Love not the *world*, neither the things that are in the *world*. If any man love the *world*, the love of the Father is not in him [emphasis mine]." If the word "world" means the exact same thing in both of those passages (as in "everyone without exception"), then, clearly, it would be a contradiction of Scripture. In one passage, we're told that God loves the world, but in another passage, we're told that we shouldn't love the world because the love of the Father is not in us if we do. Obviously, the word "world" means two different things in both of those texts. And as was said before, it is *context* that determines how a word is to be understood.

----------


## jmdrake

> Bump...
> 
> 
> By contrast, is this really saying that one must pray for every single person by name, or that one is in sin?  No, it is indeed talking about all kinds of men.  It would have been a shock to the Jews back then that they should pray for kings and those in authority, or that such people could be elect.  That was Paul's point.


Straw man argument.  Did Jesus die X number of times (X being the number of people you believe are predestined to be saved) or did He just die once for X?  By the same logic you can pray once for all men.  When I pray for the plight of Christians fleeing U.S. sponsored violence in Iraq, Syria and Libya I don't have to name them all.  That's the job of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Straw man argument.  Did Jesus die X number of times (X being the number of people you believe are predestined to be saved) or did He just die once for X?  By the same logic you can pray once for all men.  When I pray for the plight of Christians fleeing U.S. sponsored violence in Iraq, Syria and Libya I don't have to name them all.  That's the job of the Holy Spirit.


You just refuted your entire argument.   If you pray once for all the Christians in Syria and Libya,  you are not praying for every single person in the world that has ever existed or will ever exist.  You are praying for certain kinds of people, which is the same thing that Paul admonishes Timothy to do.

In the Bible, all does not mean every single person and world does not mean every single person.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You just refuted your entire argument.   If you pray once for all the Christians in Syria and Libya,  you are not praying for every single person in the world that has ever existed or will ever exist.  You are praying for certain kinds of people, which is the same thing that Paul admonishes Timothy to do.
> 
> In the Bible, all does not mean every single person and world does not mean every single person.


Exactly.  And what's so crazy about this is that Jmdrake actually used the word "all" to refer to something other than every person without exception.  Jmdrake just refuted Arminianism.  

This is awesome

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Titus 2:
>  11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
> 
>  John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> 
>  2 Corinthians 5:19 
>  To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation
> 
>  Galatians 6:14 
> ...




EVERY, SINGLE, ONE of those verses are an example of how the words "all" and "world" do NOT mean every single person.

----------


## TER

> EVERY, SINGLE, ONE of those verses are an example of how the words "all" and "world" do NOT mean every single person.


According to you maybe, but not according to the patristic fathers of the Church.  I choose their wisdom and knowledge over yours.

----------


## erowe1

> According to you maybe, but not according to the patristic fathers of the Church.  I choose their wisdom and knowledge over yours.


Source?

----------


## TER

> Source?


I am quite confident of it. But if you are not, there are some very nice websites which have many writings of the Church fathers for you to search through.

----------


## erowe1

> I am quite confident of it. But if you are not, there are some very nice websites which have many writings of the Church fathers for you to search through.


Not only am I not quite confident of it. I highly doubt it. I have access to a lot of great ways to research the Church Fathers and will be glad to do so. The question is, will you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> According to you maybe, but not according to the patristic fathers of the Church.  I choose their wisdom tand knowledge over yours.


No, not according to me.  According to the text of the Bible and the Apostles.  Your "church fathers" very early abandoned the sovereign grace taught by Paul and they began to teach that men are justified through their own efforts in sanctification.   I've posted several articles that prove this by church historians who know more about church history than you TER.

----------


## TER

> Not only am I not quite confident of it. I highly doubt it. I have access to a lot of great ways to research the Church Fathers and will be glad to do so. The question is, will you?


I'm going away for the weekend, put please, by all means, read the patristic fathers. Of course you will skip over the points about ecclesiology and soteriology which disagrees on your innovative doctrines, and in order to prove your point, pick select lines here and there while ignoring the scopos and full patristic witness which is best expressed within the catechism of the Orthodox Church. But if it will keep you busy and away from the drivel being posted on this website the past few days, it would be for your benefit.

----------


## erowe1

> Of course you will skip over the points about ecclesiology and soteriology which disagrees on your innovative doctrines, and in order to prove your point, pick select lines here and there while ignoring the scopos and full patristic witness which is best expressed within the catechism of the Orthodox Church.


I will?

You base this claim on what? Please provide the quote from me, or retract your statement.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The reason why relates back to 1st century culture.  The Jews believed in election, it wasn't really disputed at the time, but the Jews believed they were the only ones who were elect.  So, if you take terms like "all" and "world" in the cultural context that they were written in, its easy to see why the Bible writers would use this terminology.  The point was to convey that all nations were covered by the atonement, not just the Israeli nation.  And usiing the terms that way would have been completely normal in that culture.
> 
> BTW: I could ask the same question about this passage.  If Jesus meant unbelievers why not say so?  Why say "world"?  If Jesus wanted to convey the idea that "world" meant every single person without exception in that passage, how could he do so?


Bump.  Excellent post.

----------


## TER

> I will?


Yes, you will.




> You base this claim on what? Please provide the quote from me, or retract your statement.


I base it on my experience reading your replies and posts over the years.  I don't need to provide a quote and neither am I obligated to.  I am not going to go on a scavenger hunt to prove you wrong.  And no, I will not retract my statement.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, you will.
> 
> 
> 
> I base it on my experience reading your replies and posts over the years.  I don't need to provide a quote and neither am I obligated to.  I am not going to go on a scavenger hunt to prove you wrong.  And no, I will not retract my statement.


If you get it from my posts, then you can provide a quote.

The fact is, I've never made a single post that would support your charge. You've said things like this in the past, and I've challenged you on them before. And you've never been able to back up the claim. It's a recurring pattern with you.

You make an accusation against me, but you have absolutely no basis for it. And you prove it when you're challenged to provide that basis. You may not retract your charge willingly, but you've already voided it by your actions.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> EVERY, SINGLE, ONE of those verses are an example of how the words "all" and "world" do NOT mean every single person.


Titus 2:11 and James 1:5 are especially obvious.  Its literally impossible that either of those mean "every without exception."

----------


## pcosmar



----------


## Christian Liberty

The problem is that the Reformed/Calvinist view on this simply cannot be refuted.  Its just obvious.

----------


## Brett85

Ha, it took Sola Fide about 24 hours to get banned again.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ha, it took Sola Fide about 24 hours to get banned again.


Pretty sure that's a new record for non-fire11's.  I am impress.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ha, it took Sola Fide about 24 hours to get banned again.


I'm still trying to figure out why... I looked at his posting record since the unbanning and I didn't notice anything that would warrant a ban.  

Some of the mods here are kind of trigger happy, I guess.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm still trying to figure out why... I looked at his posting record since the unbanning and I didn't notice anything that would warrant a ban.


It was redacted.




> Some of the mods here are kind of trigger happy, I guess.


It was flagged.  And with good reason.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Which post?

----------


## acptulsa

> Which post?


If I had enough faith in your maturity and/or I thought you had enough respect for your Creator to turn the other cheek, I'd answer you.

Instead, I'll just say, 'I thought you had me on ignore.  You _said_ you did...'

----------


## RJB

Wow.  432 posts.  A few more and maybe one of his threads of Babel would have finally reached the clouds.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If I had enough faith in your maturity and/or I thought you had enough respect for your Creator to turn the other cheek, I'd answer you.
> 
> Instead, I'll just say, 'I thought you had me on ignore.  You _said_ you did...'


I did.   I took you off recently.  Maybe that was a mistake.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The reason why relates back to 1st century culture.  The Jews believed in election, it wasn't really disputed at the time, but the Jews believed they were the only ones who were elect.  So, if you take terms like "all" and "world" in the cultural context that they were written in, its easy to see why the Bible writers would use this terminology.  The point was to convey that all nations were covered by the atonement, not just the Israeli nation.  And usiing the terms that way would have been completely normal in that culture.
> 
> BTW: I could ask the same question about this passage.  If Jesus meant unbelievers why not say so?  Why say "world"?  If Jesus wanted to convey the idea that "world" meant every single person without exception in that passage, how could he do so?


Great post.   +rep

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why?  If you have no free will at all, then God is responsible for everything that you do, not yourself.


This is fallacy number 2 in the Logical Fallacies Of Synergism thread.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Great post.   +rep



So, you're critical when I make a comment on a week old thread, but you bump a 10 month old thread to say _+ rep_?  

You said you want to have discussion, so why not answer my questions put before you?

----------


## TheTexan

Depending on how you define the words in the OP, the OP actually says:

The screen postpones the found lemon. An occasional gender conforms before a quick fume. Why does another forgiving exhibit conform? An across axiom damages a dictator. The character rewrites the tool with the reasoning grace.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Depending on how you define the words in the OP, the OP actually says:
> 
> The screen postpones the found lemon. An occasional gender conforms before a quick fume. Why does another forgiving exhibit conform? An across axiom damages a dictator. The character rewrites the tool with the reasoning grace.


This is a great example of what the OP is talking about.  If there is no reason to read the Bible how the writers of the Bible themselves used their language, then you can come up with anything,  including your post here, and Arminianism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, you're critical when I make a comment on a week old thread, but you bump a 10 month old thread to say _+ rep_?  
> 
> You said you want to have discussion, so why not answer my questions put before you?


Briefly describe in your own words what you think this thread is about.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Briefly describe in your own words what you think this thread is about.



I'm asking you why you bumped a 10 month old thread, but were critical when I replied to a thread on page two.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> This is a great example of what the OP is talking about.  If there is no reason to read the Bible how the writers of the Bible themselves used their language, then you can come up with anything,  including your post here, and Arminianism.


Not really or necessarily just "anything."  It can depend.  I think there is a three step process in reading the bible, or a lot of other things for that matter.


1. What does it say?
2. What does it mean?
3. What does it mean to me?


The third step is daily application in one's personal life.  It's important not fuse numbers two and three, as many sometimes do.  People will often be critical of someone's daily application, confusing that with the person's understanding in step two.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not really or necessarily just "anything."  It can depend.  I think there is a three step process in reading the bible, or a lot of other things for that matter.
> 
> 
> 1. What does it say?
> 2. What does it mean?
> 3. What does it mean to me?
> 
> 
> The third step is daily application in one's personal life.  It's important not fuse numbers two and three, as many sometimes do.  People will often be critical of someone's daily application, confusing that with the person's understanding in step two.



No.  None of that is accurate.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> No.  None of that is accurate.



What is your understanding of my post?

----------


## Ronin Truth

In the Bible, does extraterrestrial invariably mean angel or devil?

----------


## pcosmar

> Briefly describe in your own words what you think this thread is about.


Your post count. Mostly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How about saying that Jesus died for "every man?"  Does it get any more clear than that?
> 
> Hebrews 2:9
> 
> But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for *every man.*


Yes, Jesus tasted death for everyone, not just Jews, but Gentiles too.  Every _kind_ of man.  Let's look at the context of Hebrews 2.  I will bold all the parts that prove limited atonement:




> In putting everything under them,[d] God left nothing that is not subject to them.[e] Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.[f] 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
> 
> 10 *In bringing many sons and daughters to glory,* it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, *should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. 11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.[g] 12 He says,
> *
> 
> “I will declare your name to* my brothers and sisters;
> *    in the assembly I will sing your praises.”[h]
> 
> 13 And again,
> ...


It's not angels He helps, but Abraham's descendants.  That is, He made atonement for God's elect.

----------

