All Men: By Charles Spurgeon

[seer]

I love Mr. Spurgeon's writings. I read his devotional every morning. Anyway to his quote on the term "all men."

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. 'All men,' say they,—'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said 'some men' if he had meant some men. 'All men,' say they; 'that is, some of all sorts of men': as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written 'all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the 'alls' according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, 'Who will have all men to be saved,' his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, 'God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."'


Amen...

[8320john]

[QUOTE=seer]I love Mr. Spurgeon's writings. I read his devotional every morning. Anyway to his quote on the term "all men."

I daresay this was not the last word of Spurgeon concerning this issue and what was the date of that particular commentary?

God's "love" for ALL men issues in the destruction of the unrepentant sinner.

"God loves ALL men," to mean God's concern for ALL men leads in very different paths. ALL men are NOT included in the election, nor called...why not? Where is the love for ALL men in that concept? ALL means as accurately exegeted to mean all sorts, types, classes, ethnic groupings, etc...but not all without exception, that is plain.

ONLY the elect are LOVED by God, the others are destroyed regardless of where Spurgeon stood at that moment. And if you wish to assert that Spurgeon was not a Doctrines of Grace man or that he rejected the basic principles of the system embraced by Calvin you'll be very disappointed.

ALL men are not loved and ALL men will not see eternal life.

1 Peter 2:7-10

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

And,


Rom 9:22-23

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

And,


2 Peter 2:11-12

11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;


Mercy for "ALL?" No. Those prepared beforehand.
Appointed to stumbling.
Brute beasts made to be taken and DESTROYED.

ONLY the elect foreknown from before the foundations of the world are to be regenerated, saved, elected, called, predestinated...the others are as Peter and Paul...and Yeshua have spoken, devoted to eternal destruction from the Presence of the Lord and nothing will change that.

It is Written.

Back to the Word.

"...ye MUST be born again." -- Yeshua

[Nang]

I love Mr. Spurgeon's writings. I read his devotional every morning. Anyway to his quote on the term "all men."




Amen...

Spurgeon had a way with words which made him a great preacher, but he was not a great theologian.

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Spurgeon had a way with words which made him a great preacher, but he was not a great theologian.

I din't know about that Nang. An inconsistent calvinist is the next best thing to a non-calvinist. :wink:

[john-philip]

I din't know about that Nang. An inconsistent calvinist is the next best thing to a non-calvinist. :wink:

:highfive:


:haha:

[Sheepdog]

yup. some Calvinists have been smart enough to see through the stupidity going on in their camp.


"God loves ALL men," to mean God's concern for ALL men leads in very different paths. ALL men are NOT included in the election, nor called...why not? Where is the love for ALL men in that concept? ALL means as accurately exegeted to mean all sorts, types, classes, ethnic groupings, etc...but not all without exception, that is plain.

properly exegeted? tell me, is there any reason to think "all men" doesn't mean "each individual" other than question begging, "by golly Calvinist must be true, so 'all men' cannot mean 'all men'"?

what socio-historical or usage in the original language are you going to present to support this idea that "all men" means "all categories but not all the individuals in those categories"?

[Nang]

properly exegeted? tell me, is there any reason to think "all men" doesn't mean "each individual" other than question begging, "by golly Calvinist must be true, so 'all men' cannot mean 'all men'"?


First, I do not know of a Scripture that declares God "loves all men," but that aside, I understand your questioning.

Proper exegetes considers context and even allows for common sense.

For example, I read in the Bible:

"And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. . ." Matthew 10:22a

Should I deduct from that Scripture the belief that all men universally will hate me because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ? I have a lot of friends, so the Scripture surely is not making such a universal statement, is it?

Also, I read in the Bible:

"Woe to you when all men speak well of you . . ." Luke 6:26

Should I expect all men to speak well of me for any reason? Is such a thing truly possible regardless of one's views?

Truth is, I will be hated by all kinds of men, and spoken well of by all kinds of men, but it is extremely unlikely I will be universally hated or universally spoken well of, no matter what I do. That is reality.

So to simply accept that "all men" encompasses every singly human being is untenable. Just as untenable as deducting the frequent Biblical language that speaks of "all the world" (i.e. Luke 2:1) and the "whole world," (i.e. Romans 1:8) as being a global scenario in every case.



what socio-historical or usage in the original language are you going to present to support this idea that "all men" means "all categories but not all the individuals in those categories"?

Tell me, are you an advocate of election being corporate and not individualistic? If so, I would like to ask you a few questions . . . :tongue:

Nang

[8320john]

yup. some Calvinists have been smart enough to see through the stupidity going on in their camp.



properly exegeted? tell me, is there any reason to think "all men" doesn't mean "each individual" other than question begging, "by golly Calvinist must be true, so 'all men' cannot mean 'all men'"?

what socio-historical or usage in the original language are you going to present to support this idea that "all men" means "all categories but not all the individuals in those categories"?


Why? Because other passages speak to the issue and it is the whole counsel of God that will stand. "ALL" does NOT mean every individual as proven by the many passages that speak in affirmation to that exegesis. They are not the beloved of the Father nor given to the Son...they are brute beasts and eternal ruin is their destiny. It has absolutely nothing to do with Calvin. It is the Biblical Record long before John Calvin.

[Sheepdog]

First, I do not know of a Scripture that declares God "loves all men," but that aside, I understand your questioning.

it's actually inductively interpreted from the Bible. my contention is with the interpretive principle you folks employ as a whole.

Proper exegetes considers context and even allows for common sense.

For example, I read in the Bible:

"And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. . ." Matthew 10:22a

Should I deduct from that Scripture the belief that all men universally will hate me because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ? I have a lot of friends, so the Scripture surely is not making such a universal statement, is it?

granted, but nothing in the above implies a "some of every group" interpretation. I would say that since that is narrative (heh, there's your context for ya), we should allow the speaker not to be hyperliteral. in this case, it's best understood as hyperbole.

on the other hand, in a theological discourse we'd expect the writer to avoid hyperbole. or at least, employ it in a manner that is self-evident.

Also, I read in the Bible:

"Woe to you when all men speak well of you . . ." Luke 6:26

Should I expect all men to speak well of me for any reason? Is such a thing truly possible regardless of one's views?

again, probably best understood as hyperbole.

Truth is, I will be hated by all kinds of men, and spoken well of by all kinds of men, but it is extremely unlikely I will be universally hated or universally spoken well of, no matter what I do. That is reality.

all kinds? including believers... i mean earnest, born again believers will hate you?

So to simply accept that "all men" encompasses every singly human being is untenable. Just as untenable as deducting the frequent Biblical language that speaks of "all the world" (i.e. Luke 2:1) and the "whole world," (i.e. Romans 1:8) as being a global scenario in every case.

it would be rather silly to be so rigid in one's hermeneutic.

for instance, what do you do with the "all men" in Romans 5:18? Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. if you take the "some of all kinds" exegesis, you end up with a partial pelagianism; if you take the "all individuals" interpretation, you end up with an Arminian style universal atonement. you can't split the middle, because Paul uses the same word for "all men" and the same structure... the two clauses are supposed to be parallels.

Tell me, are you an advocate of election being corporate and not individualistic? If so, I would like to ask you a few questions . . . :tongue:

for now i am going to decline from answering that. no offense meant, it's just my time constrants are limiting and honestly? i've become a bit bored of that topic.

[Sheepdog]

Why? Because other passages speak to the issue and it is the whole counsel of God that will stand. "ALL" does NOT mean every individual as proven by the many passages that speak in affirmation to that exegesis.

what passage in all of Scripture indicate that God does not desire that all be saved? or what passage says that Jesus' death was only the propitiation for some?

so, have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? or some of all kinds? and have all died in Adam? or only some of all kinds?

it's funny, a Pelagian could so easily destroy your theology, simply by being more consistent than you with your hermeneutic regarding "all men."

They are not the beloved of the Father nor given to the Son...they are brute beasts and eternal ruin is their destiny.

that they are "brute beasts" (which is not a biblical term, from what i am aware) and indeed are children of wrath, but that doesn't mean God doesn't love them nore desire that they be saved.

did God love you while you were still a "brute beast"?

It has absolutely nothing to do with Calvin.

which is irrelevant, because you are still question begging your view for the sake of your view.

It is the Biblical Record long before John Calvin.

it's not. neener neener.

[john-philip]

FTR, Spurgeon is my favorite reformed author....and not because of this. I've always loved his writing. This just adds to it. :teeth:

[Nang]

for now i am going to decline from answering that. no offense meant, it's just my time constrants are limiting and honestly? i've become a bit bored of that topic.

That's o.k.

I know how tiring "hyperbole" can be . . .

And I am not really eager to discuss the corporate-election hypothesis either, but brought it up just to make my point.

Nang

[Sheepdog]

BTW, has anyone found any socio-historical evidence for the "some of all kinds" interpretation, yet? i haven't seen it.

[john-philip]

I (like most molinists) believe in passive individual election. I think there are certain texts that are hard to deal with from a strictly corporate election viewpoint.

[8320john]

what passage in all of Scripture indicate that God does not desire that all be saved? or what passage says that Jesus' death was only the propitiation for some?

so, have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? or some of all kinds? and have all died in Adam? or only some of all kinds?

it's funny, a Pelagian could so easily destroy your theology, simply by being more consistent than you with your hermeneutic regarding "all men."



that they are "brute beasts" (which is not a biblical term, from what i am aware) and indeed are children of wrath, but that doesn't mean God doesn't love them nore desire that they be saved.

did God love you while you were still a "brute beast"?



which is irrelevant, because you are still question begging your view for the sake of your view.



it's not. neener neener.

Pelagian philosophy can never destroy Biblical Doctrine.

"ALL" is simply ALL of them whom the Father hath given unto the son as in:

John 17:8-10

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.


Yeshua does NOT pray for ALL men without exception but ONLY for His own, the others are devoted to destruction from the Presence of the Lord as saith the Scriptures. Brute beasts wherein election and calling (salvation) is not their destiny. They were appointed to destruction as saith the Apostle Peter, no hint of ALL men being the objects of the GRACE of God. It was not John Calvin that formulated this doctrinal exposition but Hebrew apostles.

There are the sheep and the goats...the ALL references the sheep, the goats are never in view concerning salvation, they are those NOT given unto the Son, they simply were never in the blueprint and are passed by.

Hard words as are the Words of the Hebrew Apostle Paul, :...hath not the Potter power over the clay to make one vessel unto wrath and one unto glory...?"


Rom 9:21-24

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

"ALL."

Jew AND gentile = "all" men.

Neither Yeshua, Paul, Peter accepts "ALL" as being without exception but clearly directs our attention to ALL without regard to station in life, be one of the nation Israel or from among the gentiles, rich men, poor men, male or female....etc. In the statement that God would have ALL men to be saved is a Divine Directive, not an uncertain desire of the Almighty.

Certitude by the Deity is the key that opens the door of the meaning of ALL in the context under review. But if one is lacking in that understanding they will have to wander in the Pelagian Captivity the remainder of their days on planet earth.

Back to the Word.

"...ye MUST be born again." -- Yeshua

[seer]

Nang: So to simply accept that "all men" encompasses every singly human being is untenable. Just as untenable as deducting the frequent Biblical language that speaks of "all the world" (i.e. Luke 2:1) and the "whole world," (i.e. Romans 1:8) as being a global scenario in every case.

That simply does not work in some passages:

Rom.5:18

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

If the first "all men" is universal, so must be the second. For certainly Paul could have said "some men" in the second instance.

1 Tim.2:4

"God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

Nang, let me ask you - if Paul wanted to say that God wanted all men (every individual) to be saved - how do you think he would have worded it?

[Nang]

[i]

Rom.5:18

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."


I agree with you that death is universal, however it is amazing as to how careful and specific the Word of God is.

For the "all" in vs 18 is qualified in vs 19 to "many" to exclude the one Man who was not condemned by sin having no sin in Him; the Man Jesus Christ.



if Paul wanted to say that God wanted all men (every individual) to be saved - how do you think he would have worded it?

God willed that an elect humanity be saved out of "all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues." Revelation 5:9, 7:9

This is universal in scope, in that God has saved all kinds of men. There is no Scripture that teaches God willed to save every single individual, but failed to do so.



Nang

[Sheepdog]

Pelagian philosophy can never destroy Biblical Doctrine.

yes. that is precisely why your theological slant cannot be Biblical doctrine, because if you apply your hermeneutic consistently, you all Pelagians a foothold.

"ALL" is simply ALL of them whom the Father hath given unto the son as in:

so only believers have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)? are you really willing to defend that?

John 17:8-10

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.


Yeshua does NOT pray for ALL men without exception but ONLY for His own,...

which is indeed true, and expected, considering that Jesus was going to the cross soon and would be concerned for those who have followed him.

it doesn't tell us anything, however, about whether God desires all to be saved nor whether the propitiation is not just for us but for the whole world.

They were appointed to destruction as saith the Apostle Peter, no hint of ALL men being the objects of the GRACE of God.

no one has said that all men are "objects of the grace of God," whatever that means. please explain that.

There are the sheep and the goats...the ALL references the sheep, the goats are never in view concerning salvation, they are those NOT given unto the Son, they simply were never in the blueprint and are passed by.

ahhh! so it's only concerning salvation now. you've got some very active goal posts, as they are moving all over the place.

perhaps you can answer seer's and my question about Romans 5:18. :poke:


Rom 9:21-24

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

"ALL."

Jew AND gentile = "all" men.

this passage is worth looking at, but it is irrelevant to whether "all" in other contexts means anything other than "each individual."

Certitude by the Deity is the key that opens the door of the meaning of ALL in the context under review.

in other words, if it wouldn't support Calvinism we should not take "all men" to mean "all men." again you are question begging Calvinism for the sake of Calvinism.

don't bother responding unless you can give us a reason, other than question begging a particular interpretation (i.e. Calvinism, even though you refuse to call it that), why "all men" are sinners but not "all men" God desires not to perish but to repent and come to the truth.

I agree with you that death is universal, however it is amazing as to how careful and specific the Word of God is.

For the "all" in vs 18 is qualified in vs 19 to "many" to exclude the one Man who was not condemned by sin having no sin in Him; the Man Jesus Christ.

ok. so why isn't the justification "for" all men (the "many" minus Jesus) obtained for all men? you have answered every question except for the one specific question we are asking.


God willed that an elect humanity be saved out of "all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues." Revelation 5:9, 7:9

yes! now, why didn't the Spirit of God use those words in 1Tim. 2:4 or 2Pt. 3:9?

[quote]This is universal in scope, in that God has saved all kinds of men. There is no Scripture that teaches God willed to save every single individual, but failed to do so.[/qoute]

except there are passages that say that God willed that all be saved. we've been talking about them for a while now.


So, does anyone have any evidence for a "some of all kind" interpretation of "all men"? i have seen none that doesn't beg the question.

[Nang]

[quote]ok. so why isn't the justification "for" all men (the "many" minus Jesus) obtained for all men?

Where are you reading "justification for all men?"

I see that through the righteous act of one Man, the free gift (grace and faith) came to all men, resulting in justification of life. This cannot be a universal declaration that justification of life came to every single soul that ever existed, because in the next verse the "all" is carefully quantified to be "many". ". . By one Man's obedience ~many~ will be made righteous." Plus universal justification would by necessity, result in universal salvation, and that is biblically untenable.





now, why didn't the Spirit of God use those words in 1Tim. 2:4 or 2Pt. 3:9?

How should I know? All I know, is that the Spirit is very careful and exact, and one must read Scripture by comparing to all other Scripture.


except there are passages that say that God willed that all be saved. we've been talking about them for a while now.

The passages you refer to are spoken to Christians in context of their peace, rest, and assurance in the Lord. God is not willing that any of His elect should perish. And Jesus Christ promised the Father that He would not lose any that the Father gave Him to save. (John 17:12) Neither I Timothy 2:4 or II Peter 2:9 speaks about humanity at large, but only about God's promises toward His particular people.

So, does anyone have any evidence for a "some of all kind" interpretation of "all men"? i have seen none that doesn't beg the question.

Until you can prove that salvation is universal, or explain why God supposedly willed universal salvation but Christ's cross work failed to accomplish universal salvation, the "all kinds of men" accords better with the entirety of God's revelation.

If God willed all men to be saved, all men would be saved. God is not a failure. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was not worked in vain. The Holy Spirit cannot fail the Father or the Son in convicting men of sin and convincing men of righteousness!

There would be no mention or warning of Judgment Day, or the second death. For if God is to be God, His will cannot be thwarted. Especially not by the corrupted willfulness of His created beings.

Nang

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

This cannot be a universal declaration that justification of life came to every single soul that ever existed, because in the next verse the "all" is carefully quantified to be "many". ". . By one Man's obedience ~many~ will be made righteous."
It seems commentaries generally hold that "many" is another way of saying "all" here in Romans 5:

"It will readily be seen by comparing v. 15 with v. 12 that 'the many' is the same as 'all men' ('death came to all men' and 'the many died'). The use of 'the many' has this advantage, that it underscores the importance of Adam and Christ respectively. What one did, in each case, affected not one but many. The expression goes back to Isaiah 53:11, 12, which underlies our Lord's use in Mark 10:45." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)

Plus universal justification would by necessity, result in universal salvation, and that is biblically untenable.
Well, it was just this verse in 1 Timothy, and Spurgeon's comment on it (after Calvinists convinced me of God always accomplishing his purposes), that got me considering if all can be saved. I'm willing to hope so! That's called "soft universalism." And I would be glad to discuss why this is considered biblically untenable...

Neither I Timothy 2:4 or II Peter 2:9 speaks about humanity at large, but only about God's promises toward His particular people.
The problem in 1 Tim. 2:4 is that "all" in verse 1 cannot mean "all kinds of kings"! So "all" must mean "all kings, all in authority," and prayers for everyone must also mean praying for people without exception, "everyone in your sphere of influence, and all your rulers, each one," because God wants them all (for "all" means not all kinds, but all these people you are praying for without exception) to be saved.

Implying all men without exception, God seeks their salvation. Otherwise, to menation another verse, "Repent and live!" (Eze. 18:32) does not have its stated purpose.

Until you can prove that salvation is universal, or explain why God supposedly willed universal salvation but Christ's cross work failed to accomplish universal salvation, the "all kinds of men" accords better with the entirety of God's revelation.
Well, let's use our "Spurgeoneutic" here! I think its quite sound, and good theology, I much prefer taking the evident meaning of Scripture, when we have a verse that doesn't fit, rather than ironing out the wrinkle, regardless. That is the way the scientists make progress! When they find a real anomaly, they don't take a quick exit.

There would be no mention or warning of Judgment Day, or the second death.
Unless there is hope after then, even:

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Ezekiel 16:53 However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them...

For if God is to be God, His will cannot be thwarted. Especially not by the corrupted willfulness of His created beings.
Quite true!

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

Me:if Paul wanted to say that God wanted all men (every individual) to be saved - how do you think he would have worded it?


Nang: God willed that an elect humanity be saved out of "all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues." Revelation 5:9, 7:9

This is universal in scope, in that God has saved all kinds of men. There is no Scripture that teaches God willed to save every single individual, but failed to do so.

That was not the question Nang. Again, if Paul wanted to say that God desired to save all men - how do you thing he would word it...

[mickiel]

The reason why a mind cannot see all meaning all is a severely limited scoptic view of salvation, which is the birth of limited Atonement, or a person desiring that not all be saved. This limited Atonement was very heavily taught by the Scribes, Hypocrites and the Pharisees, the forerunners of christianity. Notice Christ confronting them in Matt.23:13, Jesus called limited Atonement "Shutting off the Kingdom of Heaven from men", a very powerful statement from Christ. The inability to see all as meaning everyone is a very powerful form of selfishness and elitism, called Limited Atonement, or sectional Salvation, meaning the death of Christ only takes effect for certain humans who meet certain conditions. Which is the gospel of certism, an eltist form of election from God, which attempts to define God himself as elitist.

Limited Atonements view of God, must Limit Gods view of Salvation to be relevant, or it shows itself as useless, thus these eyes will never see all as meaning all. They must see the salvation of all as impossible for God to not only do, but impossible for him to even desire. With these kinds of thinkers it is impossible, but with God it is not, Mark 10:27 and Luke 1:37-- with God nothing is impossible, included in that nothing is the salvation of every man. Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise- that he will save his people from their sins, Matt. 1:21. The limited mind must see two things here: not everyone is Jesus people, and he will not save everyone from their sins. In Psalms 72:12-13, Jesus will deliver the needy, and the lives of the needy he will save, this is Christ salvic destiny. The mind of those who shut off the kingdom has to believe not all need it, and that not all sinners belong to Christ.

Now, in Phil. 3:20-21, much is explained, this is very important. The very citizenship of humans, or salvation, is in heaven awaiting a savior, namely Jesus, so its based on Jesus existance, not BELIEF in his existance. Vs.21, Jesus will TRANSFORM the STATE of humanity, BY the exertion of the power THAT HE HAS to SUBJECT ALL THINGS to HIMSELF. Right there is the ability of God to do what is impossible in the mind of limited salvation thinkers and believers. Jesus HAS the power to transform humans from ANY state of being they are in. It can be a state of sin, which we all are in. It can be a state or some form of disbelief or WHATEVER, Jesus has the POWER TO CHANGE THAT! This is why God calls his son the Savior of all men, 1 Tim.4:10, 1John 4:14, because that is exactly what he is going to do BECAUSE it is his DESIRE to do it, and it is within his power to do it. AND GOD HAS CHARGED HIM TO DO IT! Thats why Jesus said if he be lifted up he will draw all men to him, John 12:32, because it is his will to do that, as Luke 2:10 plainly states.

This is why Paul urges that prayers be made on behalf of all men, not just believers, because Jesus intends on saving all of them, chapter 1 verse 15 states that very, very clearly. It states Jesus came into the world to save ALL sinners. The scriptures clearly states that all have sinned and fallen short, so Jesus came to save all of those sinners. Men debate this because they are unbelievers in such a salvationus undertaking by the Father and do not believe God even desires to do it, muchless has the will power to do it. 1Tim.2:3, 4 disputes such disbelief. As does 1Tim. 4:10, as does 1John 2:2, as does 1 Tim.2:6, as does Col.2:13, and 3:11, as does Rom. 5:18, Luke 9:56, Heb. 2:9 , Isaiah 45:23, the list becomes endless as the heart becomes more in tune with Jesus real ability and Gods true desires, and belief in them.

Peace, Mickiel.

[8320john]

yes. that is precisely why your theological slant cannot be Biblical doctrine, because if you apply your hermeneutic consistently, you all Pelagians a foothold.



so only believers have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)? are you really willing to defend that?



which is indeed true, and expected, considering that Jesus was going to the cross soon and would be concerned for those who have followed him.

it doesn't tell us anything, however, about whether God desires all to be saved nor whether the propitiation is not just for us but for the whole world.



no one has said that all men are "objects of the grace of God," whatever that means. please explain that.



ahhh! so it's only concerning salvation now. you've got some very active goal posts, as they are moving all over the place.

perhaps you can answer seer's and my question about Romans 5:18. :poke:



this passage is worth looking at, but it is irrelevant to whether "all" in other contexts means anything other than "each individual."



in other words, if it wouldn't support Calvinism we should not take "all men" to mean "all men." again you are question begging Calvinism for the sake of Calvinism.

don't bother responding unless you can give us a reason, other than question begging a particular interpretation (i.e. Calvinism, even though you refuse to call it that), why "all men" are sinners but not "all men" God desires not to perish but to repent and come to the truth.



ok. so why isn't the justification "for" all men (the "many" minus Jesus) obtained for all men? you have answered every question except for the one specific question we are asking.



yes! now, why didn't the Spirit of God use those words in 1Tim. 2:4 or 2Pt. 3:9?

[quote]This is universal in scope, in that God has saved all kinds of men. There is no Scripture that teaches God willed to save every single individual, but failed to do so.[/qoute]

except there are passages that say that God willed that all be saved. we've been talking about them for a while now.


So, does anyone have any evidence for a "some of all kind" interpretation of "all men"? i have seen none that doesn't beg the question.

The argument is futile for those who insist "all" means "all" without exception without allowing other passages to properly exegete the doctrine to its necessary conclusion...and that is, "all" men will not be saved and "all" men are sinners or that not "all" men are considered in the propitiation.

"Gee, how can that be?"

It is nevertheless. Yeshua outlined the issue, Peter and Paul concurred. The Scriptures conclusively affirm the matter regarding, "all." It is not of Calvinistic origins but has its roots in Holy Writ.

One cannot convince another of the limitations of the atonement or that "all" is not applicable in certain applications, so the discussion simply goes around one more time. I said my piece with a few of the passages that illustrate the limitation of "all."

All saints will be saved.
All men are sinners.
But not all men will be saved.
Not all men were included in Yeshua's prayer...only His own, the sheep.
When Yeshua died for the sins of all men he died for those who were His own.
The sins of the whole world were the sins of all those in the world who were His own. Otherwise why pray for ONLY those whom the Father had given to Him?

I see no begging of the question at all but a lack of a correct understanding of calling and election which will not be solved in this forum or anytime in the near future. The so called Arminian and the so called Calvinist will be at odds to the very end. For me (if not for you), "all" can mean:

All men without exception (as sinners) as it is Written
All men with exception (as saints) as it is Written

Yeshua/Peter/Paul all agree that the atonement is limited to those whom the Father hath given to the Son. Isaiah also speaks to this same issue in the 29th chapter, 16th verse.

If this is a struggle for you I can only direct you to the Scriptures and request that you continue to pray over the matter. I have long been satisfied that "all" has different applications depending upon the vessel it indicates. It is no longer a matter of doubt in my mind but understand it continues to be a matter of concern for others.

Back to the Word.

"...ye MUST be born again." -- Yeshua

[seer]

The argument is futile for those who insist "all" means "all" without exception without allowing other passages to properly exegete the doctrine to its necessary conclusion...and that is, "all" men will not be saved and "all" men are sinners or that not "all" men are considered in the propitiation.

This is the problem John. We all subjectively decide which proof texts we use to control other texts.

Let's go back to 1 Timothy 2:4. I prove in another thread that Paul's use of "all men" in this letter naturally includes the non-elect. Even if you suggest that Paul is only speaking of kinds or classes (which is not in the text) the non-elect are a kind or class. And most likely the largest kind or class in mankind.

So you import texts about the judgement of the lost into Fist Timothy and say - Paul can not mean what he clearly stated. But why should "your" proof texts control the Timothy text. Why shouldn't the Timothy text control or mitigate your proof texts?

And here is a question John that I do not believe you answered. If Paul want to say that God desired all men to be saved - how do you think he would word it?

[8320john]

The argument is futile for those who insist "all" means "all" without exception without allowing other passages to properly exegete the doctrine to its necessary conclusion...and that is, "all" men will not be saved and "all" men are sinners or that not "all" men are considered in the propitiation.

This is the problem John. We all subjectively decide which proof texts we use to control other texts.

Let's go back to 1 Timothy 2:4. I prove in another thread that Paul's use of "all men" in this letter naturally includes the non-elect. Even if you suggest that Paul is only speaking of kinds or classes (which is not in the text) the non-elect are a kind or class. And most likely the largest kind or class in mankind.

So you import texts about the judgement of the lost into Fist Timothy and say - Paul can not mean what he clearly stated. But why should "your" proof texts control the Timothy text. Why shouldn't the Timothy text control or mitigate your proof texts?

And here is a question John that I do not believe you answered. If Paul want to say that God desired all men to be saved - how do you think he would word it?


I have no idea how the Holy Spirit would have worded it but it is conclusive (for me) without "proof texts" that "all" is indeed exclusive , exclusive in some applications in that it may mean ALL men without exception and in other applications ALL men with exception. For example:


Gen 6:13

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


"...the end of ALL flesh is come before me.."

Are we to conclude by the means of "proof texts" that ALL in fact means all without exception or ALL means those that are included in the destruction?

I see the answer as obvious. The deliverance is LIMITED to the elect, those of whom God SOVEREIGNLY chose to save (8 souls) without merit on their part but given salvation from the deluge. By this principle in the very beginning we observe that salvation is:

1. Limited
2. All does not mean all without exception
3. All can mean sinners as well as saints depending upon context

I see no problems with the statements of Yeshua, Paul or Peter in respect to the limitation of the atonement or that "all" has certain parameters determinded by the vessel it impacts.

Atonement
Propitation
Election (obvious by the very term)
"ALL"

...have limited application relative to the persons addressed.

[seer]

I have no idea how the Holy Spirit would have worded it but it is conclusive (for me) without "proof texts" that "all" is indeed exclusive , exclusive in some applications in that it may mean ALL men without exception and in other applications ALL men with exception.

The fact is John, Paul could not have been more clear.


I see the answer as obvious. The deliverance is LIMITED to the elect, those of whom God SOVEREIGNLY chose to save (8 souls) without merit on their part but given salvation from the deluge. By this principle in the very beginning we observe that salvation is:

1. Limited
2. All does not mean all without exception
3. All can mean sinners as well as saints depending upon context

I see no problems with the statements of Yeshua, Paul or Peter in respect to the limitation of the atonement or that "all" has certain parameters determinded by the vessel it impacts.

See John, this is where we disagree. It may be that atonement is limited to the elect. I have no problem with that. But that limitation would be based on God's foreknowledge of OUR choices. That Christ atoned only for those He knew would freely respond to His grace. In that case God could truely desire all men to be saved, even though they reject His gracious overtures. Remember John, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

[8320john]

I have no idea how the Holy Spirit would have worded it but it is conclusive (for me) without "proof texts" that "all" is indeed exclusive , exclusive in some applications in that it may mean ALL men without exception and in other applications ALL men with exception.

The fact is John, Paul could not have been more clear.


I see the answer as obvious. The deliverance is LIMITED to the elect, those of whom God SOVEREIGNLY chose to save (8 souls) without merit on their part but given salvation from the deluge. By this principle in the very beginning we observe that salvation is:

1. Limited
2. All does not mean all without exception
3. All can mean sinners as well as saints depending upon context

I see no problems with the statements of Yeshua, Paul or Peter in respect to the limitation of the atonement or that "all" has certain parameters determinded by the vessel it impacts.

See John, this is where we disagree. It may be that atonement is limited to the elect. I have no problem with that. But that limitation would be based on God's foreknowledge of OUR choices. That Christ atoned only for those He knew would freely respond to His grace. In that case God could truely desire all men to be saved, even though they reject His gracious overtures. Remember John, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

Dead men make no choices unless enabled by a Greater Power. Dead in trespasses and sins does not allow the corpse to make a choice unaided. We must first be made alive to our condition and then regenerated. After that the matter of "choice" is another subject. Procuring cause is the issue. Where does it originate, why does it originate, and to whom is it presented???

[seer]

Dead men make no choices unless enabled by a Greater Power. Dead in trespasses and sins does not allow the corpse to make a choice unaided.

A dead man can not sin either John. How far do you want to take that analogy?


We must first be made alive to our condition and then regenerated. After that the matter of "choice" is another subject. Procuring cause is the issue. Where does it originate, why does it originate, and to whom is it presented???

Really? So we are saved before we have faith? Before we Confess Christ?

[8320john]

Dead men make no choices unless enabled by a Greater Power. Dead in trespasses and sins does not allow the corpse to make a choice unaided.

A dead man can not sin either John. How far do you want to take that analogy?


We must first be made alive to our condition and then regenerated. After that the matter of "choice" is another subject. Procuring cause is the issue. Where does it originate, why does it originate, and to whom is it presented???

Really? So we are saved before we have faith? Before we Confess Christ?

A man is already dead in trespasses and sins.

Eph 2:1-5
2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

1. Regeneration
2. Faith

In that order.

We must first be made alive being ALREADY dead IN trespasses and sins. I did'nt make the statement, the Apostle Paul did.

DEAD...DEAD...DEAD

Dead men tell no tales, nor have faith, nor chose God of themselves, nor can they being DEAD.

[seer]

A man is already dead in trespasses and sins.

Eph 2:1-5
2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

1. Regeneration
2. Faith

In that order.

We must first be made alive being ALREADY dead IN Dead men make no choices unless enabled by a Greater Power. Dead in trespasses and sins does not allow the corpse to make a choice unaided. We must first be made alive to our condition and then regenerated. After that the matter of "choice" is another subject. Procuring cause is the issue. Where does it originate, why does it originate, and to whom is it presented???
and sins. I did'nt make the statement, the Apostle Paul did.

DEAD...DEAD...DEAD

Dead men tell no tales, nor have faith, nor chose God of themselves, nor can they being DEAD.

Again John, dead men can not sin either. What does being "dead in trespasses" mean? Does it mean that we have no ability? Or is it another way of stating that the wages of sin is death? But let me ask you John, could God enlighten dead men in such a fashion as to give them a real choice of choosing or not choosing Him? If not - why not?

[seer]

1. Regeneration
2. Faith

In that order

So we are saved before we believe and confess Christ?

[8320john]

So we are saved before we believe and confess Christ?

What does the order imply to you?

Saved
Being Saved
Shall be Saved

The elect were foreknown from before the foundation of the world. It is a "whom" He foreknew not a "what" He foreknew.

Foreknowledge is not prescience but DECREE.


Rom 8:28-30

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

And,


Eph 2:5-10

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


The passages speak for themselves...for some, for others they will continue to wander in the Land of Nod.

[seer]

The elect were foreknown from before the foundation of the world. It is a "whom" He foreknew not a "what" He foreknew.

Foreknowledge is not prescience but DECREE.

Correct, God foreknew those who would freely respond to Him. And predestinated them to salvation. Like Peter said: elect according to the foerknowledge of God.


The passages speak for themselves...for some, for others they will continue to wander in the Land of Nod.

Just like 1 Tim.2:4,4:18,Jn.3:16,Heb.2:9,Rom.5:18,etc,etc,etc, speak for themselves.

But let me as you again John. "could God enlighten dead men in such a fashion as to give them a real choice of choosing or not choosing Him? If not - why not?"

[Owen]

The premise given by many Calvinists that there are instances where "all" isn't every single individual is true. However, the conclusion they draw from it is false. It is presupposed that if "all" doesn't mean ALL then it could mean anything, but that is not the case. The word all could be literal, could be used as hyperbole to represent most, or could be used to describe to refer to something as a whole, but not necessarily individualist. However, none of those three readings will satisfy the Calvinist conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:4 is referring to the elect, if they decide to forego the "all classes of men" hypothesis.

It would either mean all individuals, most individuals, or humanity as a whole (making salvation corporate). The second would not fit the reformed conclusion because it still says MOST men can be saved, unless they suppose that most of humanity is saved.

Without seeing it as saying "all classes of men" (which I will address in a second) there is no real sesnbiel conclusion someone in the reform tradition can come up with about 1 Timothy 2:4 that would harmonize with their soteriology. IT either means all, most (in hyperbole), or whole. Not a few or merely some. The Greek word pas has an emphasis on all in its literal meaning and its figurative meaning would be derived from its literal meaning, therefore few can not be the figurative meaning of pas.

If one contends this point, I ask that you show one single usage of the Greek word pas (all) that unarguably means a few or only some.

As for the "all classes of men" view, it is wrought with problems also. First and foremost, it is the awkward rendering of anthropos which means human or humanity as referring to groups or classes of men. But there is contextual problems with that also.

1 Timothy 2:5-6:
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

In this verse, you do not have pas (all) and anthropos (men) paired together in a phrase, but still yet used together in the thought. But if one takes "men" to be classes of men, then you have a problem because Paul states that Jesus is a mediator between classes of men. Therefore, Christ is mediator of classes of men that have unelect individuals within them.

However, for a linguistic point of view, taking anthropos alone as "all classes of men" presents a major problem within the word itself. In lexicons of all ancient Greek usage, there is not one instance that has "anthropos" meaning classes of men. It may mean humanity as a whole, but it never mean "groups of men" as opposed to "individual men."

Then you have a further problem within the letter later on.

1 Timothy 4:10:
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

If one takes "all men" here as all classes of men, then Paul makes on of the classes believers, because Paul felt the need to go even further in his writing. Are believers a class of men? Then so are unbelievers. Thus Christ is Savior of the unbeliving class of men and God desires the unbelieving class of men to come to salvation.

One can say "all men" means different things in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 and 4:10, but then Paul is one of the worst writers of all time, used a phrase in context of Christ different in the same letter. It becomes a mess in the text, where a phrase could mean anything.

Of course what it really is, is the person of the reformed tradition subjecting the text to his theology and making the text fit what fits into his theology. Of course the error in that is he asssumes his theology is perfect, therefore any text that would contradict must mean something different. To him, there is no possiblity the Bible could contradict Calvinism because every text that seemingly contradicts it can not contradict Calvinism because Calvinism must be true. In reality, he gives no chance for the Bible to say anything else, but he starts with the assumption that Calvinism is true and in his thinking he resorts to an implicit circular reasoning, thinking 1 Timothy 2:1-6 doesn't contradict Calvinism because Calvinism is true.

[seer]

If one takes "all men" here as all classes of men, then Paul makes on of the classes believers, because Paul felt the need to go even further in his writing. Are believers a class of men? Then so are unbelievers. Thus Christ is Savior of the unbeliving class of men and God desires the unbelieving class of men to come to salvation.

One can say "all men" means different things in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 and 4:10, but then Paul is one of the worst writers of all time, used a phrase in context of Christ different in the same letter. It becomes a mess in the text, where a phrase could mean anything.

Of course what it really is, is the person of the reformed tradition subjecting the text to his theology and making the text fit what fits into his theology. Of course the error in that is he asssumes his theology is perfect, therefore any text that would contradict must mean something different. To him, there is no possiblity the Bible could contradict Calvinism because every text that seemingly contradicts it can not contradict Calvinism because Calvinism must be true. In reality, he gives no chance for the Bible to say anything else, but he starts with the assumption that Calvinism is true and in his thinking he resorts to an implicit circular reasoning, thinking 1 Timothy 2:1-6 doesn't contradict Calvinism because Calvinism is true.

Amen, I have been trying get the same point across...

[Owen]

What does the order imply to you?

Saved
Being Saved
Shall be Saved

The elect were foreknown from before the foundation of the world. It is a "whom" He foreknew not a "what" He foreknew.

Foreknowledge is not prescience but DECREE.

I've heard this often claimed but there is little evidence for such a claim. The world literally means to know beforehand. The word derives from the two words, pro, which means beforehand, and ginosko, which means to know. Nowhere in Greek literature is it used of some decree or ordaining, but merely knowing something beforehand. Paul would not have changed the definitions of readily understandable words when he could have used other words for something such as decree beforehand, which he did.

In Romans 8:29 he says God predestined those whom He foreknew. Predestine simply means to determine beforehand. So that word definately be used decrees. To say he decreed beforehand those who he determined beforehand becomes very redundant in meaning.

Rom 8:28-30

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Of course this assumes in Romans 8:29-30 Paul is referring to all believers of all times instead of referring to believers of past times. Foreknew, predestine, called, justified, and glorified are all aorists indicative which are, for the most part, past tense actions.

There are VERY rare exceptions where it can be unarguably futuristic but they are rare in Greek literature. But even if one assumes this refers to a future time, one can not use it as a proof text, because there is just as much rationale to see these all as past actions and since we have yet to be glorified, must refer to believers of the past. This would make sense as Paul uses this as an example of salvation, to which he writes about in the following verses.

And,


Eph 2:5-10

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


The passages speak for themselves...for some, for others they will continue to wander in the Land of Nod.

But they don't speak for themselves by the way you presented them. You had to add that foreknowledge means decree. If they spoke for themself, there would have been no need for you to add the extra comment about foreknowledge meaning decree.

BTW while I believe all men can be saved, I do agree with regeneration before faith in Christ (the semantics of which I am sure I will eventually go into in my time here). However, Romans 8:29-30 can not be used in any way as a proof text for such.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Welcome to TWEB Owen.
BTW while I believe all men can be saved, I do agree with regeneration before faith in Christ (the semantics of which I am sure I will eventually go into in my time here).

I'm looking forward to your explanation.

Regards

[8320john]

I've heard this often claimed but there is little evidence for such a claim. The world literally means to know beforehand. The word derives from the two words, pro, which means beforehand, and ginosko, which means to know. Nowhere in Greek literature is it used of some decree or ordaining, but merely knowing something beforehand. Paul would not have changed the definitions of readily understandable words when he could have used other words for something such as decree beforehand, which he did.

In Romans 8:29 he says God predestined those whom He foreknew. Predestine simply means to determine beforehand. So that word definately be used decrees. To say he decreed beforehand those who he determined beforehand becomes very redundant in meaning.



Of course this assumes in Romans 8:29-30 Paul is referring to all believers of all times instead of referring to believers of past times. Foreknew, predestine, called, justified, and glorified are all aorists indicative which are, for the most part, past tense actions.

There are VERY rare exceptions where it can be unarguably futuristic but they are rare in Greek literature. But even if one assumes this refers to a future time, one can not use it as a proof text, because there is just as much rationale to see these all as past actions and since we have yet to be glorified, must refer to believers of the past. This would make sense as Paul uses this as an example of salvation, to which he writes about in the following verses.



But they don't speak for themselves by the way you presented them. You had to add that foreknowledge means decree. If they spoke for themself, there would have been no need for you to add the extra comment about foreknowledge meaning decree.

BTW while I believe all men can be saved, I do agree with regeneration before faith in Christ (the semantics of which I am sure I will eventually go into in my time here). However, Romans 8:29-30 can not be used in any way as a proof text for such.

For me the passages speak for themselves, how they speak to you is not mine to conjecture.

Foreknowledge is indeed decree and not prescience as the passage in Acts
illustrates....:


Acts 2:23-27

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption

The first verse settles the question for me. Foreknowledge of God is connected with determinate counsel. The Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. (Rev 13:8). Thus prescience is not the determining cause of election but DECREE...that is, the determinate counsel of God.

Peter


1 Peter 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowlege is indeed knowing before hand simply because God determined the ways and means of each and every member of the Body of Christ, the election of every redeemed soul. God determined the destiny of those elected based on His determinate counsel.

Can every man be saved?

No. Every man cannot be saved. Paul has already issued the directive for that error in his letter to the Romans, the problem is not with his expostion but those who refuse to believe the exposition making a career out of questioning instead of believing...complicating instead of simplifying and thus continuing to wander unresolved.

Back to the Word.

"...ye MUST be born again." -- Yeshua

[Owen]

For me the passages speak for themselves, how they speak to you is not mine to conjecture.

To one person Scripture speaks one way. To another it speaks one way. To another, it speaks another way. Of course, at least two of those way are wrong.

Foreknowledge is indeed decree and not prescience as the passage in Acts
illustrates....:


Acts 2:23-27

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption

That verse fails to back up that foreknowledge is a divine decree. Matter of fact, it supports the idea that foreknowledge is prescience because foreknowledge is paired with determined plan. If foreknowledge is a decree, it becoems redundant in meaning.

1 Peter 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

How does this show that foreknowledge is a decree? It could very well be understood as we are chosen (The Greek word for elect there simply means chosen) on the basis of foreknowledge.

Foreknowlege is indeed knowing before hand simply because God determined the ways and means of each and every member of the Body of Christ, the election of every redeemed soul. God determined the destiny of those elected based on His determinate counsel.

You have yet to provide a verse that actaully support foreknowledge being a decree. MAtter of fact, there isn't a verse in the Bible that unarguably show foreknowledge as a decree. Combine that with the fact that the world very literally means to know beforehand, there is no support for the idea that foreknowledge is decree. Matter of fact, the evidence speaks against it because it is twice paired with determined or determined beforehand (similar words in Greek), where it would be very redundant if it was a decree, because isn't a decree something determined of God?

Can every man be saved?

No. Every man cannot be saved. Paul has already issued the directive for that error in his letter to the Romans, the problem is not with his expostion but those who refuse to believe the exposition making a career out of questioning instead of believing...complicating instead of simplifying and thus continuing to wander unresolved.

Provide ONE scripture of Paul's which actually refutes that all men can be saved. Just one scripture. And if you provide such Scripture, I will study it within the context and Greek and comment upon it here. BTW I've studied Romans very thoroughly and all the rest of his letters pretty well and I have yet to come across one verse that refutes the idea that all man can potentially be saved.

BTW what you are saying is easy to say, but prove you assertion that people are complicating it? I would think taking "all men" as anything other than the very apparent meaning would be complicating the Scriptures. Or is it a complication only when it disagrees with Calvinist theology?

Back to the Word.

As if I don't rely my whole understanding upon the Bible. That is rather presumptuous of you to declare to me to go back to the Bible, implying that I don't rely upon it. How do you know how little or much I rely on Scripture?

[8320john]

To one person Scripture speaks one way. To another it speaks one way. To another, it speaks another way. Of course, at least two of those way are wrong.



That verse fails to back up that foreknowledge is a divine decree. Matter of fact, it supports the idea that foreknowledge is prescience because foreknowledge is paired with determined plan. If foreknowledge is a decree, it becoems redundant in meaning.



How does this show that foreknowledge is a decree? It could very well be understood as we are chosen (The Greek word for elect there simply means chosen) on the basis of foreknowledge.



You have yet to provide a verse that actaully support foreknowledge being a decree. MAtter of fact, there isn't a verse in the Bible that unarguably show foreknowledge as a decree. Combine that with the fact that the world very literally means to know beforehand, there is no support for the idea that foreknowledge is decree. Matter of fact, the evidence speaks against it because it is twice paired with determined or determined beforehand (similar words in Greek), where it would be very redundant if it was a decree, because isn't a decree something determined of God?



Provide ONE scripture of Paul's which actually refutes that all men can be saved. Just one scripture. And if you provide such Scripture, I will study it within the context and Greek and comment upon it here. BTW I've studied Romans very thoroughly and all the rest of his letters pretty well and I have yet to come across one verse that refutes the idea that all man can potentially be saved.

BTW what you are saying is easy to say, but prove you assertion that people are complicating it? I would think taking "all men" as anything other than the very apparent meaning would be complicating the Scriptures. Or is it a complication only when it disagrees with Calvinist theology?



As if I don't rely my whole understanding upon the Bible. That is rather presumptuous of you to declare to me to go back to the Bible, implying that I don't rely upon it. How do you know how little or much I rely on Scripture?

Paul wrote:




Rom 8:28-34

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

And,



Acts 2:23-27

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


And,


Rom 9:18-24

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


If I have to "exegete" it for you it only proves your ears are very different from mine...or that you don't like what you read. Either way it matters not what John Calvin believed, wrote or preached, the Inerrant Word addressed the question of who will be saved and why.

It is Written.

Back to the Word.

"...ye MUST be born again." -- Yeshua

[seer]

Acts 2:23-27

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

So John, you would have this verse read:

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and DETERMINIATION of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

Owen is correct. It is redundant...

[Owen]

Paul wrote:




Rom 8:28-34

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Whats that verse prove? Wouldn't verses 29-30 be referring to believers in the past and 31-34 being an application of the example of past believers.

Acts 2:23-27

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

And this proves nothing. You quoted it earlier. I can quote veres like 1 Timothy 2:4, 4:10, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, etc. etc. but it serves no purpose unless the verse addresses the questions at hand.

Rom 9:18-24

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I wrote a long paper on the exegesis of Romans 9 (which is available here: http://www.oweddle.com/papers/Romans9.doc). But in short, no where in that verse does it state that the vessels of wrath and mercy were ordained that way. And in context, it is answering the Jewish objection that God could harden someone. Its intention was never to say that God chose men unconditionally for salvation, but rather that God has a right to save whom He wants and harden whom He wants.


If I have to "exegete" it for you it only proves your ears are very different from mine...or that you don't like what you read.

The first. I've accepted more doctrine in the past that I didn't like at first than many people do.

Our ears are very different. I study and understand the verses in context. I apply the same principle to both "Arminian" passages and "Calvinists" passages.

You on the otherhand want the simple, uncomplicated answer of a verse when it comes to "Calvinist" passages but then when it comes to "Arminian" passages like 1 Timothy 2:4, then one begins to make it more complicated by muddying up the meaning of "all men."

Either way it matters not what John Calvin believed, wrote or preached, the Inerrant Word addressed the question of who will be saved and why.

And the Inerrant Word speaks expressly against Calvinism. Its just that Calvinists (reformed or whatever else you would call it) refuse to accept the simple verses that are clear about all men and rely mostly upon metaphors to base their theology (such as Romans 9 and John 10). Simple verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 go through a strainer in order to obtain an interpretation to the liking of Calvinism, but then metaphors like Romans 9 are just given by themselves and not studied deeply within context. There is no straining in order to understand the metaphors, which are much more susceptible to misunderstanding and abuse.

[seer]

Owen, I could not get your link on Romans to work...

[Owen]

Try it now.

[8320john]

Whats that verse prove? Wouldn't verses 29-30 be referring to believers in the past and 31-34 being an application of the example of past believers.



And this proves nothing. You quoted it earlier. I can quote veres like 1 Timothy 2:4, 4:10, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, etc. etc. but it serves no purpose unless the verse addresses the questions at hand.



I wrote a long paper on the exegesis of Romans 9 (which is available here: http://www.oweddle.com/papers/Romans9.doc). But in short, no where in that verse does it state that the vessels of wrath and mercy were ordained that way. And in context, it is answering the Jewish objection that God could harden someone. Its intention was never to say that God chose men unconditionally for salvation, but rather that God has a right to save whom He wants and harden whom He wants.




The first. I've accepted more doctrine in the past that I didn't like at first than many people do.

Our ears are very different. I study and understand the verses in context. I apply the same principle to both "Arminian" passages and "Calvinists" passages.

You on the otherhand want the simple, uncomplicated answer of a verse when it comes to "Calvinist" passages but then when it comes to "Arminian" passages like 1 Timothy 2:4, then one begins to make it more complicated by muddying up the meaning of "all men."



And the Inerrant Word speaks expressly against Calvinism. Its just that Calvinists (reformed or whatever else you would call it) refuse to accept the simple verses that are clear about all men and rely mostly upon metaphors to base their theology (such as Romans 9 and John 10). Simple verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 go through a strainer in order to obtain an interpretation to the liking of Calvinism, but then metaphors like Romans 9 are just given by themselves and not studied deeply within context. There is no straining in order to understand the metaphors, which are much more susceptible to misunderstanding and abuse.


"...as many as were ordained to eternal life believed..." Acts 13:48

"I have chosen you...you have not chose Me." -- Yeshua

Mark 13:20

20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

And on and on and on.....

Election = Decree = Predestination = Chosen = Divine Determination = Ordained

And,

Eph 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

GRACE = SALVATION = FAITH = NOT OF YOURSELF = IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD
(caps for emphasis)

God destroyed ALL flesh in the days of Noah but Noah and 7 others survived the flood. Was ALL flesh destroyed or was the application exclusively for the ALL that were to perish?

The ALL that were included in the "all flesh" were the wicked, the reprobates, the apostates, the NON elect. ALL flesh was indeed destroyed in that the "all" was applicable only to those who were marked for destruction. And so it is with the "all men" of the NT. God would indeed have ALL men to be saved and the ALL whom the passage references is those that God would have to be saved. The issue is actually very simple. All without distinction but surely not ALL without exception for ALL will not be saved and in fact millions can never be saved and were never ordained to eternal life. They are simply passed by as dead in Adam. Back to Paul and Romans but that segment is most distasteful to most men and women, but the Word has spoken and nothing will change that fact.

Rom 9:18-23

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


It does indeed answer the question.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God...?"

At some point the discussion reaches an impasse and we will have to agree to disagree. I am convinced that election is the determinative action of God dictated by nothing but His Good Pleasure, decree. I would have never believed left to myself, it took the action of the Holy Spirit to grant me life being dead in trespasses and sins, blind to the Truth of God. The new life gave me the ability to exercise faith and in that newness the walk of progressive sanctification continues. God knew that left to myself I would have never believed nor turned to Him...something had to be effected in order to receive Yeshua Messiah and that was regeneration.

If it's any encouragement to you I speculate that far more men of your conviction will inhabit Glory than those that see it my way, and I would expect that. The important issue is:

"...ye MUST be born again."