fallacies of "non-cals"

[JesusFan]

Almighty God is crystal clear in His scriptures that it is not His will that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance, and faith in Christ alone.

God can and does cause that saving truth to come to all, with the "drawing" and convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Those who freely choose to heed Gods message will be saved.

Those who freely choose to reject Gods message will be lost

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ

Actually the Gospel is that Jesus died for the propiation of the Whole World, but that ALL those that His Father gives to the Son will be raised up, and NONE of those will be lost!

Father gave His Son, draws sinners to Him, Son died, and Holy Spirit quickens convicts and allows those Father gave to have Eternal Life in Christ!

Only difference is that you would see it as all could possible make that choice to receive Christ, due to general grace of God, while I would see it only able to save those whom God has specifically called unto eternal life in Christ, IE His elect!

 

[Alive in Christ]

JesusFan...

Actually the Gospel is that Jesus died for the propiation of the Whole World, but that ALL those that His Father gives to the Son will be raised up, and NONE of those will be lost!

Correct. The ones whom the Father gives to to Son are those who choose to place thier faith in Christ, rather than choose to reject Christ.

Father gave His Son, draws sinners to Him, Son died, and Holy Spirit quickens convicts and allows those Father gave to have Eternal Life in Christ!

Yes! Because those are the ones who chose faith in Christ, rather than rejecting Christ.

God bless.

 

[TomVols]

If "world" means "entire world and everyone in it" in John 3:16, Calvinism isn't damaged one whit.

 

[Skandelon]

If "world" means "entire world and everyone in it" in John 3:16, Calvinism isn't damaged one whit.

True. Which is why it confuses me when I run into so many "Calvinists" on the BB who attempt to argue otherwise. In his commentary of John 3:16, Calvin himself said, "Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

Yet, I'm the one constantly railed upon as not understanding Calvinism???

 

[Skandelon]

The ones whom the Father gives to to Son are those who choose to place thier faith in Christ

It appears to me that the phrase "those the Father gives the Son" is specifically in reference to the remnant of Israel who were given to Christ while one earth to be discipled and prepared to take the message of redemption to the rest of the world. His apostles were handpicked and called for a divine purpose as prophesied. In John 17 it seems Jesus makes the clear distinction between those given to him by the Father and those who believe through their message.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Scandelon...

It appears to me that the phrase "those the Father gives the Son" is specifically in reference to the remnant of Israel who were given to Christ while one earth to be discipled and prepared to take the message of redemption to the rest of the world. His apostles were handpicked and called for a divine purpose as prophesied. In John 17 it seems Jesus makes the clear distinction between those given to him by the Father and those who believe through their message.

That may well be. However...JesusFan seemed to be adressing the topic of salvation, so I responded accordingly.

In the context of salvation, those who the Father gives to Christ would be those who choose to embrace Christ, rather than choose to reject Him.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, you have not posted anything in quite a while and yet when you do come back you come in and immediately go on the attack. Your method does nothing but to drive those who disagree with you further away. Their ten foot pole gets longer and longer when they read such rants. It does nothing to further your argument except for those who already agree with you.

It does plenty with those who are more concerned with facts and reason than emotion.

Emotional people will always be Arminians. If a calvinist thinks he is going to persuade an Arminian by politicking, he's got a lot to learn. In order to come to the truth on these matters one must stop making decisions based solely on FEELINGS and make them based on reason.

The FACT is that it is pure idiotic to argue that KOSMOS means every single person in the world.

The best thing to do is call it what it is. People who appreciate cold hard facts will be persuaded. Those who do not will NEVER be persuaded.

 

[Luke2427]

Seems you can't even agree with yourself...

You couldn't tell one way or the other...

and for the record, there are MANY reputable scholars who attest to the FACT that world 'can' and does 'at times' (in scripture) mean - all people, of which you state you agreement to above..

That sounds a whole lot like what I said...

Who are you debating?

The FACT is that it USUALLY does not. Therefore for you to say John 3:16 applies to every person in the world because it utilizes the word "kosmos" is ridiculous in the highest degree.

What you present is a misunderstanding perpetuated by many who know very little about the other sides views or their arguments. There are 'very' few non-cals or Arminians who state that 'all' always means 'everyone, since it can mean either all of a thing/whole OR all of a part of a thing/whole; or that "world" always at all time means ALL mankind.

No, you just argue it means every single person on earth when it suits you. It rarely- I mean VERY RARELY- ever does.

Just because it has varied definitions (not contradicting ones) I do agree with you that one does not or should not pick and choose which best fits their view or theological position.

Thank God for that much.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree that the terms "all" and "whole world" don't always mean every person, however you must acknowledge, if you are being objective, that they are "inclusive" not "exclusive" terms and thus could not mean "a select few."

No, I do not agree with that. I made a clear case against that in the very post to which you are responding. Did you not read it?

"World" almost NEVER means even the MAJORITY of people on planet earth.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.


This does not even represent a half a percent of the human race.

This is USUALLY the case with the word "kosmos".

The whole WORLD knows this.

One must look at the context in which the words are being used to make the determination of the author's intent. So, while you may be correct in your assessment that "all" and "whole world" doesn't always mean every individual, you also can't say that these terms have ever been used to mean "a selected few." That is a presumption you bring to the text which is your fallacy.

I just proved unequivocally the contrary.

Actually, even that phrase doesn't always mean every individual in the world. For example:

Acts 21:28:
shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."

Agreed. Let's do this more.

Obviously he hadn't taught every single person in the world. But, look at the point. It is inclusive. He is saying that the gospel is being preached without exclusion...to every one without discrimination. Now, Calvinists typically don't have a problem with that interpretation when it comes to the gospel because you agree that it is to be preached to all without exception. However, when we look at verse about the atonement or God's love/desire etc, the method of interpretation changes from "inclusion" (all with out exception) to "exclusive" (a select few). It is just inconsistent.

Already dealt with that.

World almost NEVER is inclusive of every single person on earth. It simply is not. For you to stubbornly argue that it is is for you to give evidence that you are not at all open to reason.

You would convince a lot more of us Calvinists that you are not just absolutely bent against every aspect of Calvinism truth and reason be hanged- if you would admit here what is inarguably true. "World" doesn't usually refer to every single person on earth. Almost NEVER.

Good to have you back Luke. BTW, I'm still wanting to hear your response to the question regarding Christ's need in hiding the gospel if men are born totally depraved.

Let's just start another thread. It is a very good and worthwhile topic. Notice I am able to admit when you have a good point. You should exercise the same here in this thread.

 

[Luke2427]

Almighty God is crystal clear in His scriptures that it is not His will that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance, and faith in Christ alone.

God can and does cause that saving truth to come to all, with the "drawing" and convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Those who freely choose to heed Gods message will be saved.

Those who freely choose to reject Gods message will be lost

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ

That is a horrible hermeneutic. It is precisely that kind of hermeneutic that perpetuates this "non-cal" doctrine.

It is not God's will that any of his people should perish. That is ALL that phrase is saying.

II 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.

God is not slack concerning his promise to US not willing that any of US should perish.

His promise is to US. And he is not going to tolerate that any of US (his people) should perish. No. Instead he is going to see to it that all of those he has elected will come to repentance.

Honestly, that is invincibly plain.

 

[Luke2427]

If "world" means "entire world and everyone in it" in John 3:16, Calvinism isn't damaged one whit.

Sure, but why yield that point at all when it obviously does not?

I know what you are saying. God can so love every single person in the world that he gave his only son that WHOSOEVER believes should not perish... and that WHOSOEVER is God's elect- and you're right- Calvinism still stands.

But "world" there didn't just ALL OF THE SUDDEN start meaning every single person when it almost NEVER does any where else.

It is truly a fatally flawed argument that Arminianism stands upon when they use the "all" and "whole world" passages as proof texts for their position.

But emotional thinkers rather than rational thinkers will always be with us and so, we will always have Arminians.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Luke2427.....

Emotional people will always be Arminians.

You've GOT to be kidding. Your kidding...right?

If a calvinist thinks he is going to persuade an Arminian by politicking, he's got a lot to learn. In order to come to the truth on these matters one must stop making decisions based solely on FEELINGS and make them based on reason.

:laugh::laugh:

C'mon...stop it man, you're killin me!!



Oh, and let me guess. My joking about this *proves* that I am one of those (((emotional))) non/cals.....right?

 

[convicted1]

#1. The ridiculous notion that the terms "all" and "whole world" mean every single person is a terrible fallacy.
It is ridiculous because those terms hardly EVER mean every single person.
The Whole world supports Japan
Japan’s rebirth will benefit the whole world

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.


I could literally go on and on with these examples where this terminology is used as it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with every single person.

In fact when it does refer to PEOPLE it USUALLY refers to a significant MINORITY of the people who make up the human race.

There are times when it DOES refer to every single person but that fact is usually made plain in the text with language like "all men EVERYWHERE", etc...

But this is one of the "non-cals" strongest arguments for their opposition to Calvinism.

It just does not hold water.

I'll add more later. If I do too much in a post most of it will get ignored.

I'll take God at His word on this right here, Bro. Luke:

2 Pet. 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.

Greek word used for "any": τις tis G5100

Thayer's definition:
1) a certain, a certain one

2) some, some time, a while

So He is not willing that any "certain one" "some" etc would perish.

Greek word used for "all": πᾶς G3956 pas

Thayer's definition:
1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types


So I think that "any" and "all" used in this very verse does in fact mean every single person upon the face of this earth. I am sure you will disagree....but welcome back, Bro. Luke!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Luke2427]

Luke2427.....




You've GOT to be kidding. Your kidding...right?



:laugh::laugh:

C'mon...stop it man, you're killin me!!



Oh, and let me guess. My joking about this *proves* that I am one of those (((emotional))) non/cals.....right?

Well... now that you mention it...

 

[Luke2427]

I'll take God at His word on this right here, Bro. Luke:

2 Pet. 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.

Greek word used for "any": τις tis G5100

Thayer's definition:
1) a certain, a certain one

2) some, some time, a while

So He is not willing that any "certain one" "some" etc would perish.

Greek word used for "all": /SIZE]

I dealt with this verse a few posts up.


That is a horrible hermeneutic. It is precisely that kind of hermeneutic that perpetuates this "non-cal" doctrine.

It is not God's will that any of his people should perish. That is ALL that phrase is saying.

II 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.

God is not slack concerning his promise to US not willing that any of US should perish.

His promise is to US. And he is not going to tolerate that any of US (his people) should perish. No. Instead he is going to see to it that all of those he has elected will come to repentance.

Honestly, that is invincibly plain.

 

[Crabtownboy]

His promise is to US. And he is not going to tolerate that any of US (his people) should perish. No. Instead he is going to see to it that all of those he has elected will come to repentance.

Honestly, that is invincibly plain.

Interesting contradiction here. How can God not tolerate "that any parish" while at the same time condemning others to parish by election?

John 3:16 does not say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only so so that the elect might be saved."

If you had the power, which of your children would you condemn so that your own glory might be shown?

Don't tell me God did it for his own glory as this makes God an egotistical monster.

Your own posts have totally convinced me that your form of Calvinism is incorrect.

 

[Luke2427]

Interesting contradiction here. How can God not tolerate "that any parish" while at the same time condemning others to parish by election?

John 3:16 does not say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only so so that the elect might be saved."

If you had the power, which of your children would you condemn so that your own glory might be shown?

Don't tell me God did it for his own glory as this makes God an egotistical monster.

Your own posts have totally convinced me that your form of Calvinism is incorrect.

It cannot be clearer.

God is not slack concerning his promise to US but is longsuffering to US not willing that any should perish.

How is it possible that you cannot see it?

His promise is to HIS PEOPLE.

He is not willing that any of his people should perish. So he is going to SAVE all of his people. He is not willing that any of his elect, the US of the passage, should perish. He is willing that all of US should come to repentance.

The Bible could not be clearer on this point.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It cannot be clearer.

God is not slack concerning his promise to US but is longsuffering to US not willing that any should perish.

How is it possible that you cannot see it?

His promise is to HIS PEOPLE.

He is not willing that any of his people should perish. So he is going to SAVE all of his people. He is not willing that any of his elect, the US of the passage, should perish. He is willing that all of US should come to repentance.

The Bible could not be clearer on this point.

He elects all, but some refuse to accept the election and thus are lost.

This Bible is clear that God desires all, but your interpretation is incorrect.


And, again, which of your children would you sacrifice to glorify yourself? This is what you say God does.

I believe 'screaming' is against board rules. Right?

 

[Luke2427]

He elects all, but some refuse to accept the election and thus are lost.

This Bible is clear that God desires all, but your interpretation is incorrect.


And, again, which of your children would you sacrifice to glorify yourself? This is what you say God does.

I believe 'screaming' is against board rules. Right?

I don't think screaming is possible in print. I assume we have access to that font so that we might use it. I have not seen any rules that say not to use the font provided for use.

But then again I don't see how in "the world" you cannot see that that verse has NOTHING to do with every single person on earth and how you cannot see that that verse CLEARLY is speaking of God's people alone.

And this "God elects everybody" business is just looney to me. What do you base that on? Rob Bells new book?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I don't think screaming is possible in print. I assume we have access to that font so that we might use it. I have not seen any rules that say not to use the font provided for use.

Screaming is using large print. It has been considered such since the beginning of discussions on the Internet. It used to be called flaming.

And this "God elects everybody" business is just looney to me. What do you base that on? Rob Bells new book?

I see it from the Bible taken in its entirety and from the example of the life of Christ.

You still have not answered my question about which of your children would you sacrifice for your own glory?