• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"All"

Tenchi

Tenchi

Active Member
Alan Dale Gross said:
"It is unequivocally clear from the Words of Christ in the above text and context that there is a people for whom He did not and would not Pray. John seventeen (17) is the Priestly or Mediatorial Prayer of Jesus whereby He Intercedes for the "many" whom the Father had Given Him in the Covenant of Eternal Redemption (Vs. 2).
Click to expand...

John 17:1-10
1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
4 "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
7 "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;
8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
9 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

Is this passage teaching that Jesus would only ever pray for the Elect? No. And besides, if they were Elect, why should he pray for them? Before the foundation of the world, they were chosen by God as His own, and all that should happen to them meticulously ordained by God. It's all a "done deal," according to Calvinism.

In any case, this passage isn't indicating that Jesus did not, and would not, pray for those not his own. Consider:

Luke 23:33-34
33 When they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left.
34 But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.


In the passage in John 17, Jesus is praying to the Father about the Father being glorified through himself. His disciples had recognized who he was and confessed that he was the Messiah sent from God (John 16:30) which Jesus refers to in his prayer in John 17 (vs. 7-8). His focus in his prayer to the Father isn't on the matter of who he will pray for and who he will not but on the glorification of the Father through him (and his disciples). To this end, Jesus is praying. Why should he pray about such a thing in regards to those not his disciples? Well, he wouldn't, obviously. And Jesus indicates as much in verse 9.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"In His sinless humanity or as the perfect man, Jesus Prayed for His enemies, but all the functions of His Mediatorial Office were restricted to only those whom He Substitutively Represented on the cross.
Click to expand...

This is the making of a distinction in service to Calvinist doctrine, not the truth of God's word.

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God...

John 3:16-17
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

And so on.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"Quantitatively, the "many" whose sins Jesus Bore in His body on the tree is not the Adamic family,
and only by forcing the term ("many") and obliterating its restrictive significance
can it be made to accommodate the general atonement theory.
Click to expand...

This quotation needs, of course, better qualification:

"Quantitatively, the "many" whose sins Jesus bore in his body on the tree, is not, under Calvinist doctrine, the Adamic family, and only by forcing the term ("many) out of Calvinist thinking and obliterating its restrictive significance imposed under Calvinism can it be made to accommodate the general atonement theory actually plainly described in the New Testament."

There. That's much better. Much more accurate.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"Christ said, "...The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). However, He did not say they could not be wrested, twisted, or distorted. Peter said, the "unlearned and unstable" wrest the scriptures to their own destruction (II Peter 3:16).
Click to expand...

Which contortion of God's word Elder Mink has amply demonstrated.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"The natural man, to whom all scripture is utter foolishness (I Corinthians 2:14), has not only perverted God's Word in making the Sacrificial Blood of Christ to be the indiscriminate offering for all mankind, but from his desperately wicked heart he has compounded his foolishness by teaching that mans' Eternal Destiny is determined by his own volitional 'power'.
Click to expand...

I don't believe or teach that Man, by himself, can determine his eternal destiny, so this quotation is irrelevant to my posts.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"The salvational efficacy theory of the will of fallen man is exceedingly pleasing to his intellectual palate, yea, it is his most relished doctrine, but in the end it will be more bitter than gall, and he will in vain try to spew it out of his mouth. "Bread of deceit is sweet to a man, but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Proverbs 20:17).
Click to expand...

Why do you read this stuff? Yikes! What pompous, propagandist foolishness.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"The unrestricted redemptionists are long on believeism, but are fatally short on Bible.

"Their error is Satan's dye by which he attempts to bedim the color of God's Plenary and Inspired Fabric of Truth, and thereby keep his dupes confused and use them to confound others and compound their own guilt.

"Yet, the word of God remains untainted, and that inerrent and immutable word, says:
"...The Good Shepherd Giveth His Life for the sheep" (John 10:11).

"Metephorically speaking, Christ died for His sheep and for His wheat.

"Realistically speaking, Christ died for His "many sons".

"Goats never become sheep, tares never become wheat, and the children of the devil never become the children of God (John 8:44; 10:11; Heb. 2:10).

"Christ said to the self salvationists of His day: "Ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep" (John 10:26).

"They were perfectly content with their supposed scheme of redemption, and Christ knowing the irreconcilable and Absolute Depravity of their hearts said unto them: "Ye will not Come to Me that ye might have Life" (John 5:40)
Click to expand...

This is all just a lot of Begging the Question. Do you know what this is? It seems not...
 
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
Alan Dale Gross said:
Too cheap to talk about.
Click to expand...

Tenchi said:
Do you often tell yourself these kinds of stories about others?
Click to expand...

Tenchi said:
How old are you?
Click to expand...

Charlie24 said:
I'm sure Irons never seen the choice in Isaiah 1 either.
Click to expand...

atpollard said:
I would address Hebrews 3:15, but what would be the point … you are ignoring what the scriptures say for your talking points.
Click to expand...

Tenchi said:
It hardly bears thinking on!
Click to expand...

Alan Dale Gross said:
"The unrestricted redemptionists are long on believeism, but are fatally short on Bible.
Click to expand...

"Christ Bore the Penalty for the sins of a Finite Number of people.

"Jesus' Divine Nature Ensured that He would Successfully Bear the Eternal Wrath Due
to those sins, of a Finite Number of people, no matter how great or how many.

"Jesus' Atonement is Sufficient for all whom His Atonement was Intended.

"Jesus' Atonement is Sufficient for all whose sins were Laid on Him, no matter how many.

"The Question is, Was Christ a Real Substitute for, and did He Bear the Punishment Due to all men, or Due to some?

"The Doctrine of Limited Atonement says some, the Elect, or else all would be Saved.

"To say that His death was 'Sufficient for all', or that His Atonement was 'Sufficient for all', certainly implies otherwise.

"While our motive may be to help someone understand a Particular Truth regarding the Doctrine of Atonement, I don't think the use of such language, as "Sufficient for all", is the way to do it. If the above reasons for using this, "Sufficient for all", Terminology are not valid, which I have attempted to show, then the term "Sufficient for all" is unnecessary. In fact it is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. It is inappropriate because there is a tendency for error to be introduced by such language. If we use language, like "Sufficient for all", that is theologically inaccurate, which is certainly theologically inaccurate, in the case at hand, then we will soon find ourselves entertaining erroneous Theological ideas in order to explain our dubious Terminology.

"In this case, of entertaining erroneous Theological ideas in order to explain our dubious Terminology,
how does one explain the rational difference between an 'Atonement'
that is "Sufficient" for all men and one that is "Efficient" for those who are Saved?​

"What Errors are there in the "Sufficiency for all" View?"​

"One error of this view is found in its lack of precise distinction between Atonement and the Effectual Call. By maintaining that Christ's death was 'Sufficient for all', but Efficient for the Elect, there is a tendency to define the Extent of the Atonement in terms of Personal Application by the Holy Spirit.

"An example can be found in the work of W. G. T. Shedd, an eminent Calvinist Theologian of the nineteenth century who adopts the "Sufficient for all" view.

"In Shedd's discussion of the Extent of the Atonement he differentiates between Passive and Active meanings.

"Passively, he claims, "the Extent of the Atonement is Unlimited."

"Actively, which he says denotes the Act of Extending, it is Limited.

"Shedd goes on:

"The Extent of the Atonement in this sense [Active] means its Personal Application to individuals by the Holy Spirit. The Extent is now the Intent.

"The Question, What is the Extent of the Atonement? now becomes: To whom is the Atonement Effectually Extended?5

"This essentially identifies the Doctrine of Effectual Calling with Atonement!

"It removes any Efficacy from the Atonement itself and makes Christ's Work on the cross merely Tentative!

"If He has died for 'all Sufficiently' and the only particularity is in the Personal Application by the Spirit, then I cannot see how one distinguishes this from the Universal Atonement of the Arminians, who claim that Christ died for all men, with its benefits accruing only to those who believe. The difference between the two does not lie in the Atonement, but in the Spirit's Effectual Calling. (See posts on this thread by Charlie24 & Tenchi).

"Shedd's problem is that he has decided to say "Christ's death is 'Sufficient for all" and now he must try and explain what he means by it. While his particular reasoning may be somewhat unique, his basic solution is not. In order to find some significant difference between Sufficiency and Efficiency he turns to the Application Work of the Spirit.

"This is a typical problem for the "Sufficiency" view, and the solution in this case is erroneous.

"In another attempt to explain how Christ's death is 'Sufficient for all', Alexander Hodge has taken a different approach. He states that the Atonement has objectively "removed the Legal Impediments out of the way of all men."6 This explanation has become quite popular, but it is not without its inherent problems.

"If all Legal Obstacles to a man's salvation have been removed then what hinders his being Saved?

"You say his unbelief? Logically then, the only reason men are Condemned is unbelief.

"But is not unbelief a sin for which Christ Suffered the Legal Penalties?

"Certainly, for even the Elect were guilty of unbelief at one time.

"Do we then say that persistent unbelief is in a different category as some have suggested?

"What then about the man who never had the opportunity to disbelieve?

"If all the Legal Obstacles to his Salvation have been removed and he never hears of Jesus, then certainly no just reason remains why he should be Condemned.

"Is he then Saved?

"If so, it is better that I tell no one the Gospel. If not, then for what is he Condemned? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

'In addition, if every Legal Obstacle is removed for all men, there is no basis for the Wrath of God continuing upon any man.

"To remove the Legal Obstacles is to Satisfy God's Justice and His Wrath.

"Why then does Scripture persist in teaching otherwise?

"For it is on account of these things that the Wrath of God Will Come," Col. 3:6.
And again, "because of these things the Wrath of God Comes upon the sons of disobedience," Eph. 5:6.

"The Answer is that the Legal Obstacles have not been removed for all men but for the Elect, all those for whom Christ died, so that "He might be Just and the Justifier of the one who has Faith in Jesus," Rom. 3:26.

"The Wrath of God and the Justice of God are Satisfied for those for whom Christ was a Substitute,
and that is not all men, but by His Grace it is for some.

"That Christ was entirely Capable in His Person and by His death of Gaining Satisfaction for all the sins of all men is not in Question. But to say that the Actual Atonement was 'Sufficient for all men', then all that is meant by the word Atonement, must be Questioned. To present the Atonement as being 'Sufficient for all' will prevent understanding the Nature of Jesus' Atonement in Terms of a Real Satisfaction and a Real Penal Substitution.

"This is seen in many contemporary treatments of the Atonement which seek to interpret Christ's death with little or no reference to God's Law, Justice, or Holy Wrath. In fact, many have entirely rejected the specific Penal Substitution concept as antiquated or immoral or both. Also, "to remove the necessary connection between Atonement and Satisfaction of Divine Justice denudes Christ's death of all its Moral Sublimity and reduces it to an amazing piece of romantic extravagance."7

"Therefore, if we, as Calvinists, confidently affirm the Substitutionary and Legal-Penal aspects of the Atonement, we must resist applying this concept to all men without exception by saying it is 'sufficient for all'. To do so relegates the Atonement to a non-Effectual State and necessarily contains elements of Non-Substitution."

Adapted from:​

Sufficient for All?​

by Jim Ellis.​

 
Tenchi

Tenchi

Active Member
Do you know what "Throwing the Elephant" is? It's what you've done above, where you post an enormous ream of quotations and statements that can only be answered if your respondents are prepared to take a great deal of time and effort to do so. The idea in "Throwing the Elephant," though, is to stifle dialogue, not foster it. Actually, this is a common tactic used by Calvinist propagandists who want to appear to have won an argument, though all they've actually done is prevent debate by smothering their detractors with huge amounts of cut-and-paste replies. It's also one way to insulate yourself against thoughtful discussion with those who don't see things as you do. The problem with insulating yourself this way, though, is that, if you're wrong, your insulation from sources that might reveal this to you keeps you entirely blind to your error. Being in this circumstance is called being in an "echo chamber" or "information bubble" and is a surefire way to badly limit your knowledge and understanding, not develop them.
 
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
Tenchi said:
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
Click to expand...
1 Timothy 2:4;

"The key to this passage, again, is the context: 1 Timothy 2:1-6.

"The first appearance of the phrase “all men” comes at the end of 1 Timothy 2:1, and its meaning is unambiguous. Paul is not instructing Timothy to initiate never-ending prayer meetings where the Ephesian phone book would be opened and every single person listed therein would become the object of prayer. The very next phrase of the sentence explains Paul’s meaning: “…for kings and all who are in authority.”

"Why would Paul have to given such instructions?

"We must remember that the early Christians were a persecuted people, and normally the persecution came from those in positions of power and authority. It is easy to understand why there would have to be Apostolic commandments given to pray for the very ones who were using their power and authority to persecute these Christians.

"Who are kings and all who are in authority? They are kinds of men, classes of men.
Paul often spoke of “all men” in this fashion.

"For example, in Titus 2:11, when Paul speaks of the Grace of God which brings Salvation appearing to “all men,”
he clearly means all kinds of men, for the context, both before and after, speaks of kinds of men.

"In the previous verses Paul addresses such groups as older men (Titus 2:2), older women (Titus 2:3), younger women (Titus 2:2), older women (Titus 2:3), younger women (Titus 2:4), young men (Titus 2:6), bond slaves (Titus 2:9-10), and rulers and authorities (Titus 3:1). No one would suggest that in fact Paul is speaking of every single older man, older woman, etc.; he speaks of kinds of people within a particular group, that being the fellowship of the church. Likewise, “rulers” and “authorities” are obviously generic classifications that everyone would understand needs to be applied to specific locations in specific times.

"The same kind of usage (all kinds of mean being in view) is found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2. This should be connected to the fact that in the very commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that cannot be made universal in scope (Acts 22:15). Of course, Paul would not think that these words meant that he would witness of Christ to every single individual human being on the planet. Instead, he would have surely understood this to mean all kinds and races of men. Likewise, the allegation against Paul was that he preached to all men everywhere against the Jews and the Law and the Temple (Acts 21:28). Paul speaks of kinds of people in other places as well (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). So it is perfectly consistent with the immediate and broader context of Paul’s writings to recognize this use of “all men” in a generic fashion.

"Returning to 1 Timothy 2, Paul then states that such prayers for all kinds of men is good and acceptable “in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” If we are consistent with the preceding context we will see “all men” here in the same manner as “all men” of the preceding verses: All kinds of men, whether rulers or kings (yes, God even Saves people who used to persecute Christians, a fact Paul knew all too well). But there is much more reason to understand Paul’s statement in this way.

"Almost invariably, proponents of Arminianism isolate this passage from the two verses that follow. This must happen of necessity (since their heresy is entirely dependent on blatant intentional quackeries in their irresponsible disregard for the existence of any rudimentary common reading skill, much less any Standard Rules of Bible Interpretation), because the questions that can be asked of the Arminian position based upon 1 Timothy 2:5-6, (for which they remain clueless in any attempt to answer), are weighty indeed.

"1 Timothy 2:5 begins with the word “for,” indicating the connection
between the statement made in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and the explanation in 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

"Why should Christians pray that all men, including kings and rulers, be Saved and come to a knowledge of the Truth?

"Because there is only One Way of Salvation, and without a knowledge of that Truth, no man can be Saved.
Paul says, “…there is One God, and One Mediator between God and men,
the Man Christ Jesus, Who Gave Himself a Ransom for all.”

"This immediately takes us into the meat of the discussion of the Atonement, but for now just a few points should be made.

"First, if one takes “all men” in 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean “all men individually,”
does it not follow that Christ of necessity must be Mediator for all men as well?

"If one says, “Yes, Christ Mediates for every single human being,”
does it not follow that Christ fails as Mediator every time a person negates His Work by their 'all-powerful' act of free will?

"One could hope that no Biblical Scholar would ever promote such an idea, for anyone familiar with the relationship between Atonement, Mediation, and Intercession in the book of Hebrews knows well that to make such an assertion puts the entire argument of Hebrews 7-10 on its head.

"For the moment, we simply point out that it is far more consistent with Biblical Theology to recognize that Christ Mediates in behalf of the Elect and perfectly Saves them, than it is to assert that Christ Mediates for all (but fails to Save all).

"The Second Point is closely related to the First:

"The Ransom that Christ Gives in His Self-Sacrifice is either a Saving Ransom or a Non-Saving Ransom.

"If it is Actual and Really Made in behalf of all men, then inevitably all men would be Saved.

"But we again see that it is far more consistent to recognize that the same meaning for “all men” and “all” flows through the entire passage, and when we look at the inarguably clear statements of Scripture regarding the Actual Intention and Result of Christ’s Cross-Work, we will see that there is no other consistent means of Interpreting these words in 1 Timothy", while it is universally acknowledged that the Armenian system of error has no intention of being consistent, nor of Interpreting these words in 1 Timothy, nor any other Bible passage for which they prove to be more unsophisticated, than they are Sophomoric.

Adapted from:

Calvinism Fact Sheet.​

by Joel Barnes.​

 
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
Tenchi said:
John 3:16-17
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Click to expand...

"Objection: In John 3:16, and in 1Jo 2:2, it is declared that God Gave Christ for the “world,”
and for the sins of the “whole world;” which must be taken literally, i.e., ILLITERATELY, in shortsighted, wooden, letterism.

"Answer 1. The word “world” is of various significations.

"A decree went out that “all the world should be taxed” (Luk 2:1),
that is, the Roman empire and such countries in subjection thereto.

"The Faith of the church of Rome was “spoken of throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8),
that is, throughout all the churches, and among all the saints in the world.

"When the Pharisees said to Christ, “Behold, the world is gone after Him” (John 12:19),
by reference we find that they meant “much people” who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus,
crying, “Hosanna” (John 12:12,13).

"The Pharisees themselves, who so said, they were not gone after Christ;
therefore the whole world was not gone, they themselves not being gone.

"So John 3:16: “God so Loved the world” cannot be understood of the world in a strict sense,
for so birds, beasts, fishes, and all inanimate things are comprehended, which cannot have Everlasting Life;
nor can it be the world of men, but as God is the Preserver of both man and beast (Psalms 31:6).

"There is God’s Love to Creatures, His love to men, and His Love to good men.
God’s Love was the Cause of His Sending Christ, and the word “whosoever” (in the verse)
Restrains this Love of God to some and not to others.

"It must therefore be properly God’s Love to good men, the third Love;
not such as He Found good, but such as He Made so.

"2. There is a world of believers (Rev 5:9); and as manna was only for Israel,
so Christ, the True Manna, the Bread from Heaven, Gives Life to the world of believers only (John 6:33).

"Christ was believed on in the world of believers only (1Ti 3:16);
the Reconciled world (2Co 5:19):
and “all men have not Faith” (2Th 3:2).

"There is also the world of unbelievers. “All the world wondered after the beast".
And “they worshipped the Dragon” (Rev 13:3,4).
“The whole world lieth in wickedness” (1Jo 5:19).

"The believing world is a world in the world (“these are in the world,” John 17:11);
and they are Taken and Chosen out of the world.
They are in the world, and sojourning among the inhabitants of it as strangers and pilgrims only,
this not being their Rest, their Home; their desires being towards a Better Country (Heb 11:13-16).

"And that they are Taken and Chosen Out of the world and Given to Christ is clear from John 15:19:
“If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world,
but I have Chosen you out of the world, therefore, the world hateth you.”

"Also from John 17:6,9: “I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou Gavest Me out of the world . . .
I pray for them; I pray not for the world.”

“Zion’s garden wall’d around, Chosen and made peculiar ground;
A little spot, enclosed by Grace, Out of the world’s wide wilderness.”

"3. It is granted that God hath a Respect for all mankind.
“We trust,” saith Paul, “in the Living God, Who is the Saviour,”
i.e., the Preserver, “of all men, especially of those that believe” (1Ti 4:10).

“The Lord is Good to all, and His Tender Mercies are over all His Works” (Psalms 145:9).

“He Maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good;
and Sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

"All this implies not Eternal Preservation, but only Temporal Providence and Preservation;
for the wages of sin would have been paid at the birth of it,
and the world (through confusion by sin) would have fallen about Adam’s ears,
had not Christ been the Glorious Undertaker.

"All that are Redeemed are Redeemed by Christ; but the Elect only are Given to Him;
they alone have an Interest in Him, are Redeemed by Him, and they shall be Glorified with Him.

Con't;
 
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
"4. The word “world” is sometimes in Scripture put for Gentiles in opposition to Jews, and so it is in 1Jo 2:2.
John wrote to the Jews, and ministered unto the circumcision (see Gal 2:9), and he says unto them,
“Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,”
that is, not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also.

"The Jewish Nation considered themselves as the Peculiar People of God;
and so they were, for to them “pertained the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants,
and the Giving of the Law, and the Service of God, and the Promises.”

"And Christ was a Jew, “of whom concerning the flesh Christ Came” (Romans 9:4,5).

"The Jews were always taught to appropriate the Messiah exclusively to themselves,
to the utter rejection of the Gentiles, who were called “strangers,” “uncircumcised,” “common,” “unclean,” “dogs,” etc.

"And it was unlawful for a Jew to keep company or have any dealings with a Gentile
(see Matthew 10:5; Mark 7:17; Act 10:28, and Act 11:3).

"The Salvation of the Gentiles is in various parts of Scripture called a “Mystery,” “Hidden Mystery;” the “Mystery of Christ which in other Ages was not made known unto the sons of men ... that the Gentiles should be Fellow Heirs” (Eph 3:4-6; Col 1:27).

"But when this Mystery was Revealed and Made Fully Known by the Divine Mission to Paul,
who was by Christ sent to preach to the Gentiles (Act 26:17,18), when it was declared by the vision of the unclean beasts
and the Lord’s consequent commission to Peter (Act 10:9-15,20),
then the contentions of the circumcision ceased (Act 11:2,3);

"they found “the middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile was “broken down;”
the latter, who before were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise,”
being now “Brought Nigh by the Blood of Christ.”

"They Glorified God saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles Granted Repentance unto Life.”

"Jesus Christ is not only the Propitiation for the sins of us Jews, but for the Gentiles also (Eph 2:11-18).

"5. The foregoing is proved from Romans 11:12, where the two words, “world” and “Gentiles,”
are both used as signifying one and the same thing.

“If the fall of them (Jews) be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles;
how much more their fullness?“

"It was a controversy agitated among the Jewish doctors whether, when the Messiah came,
the Gentiles, the `world’ should have any benefit by Him.

"The majority was exceeding large on the negative of the question;
only some few, as old Simeon and others, knew that He should be `a light to lighten the Gentiles,’
as well as `the Glory of His people of Israel.’

"The rest concluded that the most severe Judgments and dreadful calamities would befall the Gentiles;
yea, that they should be Cast into Hell, in the room of the Israelites” (Dr. John Gill)."

When The Lord says, "love not the world", to change that meaning of the word, 'world', used there
and say that it should be defined as, 'all of the inhabitants of Planet Earth', etc., is utterly ridiculous,

and so, it is no less ridiculous to simply just pluck the word, 'world', out of John 3:16,
and pretend that we absolutely know, FOR SURE, EXACTLY HOW GOD WANTS US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS THERE.

That's illogical, irrational, and as is the case for those who's flesh profits nothing, when they assume
they automatically have the answer to the meaning of the word, 'world', as it's used there, in John 3:16,
they are changing and altering God's Word, from what we should arrive at, by comparing scripture with scripture,
the context, and being sure that it does not contradict other plain revelation presented in The Bible,
where we find that the meaning of the word, 'world', as it's used there, in John 3:16,
is definitely, clearly, referring to THE WORLD OF THE GENTILES,
as in the example where it is proved from Romans 11:12, that those two words, “world” and “Gentiles,”
are both used as signifying one and the same thing.

It is as if to say,

"God", DID NOT GIVE HIS SON TO DIE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE OTHERWISE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF THE JEWS,
BUT HE, "so Loved The World" of The Gentile Nations, additionally, "that He Gave His Only Begotten Son,
that whosoever (JEW OR GENTILE) believes in Him shall not perish, but have Eternal Life".

And anyone changing and altering God's Word, from what God would have us understand
as that one Divine Interpretation and meaning of that passage, to their own personal pet definition,
which is against the overall Teachings throughout the Bible, regarding Jesus' Blood Atonement
being Made as "a Ransom for many", "to Save His people from their sins", where Jesus actually said
about those for whom He died, "I Lay Down My Life for the sheep", etc., etc., etc., are teaching heresy. Period.

36 "He (JEW OR GENTILE) that believeth on the Son hath Everlasting Life:"

In a Perfect world, those who would never dream that just because Satan lied to Jesus
that that could possibly mean that they, too, are able to be lied to would not wind up dogmatically stuck in substantial error,
having exerted no more mental brilliance, than if they demanded that Jesus' Atonement, in vs 36, was for "He" (males) only.

From: An Antidote Against Arminianism or A Treatise to Enervate and Confute All The Five Points of It;
by Christopher Ness 1621-1705, with Extracts from Dr. John Gill, Dr. Isaac Watts, Augustus Toplady, John Newton, J. Hart, etc.

Tenchi said:
And so on.
Click to expand...
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
Tenchi said:
Do you know what "Throwing the Elephant" is? It's what you've done above, where you post an enormous ream of quotations and statements that can only be answered if your respondents are prepared to take a great deal of time and effort to do so. The idea in "Throwing the Elephant," though, is to stifle dialogue, not foster it. Actually, this is a common tactic used by Calvinist propagandists who want to appear to have won an argument, though all they've actually done is prevent debate by smothering their detractors with huge amounts of cut-and-paste replies. It's also one way to insulate yourself against thoughtful discussion with those who don't see things as you do. The problem with insulating yourself this way, though, is that, if you're wrong, your insulation from sources that might reveal this to you keeps you entirely blind to your error. Being in this circumstance is called being in an "echo chamber" or "information bubble" and is a surefire way to badly limit your knowledge and understanding, not develop them.
Click to expand...

You must realize that this is a common tactic of Allen and BF and a few others.

Another tactic is to just repeat the same comment over and over as if it is the only answer possible.

It has been determined that they think that way so they really can not entertain an alternative view. That would require a free will and it seems they do not have one.
 
Tenchi

Tenchi

Active Member
Alan Dale Gross said:
1 Timothy 2:4;

"The key to this passage, again, is the context: 1 Timothy 2:1-6.

"The first appearance of the phrase “all men” comes at the end of 1 Timothy 2:1, and its meaning is unambiguous. Paul is not instructing Timothy to initiate never-ending prayer meetings where the Ephesian phone book would be opened and every single person listed therein would become the object of prayer. The very next phrase of the sentence explains Paul’s meaning: “…for kings and all who are in authority.”
Click to expand...

1 Timothy 2:1-6
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

No one has ever construed Paul's words to Timothy above as beginning with an injunction to pray through the Ephesus phone-book. This rhetorical Strawman is just a slippery ploy used to set up a false dichotomy. It chases the reader with an obviously ridiculous interpretation of Paul's words (praying through the Ephesus phone book) into the arms of the Calvinist contortion of his words, which seems reasonable by comparison. It's not a reasonable alternative, however, but perverts the plain import of Paul's words just as much as the Ephesus phone-book silliness does.

"All men" in verse 1 is very plainly a universal phrase, representing a category that is in parallel with the phrase "kings and all who are in authority." Timothy was to pray for all men generally and also particularly for kings and all who are in authority. Paul was not saying that the phrase "all men" was synonymous with "kings and all who are in authority," which is obvious when one is not pressed by Calvinist doctrine to deny it.

What purpose could be served by using a clearly universal phrase only immediately to confine it - and to do so without language that makes it evident that you're being tautological? There is no "...on behalf of all men, by which I mean for kings and all who are..." or "...on behalf of all men, that is, for kings and all who are..." or "...on behalf of all men who are kings and in authority...". Any of these very simple, minor adjustments to his words would have eradicated any doubt as to who Paul meant, but the careful, precise, sophisticated thinker we know as the apostle Paul made no effort at all to specify that by "all men" he actually meant "only a few."

And then, only a couple of verses later (vs. 4), we encounter Paul using the universal phrase "all men" again. He uses the term "men," as well, in an all-inclusive sense in verse 5 where he describes the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ who gave himself "as a ransom for all" (vs. 6). And so, in light of all the foregoing, I don't see any remotely compelling reason to adopt the Calvinist misconstruction of Paul's words to Timothy in the passage above.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"Why would Paul have to given such instructions?

"We must remember that the early Christians were a persecuted people, and normally the persecution came from those in positions of power and authority. It is easy to understand why there would have to be Apostolic commandments given to pray for the very ones who were using their power and authority to persecute these Christians.
Click to expand...

Conjecture. Also, an unnecessary multiplication of explanation. See: Ockham's Razor.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"Who are kings and all who are in authority? They are kinds of men, classes of men.
Paul often spoke of “all men” in this fashion.

"For example, in Titus 2:11, when Paul speaks of the Grace of God which brings Salvation appearing to “all men,”
he clearly means all kinds of men, for the context, both before and after, speaks of kinds of men.

"In the previous verses Paul addresses such groups as older men (Titus 2:2), older women (Titus 2:3), younger women (Titus 2:2), older women (Titus 2:3), younger women (Titus 2:4), young men (Titus 2:6), bond slaves (Titus 2:9-10), and rulers and authorities (Titus 3:1). No one would suggest that in fact Paul is speaking of every single older man, older woman, etc.; he speaks of kinds of people within a particular group, that being the fellowship of the church. Likewise, “rulers” and “authorities” are obviously generic classifications that everyone would understand needs to be applied to specific locations in specific times.
Click to expand...

None of this actually does anything to dissolve the plain meaning of Paul's remarks to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:1-6. As far as I can tell, this is just an irrelevant explanation meant to obscure the natural meaning of Paul's words.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"The same kind of usage (all kinds of mean being in view) is found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2. This should be connected to the fact that in the very commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that cannot be made universal in scope (Acts 22:15). Of course, Paul would not think that these words meant that he would witness of Christ to every single individual human being on the planet. Instead, he would have surely understood this to mean all kinds and races of men. Likewise, the allegation against Paul was that he preached to all men everywhere against the Jews and the Law and the Temple (Acts 21:28). Paul speaks of kinds of people in other places as well (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). So it is perfectly consistent with the immediate and broader context of Paul’s writings to recognize this use of “all men” in a generic fashion.
Click to expand...

That context may, in some cases, limit the scope of a phrase that is normally understood to be all-inclusive, this just isn't the case in 1 Timothy 2:1-6. So, none of this proliferation of explanation here justifies reading the passage in a Calvinist way; this blathering on irrelevantly just signals a contortion of Paul's meaning.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"Returning to 1 Timothy 2, Paul then states that such prayers for all kinds of men is good and acceptable “in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” If we are consistent with the preceding context we will see “all men” here in the same manner as “all men” of the preceding verses: All kinds of men, whether rulers or kings (yes, God even Saves people who used to persecute Christians, a fact Paul knew all too well). But there is much more reason to understand Paul’s statement in this way.
Click to expand...

And here, eisegesis begins, an addition of terms made to Paul's incovenient language ("all kinds of men") so that Calvinists can slip around the plain import of his words.

Continued below.
 
Tenchi

Tenchi

Active Member
Alan Dale Gross said:
"Almost invariably, proponents of Arminianism isolate this passage from the two verses that follow. This must happen of necessity (since their heresy is entirely dependent on blatant intentional quackeries in their irresponsible disregard for the existence of any rudimentary common reading skill, much less any Standard Rules of Bible Interpretation), because the questions that can be asked of the Arminian position based upon 1 Timothy 2:5-6, (for which they remain clueless in any attempt to answer), are weighty indeed.
Click to expand...

And some ad hominem and Strawmanning. Both fallacious tactics of argument.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"First, if one takes “all men” in 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean “all men individually,”
does it not follow that Christ of necessity must be Mediator for all men as well?

"If one says, “Yes, Christ Mediates for every single human being,”
does it not follow that Christ fails as Mediator every time a person negates His Work by their 'all-powerful' act of free will?
Click to expand...

No, this is a glaring non sequitur, and Question Begging.

Yes, Christ is the Mediator for all the world for whom he died - his work at Calvary was entirely sufficient to atone for sin "once for all" - but this by no means necessitates that his mediation be perfectly, universally efficacious. To illustrate: All the lifejackets supplied to people on a boat are sufficient to keep them afloat in the event they end up in the water. Everyone has a lifejacket, and all of them fit, and all of them are in good working order. But whether or not the lifejackets actually serve their purpose, whether or not they are efficacious as lifejackets, depends upon whether or not the people on the boat choose to use them. If a person on the boat chooses not to use their lifejacket, no one thinks the lifejacket is faulty, that it has failed as a lifejacket. It won't be efficacious as a lifejacket if the person ends up in the water, but its sufficiency as a flotation device isn't in question.

So, too, Christ's mediation between God and Man. Just like the unused lifejacket, what Christ is as the "Great High Priest" for all who would be God's children, his sufficiency as such, remains intact regardless of whether or not a person chooses to make him their Mediator. The efficacy of Christ as Mediator, the beneficial effect of his high priestly role between Man and God, is withheld from those who reject his mediation, but this is no more a failure on Christ's part than it is a failure on the part of a lifejacket when its owner neglects to wear it and drowns.

What's more, it is only because God has permitted human beings the liberty to freely accept or reject Christ as their Savior that the choice exists at all. How, then, is it in any way a failure on God's part when they exercise - positively or negatively - the free agency He has imparted to them? They are doing exactly as He has ordained that they should.

So, then, it doesn't follow at all that the God-given freedom to reject Christ that some use to reject him means he has failed as a Mediator between God and Man. And it assumes a Calvinist systematic (Begging the Question) even to ask the question in the quotation above.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"One could hope that no Biblical Scholar would ever promote such an idea, for anyone familiar with the relationship between Atonement, Mediation, and Intercession in the book of Hebrews knows well that to make such an assertion puts the entire argument of Hebrews 7-10 on its head.

"For the moment, we simply point out that it is far more consistent with Biblical Theology to recognize that Christ Mediates in behalf of the Elect and perfectly Saves them, than it is to assert that Christ Mediates for all (but fails to Save all).
Click to expand...

More Question Begging. And sly ad hominem.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"The Second Point is closely related to the First:

"The Ransom that Christ Gives in His Self-Sacrifice is either a Saving Ransom or a Non-Saving Ransom.

"If it is Actual and Really Made in behalf of all men, then inevitably all men would be Saved.
Click to expand...

This is childish reasoning, it seems to me. See the lifejacket analogy. Or consider a father who makes a lovely tree-swing for his kids to enjoy. The swing is well-made and hung from a big, healthy oak tree, readily available for use. Has the father failed in his making the swing and offering it to his kids if they choose not to use it? How so? Only if the father has demanded that his kids use the swing and tried to force them to do so and has still been unable to make them swing could one reasonably say that the father has failed. I don't think the Bible indicates that this the case when it comes to the salvation God offers to us in and through His Son. Only on Calvinism does God behave in a coercive way concerning salvation and so has failed if His salvation is ever rejected by those upon whom He imposes it.
 
Last edited:
Tenchi

Tenchi

Active Member
Alan Dale Gross said:
"Objection: In John 3:16, and in 1Jo 2:2, it is declared that God Gave Christ for the “world,”
and for the sins of the “whole world;” which must be taken literally, i.e., ILLITERATELY, in shortsighted, wooden, letterism.
Click to expand...

If you must begin with ad hominem, you've already lost the argument.

Alan Dale Gross said:
"Answer 1. The word “world” is of various significations.

"A decree went out that “all the world should be taxed” (Luk 2:1),
that is, the Roman empire and such countries in subjection thereto.

"The Faith of the church of Rome was “spoken of throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8),
that is, throughout all the churches, and among all the saints in the world.

"When the Pharisees said to Christ, “Behold, the world is gone after Him” (John 12:19),
by reference we find that they meant “much people” who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus,
crying, “Hosanna” (John 12:12,13).

"The Pharisees themselves, who so said, they were not gone after Christ;
therefore the whole world was not gone, they themselves not being gone.

"So John 3:16: “God so Loved the world” cannot be understood of the world in a strict sense,
Click to expand...

This is a big non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because "world" may be constrained in its scope by context, that this is necessarily the case in John 3:16. All that has been shown above is the former, not the latter. It is entirely specious (and slippery), then, to carry on as though having pointed out the former, the latter has also been established. It hasn't.

"World" in John 3:16 can most certainly - and ought, in fact - to be understood in the common, universal sense of "all humanity." That so much has had to be said in order to assert otherwise is a further example of the unnecessary multiplication of explanations. Again, see Ockham's Razor.

Alan Dale Gross said:
for so birds, beasts, fishes, and all inanimate things are comprehended, which cannot have Everlasting Life;
nor can it be the world of men, but as God is the Preserver of both man and beast (Psalms 31:6).
Click to expand...

This is the same overextension of meaning into the ridiculous that happened before with the Ephesus phone-book thing, the purpose being to confine the possible options to two - the ridiculous one that the Calvinist offers and the more "sensible" properly Calvinist reading - though a third, very natural, straightforward way to understand "world" in John 3:16 exists.

John 3:14-17
14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Does the immediate context of verse 16 give any ground for reading "world" as including all animate and inanimate things on the planet? Obviously not, which is why suggesting it as the only alternative to the Calvinist reading is willfully ridiculous. Birds, beasts and boulders are incapable of believing anything, let alone in Christ, so they are clearly not in view in the phrase "the world" in verse 16. Does this mean we are obliged to take the restricted sense of the word the Calvinist demands that we do? Not at all. "Whoever" in verses 14 and 15, and "the world" in verse 17 all clearly indicate that the entire human world is in view and nothing in the passage disallows this perfectly natural reading. Only the contortions of Calvinist dogma require restricting "world" to just the elect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top