Strong's

Sure. The information isn't from Strong's. Read closely. The information is from Spurgeon. The comments are added and are not in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

 

Either open up the hardcopy version of Strongs, or read this link:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1055591921-2297.html

 

The definition remains the same, the application changes the scope.
For Example: 'All who' does not equal 'All do'.

[ June 14, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Either open up the hardcopy version of Strongs, or read this link:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1055591921-2297.html </font>[/QUOTE]That Blueletter Bible link didn't work for me - Got any correction?

 

Either open up the hardcopy version of Strongs, or read this link:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1055591921-2297.html </font>[/QUOTE]That Blueletter Bible link didn't work for me - Got any correction?

 

Either open up the hardcopy version of Strongs, or read this link:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1055591921-2297.html </font>[/QUOTE]That Blueletter Bible link didn't work for me - Got any correction? </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm... I cut and pasted it straight from the old browser. Perhaps the "tmp_dir" had something to do with it.

No bother. Go to the main http://www.blueletterbible.org/ page and under search, type the Strong's number "3956". That should do it.

 

Who'd ever think being in their right mind would debate the word "all" to mean anything else other than ALL!?!

Calvinism only "fits" specific scriptures, and those scriptures taken out of context. When one considers the context of the entire Bible, Calvinism is a false doctrine at best.

As those of you can probably tell, I'm NOT a calvinist, nor could I ever be and still be right with God. Jesus was not a calvinist in any form of the word, He used the words "whosoever will" when evangelizing the lost, get that word "lost"?

"Will" doesn't mean "is" or "does" or "will have to" it still means "will" as in "whosever will".

 

ITNAC,

As moderator, I hate to have to warn you so early that your demeanor is already pushing the line here. Please abide by the decorum that is expected of all believers. You are welcome to post here so long as you follow that. If you choose not to, you will be edited. There will be no personal attacks or personal comments.

As a poster, let me bring you up to speed a little bit on the issues. We are not addressing whether "all" means "all." The discussion is about when the word "all" is used, what is it referring to. In other words, as yourself the question, "All of what?" That will help frame the discussion for you easier.

Your post reveals your lack of understanding and knowledge about what Calvinism is. If you wish to participate in this forum, I encourage you to spend several days browsing the various threads so you can get a better handle on what is being discussed on what arguments are legitimate.

Your major points in this post about "will" and "whosoever will" are what Calvinists have taught for 2000 years, long before they were ever called Calvinists. Suffice it to say that you are barking up the wrong tree with that line of reasoning. As I say, devote several days to reading and becoming familiar with the issues here. That way, you will not be rehashing irrelevant things and you will not be making these gross misrepresentations.

 

O.K. Larry I can see the prejudice. I apologize for bending the rules. Anywhere the word "all" is used it still means ALL in context, whether that "fits" "Tulip" theology or not, all is still ALL.

As far as "understanding" calvinism, I'm afraid I know a little more than you could credit me.

Total depravity does not mean that man has no ability given him that he is responsible to choose to obey the "Light" of the Gospel, God hath "lightened" every man.

Unconditional election does NOT exist. True the man is not a prospect for election until he is "lightened" , but then God hath lightened every man and given him the choice of admitting he's a sinner in need of salvation.

Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." This didn't say a word about Heaven or Hell. It is talking about God choosing us to "be holy and without blame before him in love.


Limited atonement doesn't exist, God wills that all men everywhere to be saved, unwise man limits atonement , not God. Calvinists say that the blood of Christ is not for everybody, just for an elected few. They go further and say that if the blood of Christ is for everybody and everybody doesn't get saved, then it means God failed. It means no such thing! It means people fail to receive what God provided for them. God provided salvation for sinners everywhere, but if they don't come, God has not failed; people have simply limited what God wanted to do for them.

I suggest you read Psalm 78:41 about "WHO" limits God/ The Holy One of Israel.

Irrestible grace? Jerusalem is reported by Jesus Himself to do just that in Matthew 23:37. Stephen also said something quite similar in Acts 7:51, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." It sounds like this grace is resisted. Emphatically yes--it is resisted. So why do 5 point calvinist call it "irrestible"?

Perseverence of the saints? Get real! Jesus is the One Who perseveres not us, we are only able to endure unto the end becuase of the strength He gives. Listen to Isaiah 41:10: "Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." Some of our charismatic friends, some of our holiness friends, talk about holding on and holding out. We don't hold on and hold out; it is Jesus who holds us. Since my salvation rests solely in His omnipotent hand, I shall in NO WISE be cast out, even if I weren't able to "persevere"/ endure hardships as a soldier. He's holding me, I'm holding onto what Jesus has promised, therefore I have hope and hope maketh not ashamed!

Those who believe in any one or all five or less of the above false doctrines are misled and that contrary to scripture.

Sorry if that upsets your little playhouse, but it is Bible, not a book!

 

ITNAC,

Perseverance of the saints includes the concepts in which you believe, along with the provision that people who show no evidence of the Faith, or who reject the faith after professing it, are not, and never were saved. Larry is right--you don't understand what grace-believers teach.

 

It fits "TULIP" theology just fine in every place it is used.

[/qb]Then I hope you just got off to a bad start.

False.

False

To in "in him" is a reference to salvation. The "in Christ" phrase in Scripture refers to union with Christ that comes at salvation. Notice how this choosing was "before the foundation of the world," and is therefore based on nothing other than God's gracious choice. That is "unconditional election" because it is conditioned on nothing.

[qutoe]Limited atonement doesn't exist, God wills that all men everywhere to be saved, unwise man limits atonement , not God. Calvinists say that the blood of Christ is not for everybody, just for an elected few. They go further and say that if the blood of Christ is for everybody and everybody doesn't get saved, then it means God failed. It means no such thing! It means people fail to receive what God provided for them. God provided salvation for sinners everywhere, but if they don't come, God has not failed; people have simply limited what God wanted to do for them.[/quote]AGain, simply false. LA depends on teh question that is asked. The atonement is just that, it is an atonement, a propitiation, and that is actual, not potential.

I would suggest you see what that verse says. It is talking about "paining God" through their actions. It is not about limiting him.

Because irresistable grace is something entirely different than you are talking about, yet another clue that you should spend some time reading and studying this.

Jesus does persevere and does hold us. But in another demonstration of your lack of understanding, that is not the issue. The Bible teaches that those who have been saved will persevere. They will not fall away (Col 1:22; Heb 3:12ff; 1 John (all of it), 1 Cor 15:1-2; 2 Cor 13:5; and too many more passages to list here).

[qutoe]Those who believe in any one or all five or less of the above false doctrines are misled and that contrary to scripture.[/quote]You are simply wrong.

It doesn't upset my playhouse at all. It simply shows how confused your are and how much you are not unfamiliar with what it is you are talking about.

I urge again to save yourself this gross misrepresentation. Get familiar with the issues and then dive in. You have started on a bad foot, theologically speaking. If you know about this doctrine, then be honest about it. Don't make this stuff up.

FTR, there is no prejudice here. You, like everyone else, are required to abide by the posting rules.

 

Larry, you are definitely prejudiced in the area of "tulip" theology and no matter how you twist the scripture to "fit" that dilluded thinking, you'll never get beyond II Peter 3:9, in context that is. Neither shall you get beyond the Words of Christ in His "unlimited" atoning to everyone who "will come", nor Matthew 28 where the disciples are commissioned to go unto "all", that is "ALL" the world, not just a "chosen few".

I wonder how many have tripped over you and stumbled into the Pit, thinking they were not "elect"?

Calvinism is "limited" to only a handful of scriptures, I suggest you lay those aside and read the rest of the Bible. Then go back and pick them up putting them in their context.

"Boaz" laid "handfuls "OF" purpose" NOT "on" purpose! Ruth still had to glean those handfuls, they weren't automatically stored in her pouch.

I'll follow Jesus, calvinism is just that, following John Calvin, not Jesus. He's my Boaz!

Remember the "stranger"? That's he which was welcomed into the fold, but had to remain outside the vail, now that vail is rent and the Gentiles are come in, yetb they too were in the lineage of Christ. Still being "all" who will come, NOT all who had to come against their will.

I know a dear saint of God who is staunch calvinist. A brilliant man, but it's a tragedy that he now has secluded his church to prevent "LIGHT" from entering in and cut off everyone including other calvinists to his fellowship. Man that's sad! We all who have known him over the years are saddened at the mention of his name, still hoping he'll come around and fellowship around the Lord's Table again, removing his chair from underneath calvin's table.

Also by the false doctrine of calvinism, one can conclude that God enjoys watching people futiliy suffer without any hope, only to go to hell and suffer torment forever and ever. Don't you see how ludricrous that is?!? If calvinism is true, (and it's NOT!), then Jesus sufferd and died in vain, or in the least God loved to see Him suffer and die as well.

Since Jesus became sin for all mankind, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life, the resposibility is left on the individual. Atonement is limited only to those who will respond to the Gospel call, all others will have rejected that call and thereby choose their own merit and die and go to hell.

I've got Good News for you calvinists, Jesus didn't die in vain! He died once and for "ALL", but now the choice is up to you, He chose to save sinners, that's who He's called, He came NOT to call the righteous, (boy, that refutes calvinism right there!), but SINNERS to repentence.

Check out Ephesians 2:1-3 and begin to see where we "ALL" were before salvation, some are still there. Are you going to let a false doctrine/ (calvinism),prevent you from reaching out for them the same way some one else did for you? NO! Not if you're really a child of God !

Jude said we are to have compassion "OF" some, not "on" some. That means there are those who need compassion, not calvinism! "Of" some is limitless, only is it limited by us as we fail to do God's will. "On" some is limited to only "on" some. That's the "difference" Jude wrote about, remember ? Jude is the brother of James, the brother of Jesus, you won't find John Calvin anywhere mentioned in the passage!

In His *HOLY* Service!

Brother Ricky

 

Don't need to get past any of those because they are all exactly what I believe. In history, these doctrines have been called Calvinism, and before that Augustinianism, and before that, just plain old gospel. Trust me, you will not come up with anything new here. We have been through it all before and no one has yet to refute Scripture on these points. You won't be the first ...

Not a one.

You are showing yet again how horribly unfamiliar you are with what you oppose. Calvinism is taught all through Scripture. It just goes by a different name.

If you follow Jesus fully, you will be what is called today a Calvinist. What I believe is what he taught all through his ministry.

This is what Calvinism teaches.

One can only conclude that if they are ignorant of the matters that pertain to the discussion. Jesus did not suffer and die in vain. He died to save, not simply to make salvation possible. Calvinism is the only teaching with a sure salvation. It is a strictly biblical system that has gotten tagged with another man's name.

This is exactly what calvinism teaches.

My belief in Calvinism leads me to fervently preach the gospel to all man. If I believed what you did, I would never preach because there would be no hope. The only hope in preaching is that blessed truth that God is calling out a people for himself.

Besides bad exegesis this is irrelevant. There is no "of" or "on" in the text. It merely says "ous." It is a relative pronoun in the accusative case. It would be helpful to do your research here so you won't make statements like these.

When will you take my advice and find out what you are talking about?? You claim to know but then you make a post like this that is so far off base it is embarrassing for you, or at least it should be. There is no excuse in this world for someone to not know the issues. There is plenty of material available for you to study, right here in this forum. For you to continue to misrepresent is inappropriate. Please learn what you are talking about. Don't repeat the same old ridiculous charges. Learn some things and then discuss. There are valid issues of discussion on this topic. You simply are not even close to them.

My authority is Scripture. You will defeat the biblical doctrine of salvation usually called Calvinism only when you manage to take Scripture away. Until then, you will fail.

 

How many examples of "All" in the KJV would you like to see that cannot possibly mean ALL before you retract this statement?

 

Your traditional non-Calvinism paints the same picture of God, that of God creating the vast majority of people whom He knows before He even creates them that they will end up in Hell to be tortured by Him forever and ever and ever... That is such a sadistic picture you paint of God.

You should drop your theological pride, as your traditional, sadistic view of God is something you should be ashamed of, not boast of. </font>[/QUOTE]It's just like a man to take what another is saying is wrong and attribute him with believing what he precisely refuted. I have NO "sadistic" view of God and no "theological pride" as you accuse me. I didn't "paint" the picture, hyper-calvinism does.

Since you refuse light and then falsely accuse your brother, there is no need to discuss anything further.