Strong's

How many examples of "All" in the KJV would you like to see that cannot possibly mean ALL before you retract this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose now you'll take Greek and redefine the word "all" to mean something else?

Have you looked at your post and realized how ludicrous your statement is? "All" not meaning ALL? Get real!

 

Larry, preach like a wild man the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, but leave the "tulips" in the flower garden with the rest of the manure. You need to look at calvinism from the other side of the spectrum, sir. Take a moment and consider how the lost look at calvinism.

I have read much of John Calvin's writings, and I like to read something by some one who knows what they are talking about instead of one who just supposes and presumes/ calvin.

If we are both saying the same thing concerning the Gospel, then we have nothing to debate, but that isn't what "tulip" theology teaches now is it? It only teaches a "limited" god. My Bible tells me that all things are possible with God. Man has his stubborn will which must be made broken and contrite. Jesus said whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it falls shall be ground to powder.
Note that all will not fall upon this stone, but all who will fall will be broken.

The Lord saved me 10 years ago, put my family back together and called me to preach a whosoever will Gospel. I'll keep preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ until my breath leaves this earthen vessel and a calvinist will not stop me, will not hinder me, or change the Gospel for anyone.

I'll keep trying to pull them out of the fire as long as the Lord will let me.
If I have a different view of calvinism than what you say you believe then you should starighten the rest of the bunch out and realize what the all too common idea of calvinism teaches.

God Bless

 

How many examples of "All" in the KJV would you like to see that cannot possibly mean ALL before you retract this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose now you'll take Greek and redefine the word "all" to mean something else?

Have you looked at your post and realized how ludicrous your statement is? "All" not meaning ALL? Get real! </font>[/QUOTE]NO - I'll use the KJV and give you some concrete examples of the word All being used in the New Testament when it could not have possibly meant "All" in the context.

R U Game?

 

Sorry Hardsheller, I don't "play games" with the Word of God

 

I am not in the least concerned with how the lost look at Calvinism. The only issue of concern is what does the Bible teach. That is what I preach and teach and will continue to do so.

If you have read more than one page of John Calvin, you have read more than I. I didn't get my Calvinism from Calvin. I got it from Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, and John. Those are much more reliable sources.

No it doesn't. You have it confused with arminianism. Arminianism teaches that God is limited to save only those who will give him permission. I reject that limited view of God. Your comments here again show a great unfamiliarity with the issues/

 

I am not in the least concerned with how the lost look at Calvinism. The only issue of concern is what does the Bible teach. That is what I preach and teach and will continue to do so.

If you have read more than one page of John Calvin, you have read more than I. I didn't get my Calvinism from Calvin. I got it from Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, and John. Those are much more reliable sources.

No it doesn't. You have it confused with arminianism. Arminianism teaches that God is limited to save only those who will give him permission. I reject that limited view of God. Your comments here again show a great unfamiliarity with the issues/

Let your MODERATION be known and read of all men.

Im thought this was the Calvinism/Arminian Debate Forum? Seems your prejudice limits discussion unless one agrees with you and your cohorts.

If you haven't read Calvin you should, or quit calling your self a Calvinist becaquse that's where the title comes from. For a moderator you just made yourself look disparaged if I may borrow the term.

 

I offer to show you proof positive that everytime the word "all" is used in the KJV of the NT it in fact doesn't mean "all".

You refuse to even look at the examples which are nothing more than the Word of God.

I do not play games with the Word of God either - I just read it and believe it.

 

You are wrong. The only thing limited in this forum is personal attacks, off topic posts, and inappropriate demeanor. All you need to do is read the threads to find out that doctrine or belief is not among the criteria for editing.

My suggestion to you was to debate. You have made less than 10 posts in this forum and already told two people you didn't want to speak with them. You are the one limiting conversation, not me. If you don't want to discuss things with the people in this forum, then do not come in here. If you come in and post, then expect people to interact with your posts.

I don't think you don't make yourself look disparaged. You disparage yourself. But I am not an expert on that and regardless, I didn't do either. You are evidently unaware that "Calvinists" are not followers of John Calvin. Calvinists are people who believe that the Bible teaches certain things about soteriology. Why do I need to read Calvin? The Bible is my authority. My beliefs about soteriology came from the Scripture and they just happen to line up with what has been called "Calvinism."

Even the anti-calvinists (except you apparently) know that the doctrines known as "Calvinism" have been around for at least over 1000 years before Calvin. They were not new with him. Calvin was simply the person who did a lot of writing on them and his name got attached to doctrines that had been around for a long time. However, we are way past that. I have read many Calvinists, including Paul, Peter, Luke, and John. I have read many modern Calvinists as well. I have no need to read John Calvin.

These are simple facts that people who are familiar with the issues know, even if they disagree. If you have read a lot on this subject as you claimed, then I assume you knew all of this and were just participating in the rhetoric here.

 

Why should I bother with some one who is proof positive to distort scripture to make it fit their twisted theology?

Just for the record, I am neither calvinist or arminian, if anything I remain balanced between the two. This is NOT my first encounter with your type so I will no longer waste my or your time. BTW, read up on "presumptuous sins" you need help in that area, we all do.

 

I offer to show you proof positive that everytime the word "all" is used in the KJV of the NT it in fact doesn't mean "all".

You refuse to even look at the examples which are nothing more than the Word of God.

I do not play games with the Word of God either - I just read it and believe it. </font>[/QUOTE]O.K., O.K., Just to humor you and to pacify Larry, give me your examples, but remember, when you take it out of context, I'm going to let you know. Keep the word "all" in the context it is used and don't try that garbage of applying "all" to another text that uses the word in a different context like you did with the esv.

Example: all hot dogs are weiners, but all hamburgers are not solely void of the content of all hot dogs, so all hamburgers cannot be called weiners due to the fact of content, so context remains the superlative/ degree of distinction.

 

You really know how to promote open debate on a subject.

How about actually dealing with Romans 5:18 and the rest of Holy Scripture that other posters are offering. A continued refusal on your part will be evidence to all that you are unable to do so and that you are merely wishing to shake other people's sodas and have nothing of significance to offer to this forum.

You probably think you can emotionally upset other posters but you are sadly mistaken at least in my case. I merely laugh at an obviously garrulous person like you.

You give a really bad name to independent fundamental baptists, as you claim to be one. But I sincerely doubt they are all abrasive and self-righteous as you are. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll disregard your insiduous name calling and answer your diluded mind.

Romans 5: 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The correalation of the wored "all" used in verse 18 is in line with the word "many" in verse 19.

The "all" in the first half of verse 18 relates directly to the action of the subjective noun, "one", this "one" being the first Adam.

Not so in the second statement found in verse 18. The "all" is the receptive noun of the action of the "one" being Christ Jesus , the Last Adam. But then the words "came upon" is the distinctive phrase that defines as "made available" not that "all" have received, but have been offered, or made available the "free gift" unto justification.

Thus the word "all" still means ALL, but has to be applied to contextual meaning not "all" inclusive as to the first statement.

All are made sinners in the first Adam, but all
(sinners) are offered justification in and through the Last Adam, not that all are made righteous, but that "all" who have this offer as having it "came upon", are made righteous by their correct response to the Gospel, that being by faith in Jesus Christ and repentence from sin towards God.

Keep it in the KJB and you'll manitain inerrancy. (No, Larry, I am NOT trying to turn this into a version debate! I only made the clarification of the passage from the KJB, which is first and foremost important to understand the original thought and intent of the Originals.)

I hope this clears up the "BIG" debate, but if it doesn't.........

In His Holy Service, Faith Unshaken,

Brother Ricky ( He) Ephesians 2:14

 

...and Ken is using the word all here to mean "everyone who reads this forum", not "everyone in the whole wide world who has ever lived and who ever will live".....

 

...and Ken is using the word all here to mean "everyone who reads this forum", not "everyone in the whole wide world who has ever lived and who ever will live"..... </font>[/QUOTE]Does this mean russell55 and KenH (Ken Hamm I presume), are Siamese twins? Joined at the skull no doubt!

 

Istherenotacause from Social Circle Ga. Yes There is a cause and it would be helpful since you are from Social Circle Ga... To show a little of that socialability and fellowship among other brethren. You may disagree which is OK but let us tone down the verbal offensive rethoric among the brethren. What is all boils down is this... if you can't control your attacks of other who disagree with you a vacation can be arranged... A ten day vacation... Read the BB rules!... This is a christian board... Let's keep it that way!... Brother Glen The Other Moderator

 

Istherenotacause,

The definition of ALL remains the same, It is the application that Controls the scope.

For Example: 'All who' does not equal 'All do'.

Though I am compelled by reason to agree with your Cause, I am also compelled by logic to say that there are often modifiers to the word ALL that definitly change the scope of the totality of who is covered.

For example, "ALL who believe" does not mean the totality of the population unless the totality of the population believes. But, out of the totality of the population, all of those who believe is included.

There are many instances in Scripture where ALL is limited in some fashion. such as ALL Pharisees, or ALL Jews, or All gentiles, or All Romans, etc. And it could be further limited by All Romans living in Jerusalem, or All Jews from the Tribe of Dan, or ALL rich Jews, or ALL with Leprosy in this area.

However, Calvinism is wrong by applying the concept of "Only" in the way they do because that describes God as being a respecter of man. Especially in light of the clear teachings of Scripture that, any and All who will may come, not forced. or predisposed, or predestined, but who come of their own free choice, and they are allowed upon their individual belief in Jesus to be included.

Sure, Calvinist will say that's OK with them, but that is not what they teach nor adhere to.

So I am with you Istherenotacause in this particular cause.

 

So you are saying that there are some "who" believe who "do" not believe?? That doen'st make a lot of sense. All who is all do.

Which is what I said and what Calvinists teach.

Exactly. Which goes back to my point that "all" must be followed by teh question "all of what" or "all of whom"? All does not mean everyone without exception. It is defined by the context.

Except that Scripture teach predisposition and predestination and free will. It never teaches forced. So you string a bunch of words together that you should not have strung together because they don't believe.

We believe that "all" means "all." We, like you have described above, use the context to determine "all of what" or "all of whom." You are making stuff up again.

 

ITNAC,

You need to restrain your language and your demeanor. You have come across as very arrogant and unwilling to learn and participate. Your manner has been abrasive so far.

The truth about Calvinism is that whether you agree or not, it is solidly supported by exegesis of the Scriptures. It has been the predmoninant view for 2000 years of church history because of that fact. Your personal distaste for it will not change that.

I appeal to you one more time to change your demeanor and rhetoric. Brother Glen has already admonished you along this line as have you. This is a difficult area but it is no excuse to leave your Christian demeanor at the door.

Let this serve as a fair warning to all. There is to be no name calling or personal attacks. Clean it up and keep it on topic.