God Does Not Will Any To Be Lost, Some Men Do!

[TCassidy]

I have seen flaws in conclusions by A T Robertson,

Me too. He was a committed CT man.

Westcott, and Hort,

Same concern.

George Winer

Georg, Germans spell things differently. Even their names. His Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms was pretty good. But I think the title of Moulton's translation left something to be desired. I think it should have been "A Grammar of New Testament Idioms."

The point is that we need the Holy Spirit to guide us, and not our heads!

Of course. But claiming victory by saying, "Well the Holy Spirit revealed this to me so that proves that I am right and you are wrong" is probably not a real good argument to make. It is too easy for your opponent to say, "Well the Holy Spirit revealed this to me so that proves that I am right and you are wrong!" So, in such discussions we are forced to rely on scholarship.

And we must be honest in our dealing with the Word of God, even when it is against what we believe!

Please. That is the 4th time you have implied that I am dishonest in my reasons for believing in Byzantine Priority. It has to stop. And it has to stop NOW!

 

[TCassidy]

Calvinists are sour pusses! They don't like being wrong, even when they are! Nor do they like being backed up in a corner, and then they can get nasty and try to make to look a fool or throw a load to rubbish your way. I have been a believer for over 35 years now to see how they work. Not much different in their approach from the Jehovah's Witnesses!

You are making this personal. It is time to either dial it back a couple notches or take a break from the BB.

Slandering your brothers and sisters in Christ is probably not the best way to gain credibility on this forum.

 

[McCree79]

YOU does not fit the manuscript evidence. I don't choose a bible according to my theology. I chose my theology according to the bible.

"Us", "you". Does it really matter? Peter wrote to the churches. "Us" and/or "you" would equal the church anyway. It is not like Peter issued a PSA to the pagans of Asia Minor.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[SovereignGrace]

YES, YES, YES, you fail to grasp the fact that even though God's wrath has been appeased, this is ONLY done in Christ as the Atoning Sacrifice, which is effected when a sinner repents and believes. Jesus' work has been completed ONCE for all time, so that He does not like the priests in the Old Testament, need to be offered daily or yearly. Hebrews deals with this at length.

But repentance itself is a gift of God.

God's wrath has been appeased for all who Christ died for. That is why they who die lost go to eternal torment. God's wrath has not been appeased towards them, as they have not had their sin debt paid by Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

"Us", "you". Does it really matter? Peter wrote to the churches. "Us" and/or "you" would equal the church anyway. It is not like Peter issued a PSA to the pagans of Asia Minor.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Yes, but 2 Peter is part of what is called the "Catholic" or "General" Epistles. To the churches, certainly. All the churches, unlike Paul who named the churches he was writing to.

But some will take that to mean Peter's intended readers went beyond the churches and were now addressing all of mankind. Peter makes it very clear his intended readers are "those who have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Hard to say, in context, that Peter is addressing the unconverted, but some, desperate to advance their flawed soteriological theories, will still insist on just that.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Calvinists are sour pusses! They don't like being wrong, even when they are! Nor do they like being backed up in a corner, and then they can get nasty and try to make to look a fool or throw a load to rubbish your way. I have been a believer for over 35 years now to see how they work. Not much different in their approach from the Jehovah's Witnesses!

We are not sour pusses, but tired of ppl trying to force the Christ to marry that which He did not die for, nor ever intended to marry. The church is His bride, and He died for His bride. This is per Ephesians 5:25.

We are tired of ppl trying to make the Christ a goat herder when He is the Shepherd of His sheep, and not goats. But when we confront such erroneous doctrine, we're sourpusses? Hardly. Just tired of the error that gets pushed on here.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hi Andy, I see the usual suspects are posting change of subject posts, nitpicking and questioning your qualification for holding views contrary to Calvinism. Same ol, same ol.

Returning to subject - does God really desire that all people be saved? If He does, then Jesus would have died for all people. Otherwise there would be no path for salvation for those Christ did not die for.

Well, what about the problem that if God desires all people to be saved, then why are not all people saved? Here we must consider whether God is the God of compulsion, where He compels some to choose death, and via irresistible grace, compels other s to choose live. But scripture says God sets both choices (life or death) before us and begs us to choose life. So the answer from scripture is God desires all people to be saved - according to His redemption plan - which is for us, as best we can to choose life.
He provides the gospel, witnesses, and those that till the ground, plant the word, and water such that some choose life. That is the redemption plan.

Once you understand the actual redemption plan, all of scripture fits together perfectly.

Let me sum this post up in a more concise manner folks...

 

[SovereignGrace]

You are making this personal. It is time to either dial it back a couple notches or take a break from the BB.

Slandering your brothers and sisters in Christ is probably not the best way to gain credibility on this forum.

He isn't seeing his inconsistencies. He is saying God's wrath has been appeased. Great, then no one goes to hell. He then used John 3:36. So, which is it? God's wrath appeased or its not. God's wrath hovering over the disobedient does not mean His wrath has been appeased.

Ah, but it has for those whom the Christ died for.

Their exegesis and hermeneutics leave LOTS of holes in their theology and LOTS to be desired.

 

[Rippon]

Yes. I think numbers matter. As does every textual critic on the face of the Earth.

Maurice Robinson, who you quote later in your post does not believe what "every textual critic on the face of the earth" believes. The majority of New Testament textual critics don't agree with your assertion either. Those that go with the Byzantine theory are in the minority.

 

[Rippon]

The CT and the bibles translated from the CT are notorious for their erroneous variants. But even with the errors, they are still 99.5% correct.

You are inconsistent. The CT based tranlations are notorious for their erroneous varients you say.
The NKJV lists a fair number of variants and a number of translations list a number of them. Why not? Is that a
notorious practice? No, it's the honest thing to do.

How can the CT based translations be considered "notorious" on one hand yet 99.5% correct?

You offer a new meaning for notorious.Anyone would want to be considered notorious if they are also considered to correct 99.5% of the time.

 

[TCassidy]

You seem to have missed the point. I said, "notorious for their . . . variants."

Notorious = well known.

I know very few people who are even moderately knowledgeable about bible texts, translations etc., who are unaware there are variants.

 

[TCassidy]

Maurice Robinson, who you quote later in your post does not believe what "every textual critic on the face of the earth" believes. The majority of New Testament textual critics don't agree with your assertion either. Those that go with the Byzantine theory are in the minority.

Once again you have failed to understand. Every text critic knows that number, being a factor in textual transmission, matters.

Some place more emphasis on number than others but all consider number to be important. Including my friend, Dr. Robinson. But number is not the end all of manuscript evidence. It is one of the nine I listed.

 

[MennoSota]

Simply put:

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)

"he who believes" will go to heaven; "he who does not believe" will go to hell. here we have spiritual choice, which is called FREE WILL! God does not send anyone to hell, they CHOOSE this when they reject Jesus Christ!

Nothing in the verse says free will. For you to try extrapolate free will from this verse is for you to force your presupposition on the verse.

 

[AndyAnsell]

You are making this personal. It is time to either dial it back a couple notches or take a break from the BB.

Slandering your brothers and sisters in Christ is probably not the best way to gain credibility on this forum.

It always is very personal. This is what I have seen first-hand from the Calvinists that I have known, to argue their point, even when they are clearly wrong. I see here that you cannot admit that the correct reading in 2 Peter 3:9 is "you", even though the greater majority of the textual evidence, of Greek manuscripts (older), Greek and English versions, do say that this is the original one. But, because this will indeed cause problems with your "theology", you will not accept it, and hang on to the CT as though it is so very right! These are facts, and in this debate it does get tough, and I have no intention of taking any break from BB.

 

[AndyAnsell]

Once again you have failed to understand. Every text critic knows that number, being a factor in textual transmission, matters.

Some place more emphasis on number than others but all consider number to be important. Including my friend, Dr. Robinson. But number is not the end all of manuscript evidence. It is one of the nine I listed.

The EVIDENCE is stacked against you!

 

[AndyAnsell]

Maurice Robinson, who you quote later in your post does not believe what "every textual critic on the face of the earth" believes. The majority of New Testament textual critics don't agree with your assertion either. Those that go with the Byzantine theory are in the minority.

Well said Rippon, I repeat again, that it is because of THEOLOGY and not what the text actually says, that people make their decisions on. They will look around for some support that agrees with them, and hang on to it for dear life. They will not accept that the MAJORITY of the textual evidence is clearly against them, because by doing so, their THEOLOGY is challenged!

 

[AndyAnsell]

He isn't seeing his inconsistencies. He is saying God's wrath has been appeased. Great, then no one goes to hell. He then used John 3:36. So, which is it? God's wrath appeased or its not. God's wrath hovering over the disobedient does not mean His wrath has been appeased.

Ah, but it has for those whom the Christ died for.

Their exegesis and hermeneutics leave LOTS of holes in their theology and LOTS to be desired.

LOL!!! You guys talk about inconsistent? The EVIDENCE for 2 Peter 3.9, as YOU is in the GREATER versions of the Bible, which is deemed to be wrong because it would shoot holes in your THEOLOGY!

 

[AndyAnsell]

"Us", "you". Does it really matter? Peter wrote to the churches. "Us" and/or "you" would equal the church anyway. It is not like Peter issued a PSA to the pagans of Asia Minor.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

It does matter, as one reading is correct and the other is not. For THEOLOGICAL purposes alone, the reading US is accepted by the few, as it helps their THEOLOGY, and will disregard what has the BEST evidence in textual studies, because if they did accept is, would challenge their THEOLOGY!

 

[AndyAnsell]

Me too. He was a committed CT man.

Same concern.

Georg, Germans spell things differently. Even their names. His Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms was pretty good. But I think the title of Moulton's translation left something to be desired. I think it should have been "A Grammar of New Testament Idioms."

Of course. But claiming victory by saying, "Well the Holy Spirit revealed this to me so that proves that I am right and you are wrong" is probably not a real good argument to make. It is too easy for your opponent to say, "Well the Holy Spirit revealed this to me so that proves that I am right and you are wrong!" So, in such discussions we are forced to rely on scholarship.

Please. That is the 4th time you have implied that I am dishonest in my reasons for believing in Byzantine Priority. It has to stop. And it has to stop NOW!

"WE mus be honest". Unless you cannot understand the English language, WE includes ME!

 

[TCassidy]

The EVIDENCE is stacked against you!

And what evidence is that? So far I am the only one who has posted any evidence regarding the Greek manuscripts.