top 5 against calvinism?

[William C]

Ken said: [1) Of course, those God plans to save are always, without fail, regenerated by the Holy Spirit and willingly come to Christ in repentance and faith.

The point is that he desires to save all, whether or not he planned to only save a few is what is up for debate.

Ken said: 2) This is the same group that Jesus told that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep. If one is not of Christ's sheep, he cannot believe - according to the Bible.

Correct, now you are getting it Ken. Hardened Israel cannot believe just like John 12:37-41 says. They cannot believe because they are Hardened--not because they were born with "total depravity" as Calvinists assert. The first group of Sheep that must come in are the Remnant (Jews who haven't been hardened). The other group of Sheep that must come in is an obvious reference to the Gentiles ingrafting. Good job Ken, I think your catching on.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Ken said: [1) Of course, those God plans to save are always, without fail, regenerated by the Holy Spirit and willingly come to Christ in repentance and faith.

The point is that he desires to save all, whether or not he planned to only save a few is what is up for debate .

Ken said: 2) This is the same group that Jesus told that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep. If one is not of Christ's sheep, he cannot believe - according to the Bible.

Correct, now you are getting it Ken. Hardened Israel cannot believe just like John 12:37-41 says. They cannot believe because they are Hardened--not because they were born with "total depravity" as Calvinists assert. The first group of Sheep that must come in are the Remnant (Jews who haven't been hardened). The other group of Sheep that must come in is an obvious reference to the Gentiles ingrafting. Good job Ken, I think your catching on.

So you admit God has a secret will and a revealed will?

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Ken said: [1) Of course, those God plans to save are always, without fail, regenerated by the Holy Spirit and willingly come to Christ in repentance and faith.

The point is that he desires to save all, whether or not he planned to only save a few is what is up for debate .

Ken said: 2) This is the same group that Jesus told that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep. If one is not of Christ's sheep, he cannot believe - according to the Bible.

Correct, now you are getting it Ken. Hardened Israel cannot believe just like John 12:37-41 says. They cannot believe because they are Hardened--not because they were born with "total depravity" as Calvinists assert. The first group of Sheep that must come in are the Remnant (Jews who haven't been hardened). The other group of Sheep that must come in is an obvious reference to the Gentiles ingrafting. Good job Ken, I think your catching on.

So you admit God has a secret will and a revealed will? </font>[/QUOTE]Dallas, where did you get that from? Yes, there is the "mystery" in which is being revealed by the apostles to all men. Its the mystery of ingrafting the Gentiles and God's desire to reconcile the world to Himself. He has revealed His will, if there is a secret will that hasn't been revealed we wouldn't know about it.

 

[Frogman]

The point is that he desires to save all, whether or not he planned to only save a few is what is up for debate .

Why do you figure God to desire to save but not be able to fulfill His desire?

You are correct about the mysterious will not being revealed. Often we live right through the secret will of God and do not know it until afterward.

Let me ask you a question, open to anyone who cares to answer Is there a difference in will and desire?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Dallas, where did you get that from?

Pulled it from the mystery that allows you in Ft. Worth to discuss these things with me in Glasgow.

God Bless Brother.

Bro.Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Hi Npetreley;

Welcome back Nick;
A quote from you;
-------------------------------------------------

The word translated as "any" in 2 Peter 3:9, "not willing that any should perish" is "tinaß", which means "some" or "certain" as in "certain people". A different form of the word appears earlier in the verse, and is translated as "some".
-------------------------------------------------

Here is a copy of the verse in greek from the texus receptus first;
2Pe 3:9 ou bradunei o kuriov thv epaggeliav wv tinev braduthta hgountai alla makroqumei eiv hmav mh boulomenov tinav apolesqai alla pantav eiv metanoian xwrhsai

Now from the greek new testament;

2Pe 3:9 ou bradunei tsbo kuriov thv epaggeliav wv tinev braduthta hgountai alla makroqumei eiv aumav tsbhmav mh boulomenov tinav apolesqai alla pantav eiv metanoian xwrhsai

I was going to say that I didn't see it but now that I've cut and pasted it here the fonts have changed and I think it's the seventh word from the end in the last post.

This below is strongs definition;
G5100
τίς
tis
tis
An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).

Which doesn't prove or disprove what you claim.
Romanbear

Romanbear

I'm encouraged that you're looking into it at this level of detail. Recall, however, that most online versions of Strongs only give you the generic definition of the root word.

Each of these words has different forms, and sometimes the various forms indicated a variation on the meaning of the word (sometimes it's just conjugation, etc., and doesn't necessarily change the meaning).

The following definition (from olivetree) shows the number of places in the NT where the word means X, Y, or Z:

New Testament Greek for ' some men '

5100 tis {tis}
an enclitic indefinite pronoun;; pron
AV - certain 104, some 73, any man 55, any 37, one 34, man 34, anything 24, a 9, certain man 7, something 6, somewhat 6, ought 5, some man 4, certain thing 2, nothing + 3756 2, divers 2, (strong's number 5100)

Notice that it means "certain" 104 times, "some" 73 times, "any man" 55, etc. Please do not misunderstand me: It's convenient that the high numbers confirm my interpretation, but I'm not saying that you can use those numbers to give more weight to one interpretation over another. I'm saying that these variations tell you that it is a good idea to cross-reference how the word - and often exactly the form of the word you are checking - is used elsewhere in scripture.

I recommend that you do exactly that - check to see how "tinaß" is used in other verses. I've already done that work for you, but you would probably be more convinced if you checked it out yourself.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The point is that he desires to save all, whether or not he planned to only save a few is what is up for debate .

Why do you figure God to desire to save but not be able to fulfill His desire?</font>[/QUOTE]This is a great questions for both sides Dallas, because it gets to the root of the debate.

If God truly "desires" to save all, why aren't all saved? Three possible answers:

1. He does save all eventually. (Ken-Universalism)

2. He desires all to be saved but he doesn't plan it that way because that is not His ulitmate desire or Will. (Most Calvinists hold to this view, some try desprately to explain these passages away, I don't know why)

3. He desires all to be saved but he also desires them to make the choice, to consider the cost, to reason it out, to choose this day who will be their master.

I pick number 3 because of scriptures obvious teachings that calls man to "consider the cost," ; "choosing their master"; "reasoning it out"; etc.

Let me ask you a question, open to anyone who cares to answer Is there a difference in will and desire?

It depends on the way in which its used. The greek word "Thelo" can be translated "will" or "desire"

I believe there is a difference between God's Sovereign will and his premissive desires.

For example when God says, "Thou shalt not steal." Is that an expression of His Sovereign decree? No, of course not, otherwise no one would steal. In other words, a "sovereign decree" cannot be twarted by anyone! His "premissive desires" can be twarted by his "permission." So we can steal even though God "desires" that we don't do it. Why? Because He gives us premission to make our own choice in the matter. Make sense?

The question that we debate is this: Is everyone's individual salvation a part of God's Sovereign will or apart of his permissive desires?

The problem that these verses about God's desire for everyone to be saved presents for the Calvinists is that we know that God at least "premissively desires" all to be saved. If that is the case why would he contradict his own "permissive desire" by His "sovereignly planned will?"

BTW, there is a fairly good Calvinistic reply to this question, but I won't give it to you, you have to find it yourself

To me it just makes more sense that God give us the "premission" to make our own choice just like he does with the commandment to not steal.

 

[Frogman]

BTW, there is a fairly good Calvinistic reply to this question, but I won't give it to you, you have to find it yourself

Please??

I will take the offer and search. Yet my belief is based upon my own study of thelo.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
"their children" is refering to Jerusalem. Its "children of Jerusalem" or Israel that Christ is referring to.

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

Nope, Brother Bill, you are off the mark on this verse. I don't think a city can physically stone prophets.

Nice try, though. You can't win 'em all, Brother Bill. Of course, when defending false doctrine, Brother Bill, you can't win any of 'em.

 

[Yelsew]

Wrong again Ken. The people of a City are know by the name of the city. Parisians, Berliners, New Yorkers, Angelinos, etc. Collectively the name of the People of a town or city is the name of the city.

So Jesus was speaking of the people of Jerusalem. The children of the City.

 

[KenH]

So Jesus was talking to an inanimate object - a city - and referring to "your children".

In your dreams, Yelsew.

 

[Yelsew]

Step back away from the tree so that you can get a better view of the forest.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather your children. If a city is not the people there is no city, just pending archiological dig.

A city spawns citizens and is self perpetuating because the families are integral to the city.

This seems to be indicative of your lack of understanding of the really good stuff of Scripture?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ken H:
So Jesus was talking to an inanimate object - a city - and referring to "your children".

In your dreams, Yelsew.

No doubt He was referring to Jerusalem giving birth to suburbs.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ken H:
So Jesus was talking to an inanimate object - a city - and referring to "your children".

In your dreams, Yelsew.

No doubt He was referring to Jerusalem giving birth to suburbs. </font>[/QUOTE]This would be the first historical mention of "urban sprawl" wouldn't it?

Bro. Dallas