Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
You have to post more often, or hang out more often. People say "that isn't what it really says" or "you are not interpreting it right" to the Bible. Like the flood, and the Bible says all flesh died, and the whole earth was under water. And they say no it isn't.
I recall your ‘contribution’ previously to this exposition.
Your contribution this time (post 11) around is no less deceptive.
In both cases you have deliberately avoided the central argument of the OP and chosen to address everything but the actual proof, and that in your inimitable style where you fly in with gusto in a whirlwind of synthetic sincerity. Great theatrics. You should be on the stage.
Which actually confirms that you know you are defeated.
The OP stands: the viewers who read the argument, will be convinced in no uncertain terms.
Gurucam,
You haven't read or understood the OP, and are pretending that you have. So let's prove that you haven't by the following challenge to you: Repeat back to me in your own words the pivotal proof which the OP provides for its assertion that "all men" means "all kinds of men". Dear Colossians, You are saying that the famous English preacher C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), was a firm believer in Limited Atonement, however he did not corrupt scriptures so as to make it support his belief. Then you said: "Below we show what Spurgeon missed – that by “all men” Paul does indeed intend “all kinds of men”, and that therefore the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not abrogated by the text."
As I suspected: you have no idea what the OP is saying, and are pretending you do. Go back and read it properly. If you then still don’t understand it, you might like to ask Mr Muzic: he has shown that he knows what it is by virtue of his ‘accidental’ failure to address it on two separate occassions.
My statement that by v5 the passage seems to be favouring the non-Calvinist position:
"But by virtue of sheer repetition, together with the necessarily-indiscriminate nature of the God-to-man mediator notion here - the latter echoing the seemingly universal mood of v3 - it is at this point in the passage that the modern evangelical mind is perhaps overwhelmed to conclude that this “all [(men)]” is, at the very least here at v6, a reference to “every single man”, and that finally enough straws have been laid upon the Calvinist’s camel, to break its Limited Atonement back."
Mr Muzic's response from his post #11:
And here Collosians assumes Calvinism to prove Calvinism.
So we see the Mr Muzic can't even read, let alone think. The guy is an ignorant hack. But a good actor nonetheless.
Last edited by Colossians; May 21st, 2012 at 08:23 PM.
...So we see the Mr Muzic can't even read, let alone think. The guy is an ignorant hack.
You are one to talk. You have been on TOL since 2005 and you still don't know how to click the "QUOTE" button in order to quote what someone else has written.
Instead you choose to re-type what someone has written so that when they properly use the "QUOTE" button it appears as if something that someone else has written is something you have written.
This creates confusion. Which I suppose is your goal...seeing that you continue to twist scripture to support your presuppositions.
I just have to say here, that of all theology sites I have contributed to, this one takes the cake for members who think they are it and a bit, but who have no idea what they are talking about, and whose IQ is far below their own estimation.
Worse, they are unteachable, being full of themselves and disobedient.
But we will press on regardless, teaching the Word properly in a scholarly fashion, rightly dividing it with integrity as we go along.
Someone's got to preach the truth to the guests who visit to this site looking for answers.
God's will is that all men, all men without exception, be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
However, God having given men freedom to choose, knows that all men, all without exception, will not choose to believe to be saved, let alone come to the knowledge of the truth.
All can mean:
1. all without exception
2. all within a distinct category
What God wants, desires is not what God is going to get. He knows that, but God's desire remains the same.
God's desire is that all men, without exception, be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
oatmeal
As much as it pains me, I have to agree with you on this one, Oatmeal.
Free will must be taken into account. We see here that God's desire does not always result in repentance.
Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
We will see how teachable you are with this little exercise:
When you want to quote someone, click on the button that says "QUOTE" at the bottom right of the post you want to quote. When you don't...it provides opportunity for confusion.
If this little exercise has taught you anything...then I expect you will now be able to click "QUOTE".
You see, most people who contribute the theology sites are at best 'promise-box' theologians (the kind who grab a verse out of the bible for the beginning of the day, and then apply it out of context on these sites).
And they have the cheek to then tell everyone they're rightly dividing the Word. They don't even know how to read the Word, let alone divide it. In fact, most of them can't even read, period.
My statement that by v5 the passage seems to be favouring the non-Calvinist position:
"But by virtue of sheer repetition, together with the necessarily-indiscriminate nature of the God-to-man mediator notion here - the latter echoing the seemingly universal mood of v3 - it is at this point in the passage that the modern evangelical mind is perhaps overwhelmed to conclude that this “all [(men)]” is, at the very least here at v6, a reference to “every single man”, and that finally enough straws have been laid upon the Calvinist’s camel, to break its Limited Atonement back."
Mr Muzic's response from his post #11:
And here Collosians assumes Calvinism to prove Calvinism.
So we see the Mr Muzic can't even read, let alone think. The guy is an ignorant hack. But a good actor nonetheless.
I did misread that section. My apologies.
The rest of the post is still valid.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
IBut we will press on regardless, teaching the Word properly in a scholarly fashion, rightly dividing it with integrity as we go along.
Someone's got to preach the truth to the guests who visit to this site looking for answers.
Since you think that you have the truth why do you refuse to deal with the following verse that speaks of a "free gift" that comes upon "all men":
"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" (Ro.5:18).
Sir Robert Anderson says, "And this (reconciliation) is the free gift of the 5th of Romans. It is not righteousness, it is not life; though it is unto righteousness, and brings life to the sinner who receives it. It has effects as widespread as the sin of Adam. 'As through one trespass the came unto all men to condemnation, even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto men to justification of life.' Not that all men a in fact made righteous, but that such was the direction and tendency of the grace" (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry, 141-142).
Indeed, the Greek word translated "unto" in the phrase "free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" is a preposition which speaks of "direction":
" 'eis', a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
The word 'tendency" is a synonym for the word "direction" and "a TENDENCY is an inclination toward a certain line of action (whether or not the action follows), and is often the result of inherent qualities, nature and habit" (The American College Dictionary).
Now let us look at the verse again:
"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" (Ro.5:18).
Since in the first instance where the words "all men" are used they obviously refer to all men everywhere then common sense dictates that the second time those same words are used the meaning is also all men everywhere.
Slogan/motto:
"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Ro 3:26
Reputation:
May 22nd, 2012, 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossians
I just have to say here, that of all theology sites I have contributed to, this one takes the cake for members who think they are it and a bit, but who have no idea what they are talking about, and whose IQ is far below their own estimation.
My IQ is 148. I can be sure it is far above yours.
Quote:
Worse, they are unteachable, being full of themselves and disobedient.
This coming from the person who refuses to believe in a bodily resurrection in light of the dozens of verses that prove it.
Quote:
But we will press on regardless, teaching the Word properly in a scholarly fashion, rightly dividing it with integrity as we go along.
Someone's got to preach the truth to the guests who visit to this site looking for answers.
then what will you be doing while we preach truth?
Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. If you deny that basic truth, you cannot be saved. God came to save you, you cannot be saved if you do not believe in Him as He is.
[="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3231383&postcount=1"]Satan, Inc. (TOL's heretic's list)[/url]
Slogan/motto:
Being led into relationships by urgings of love which arise and are sustained naturally and spontaneously within my heart, is always 'God-righteous' even if I have to transgress the Ten Commandments.
Reputation:
May 22nd, 2012, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M
You have to post more often, or hang out more often. People say "that isn't what it really says" or "you are not interpreting it right" to the Bible. Like the flood, and the Bible says all flesh died, and the whole earth was under water. And they say no it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M View Post
I like how all flesh died and the whole of the earth doesn't mean all flesh died and the whole of the earth. And all men doesn't mean all men.
This is convoluted.
What is the message?
All flesh is not dead.
The dead is still around, still burying their dead.
God's word to Cain [it is always good to go back to first instances]
It is even better to go back to the OP.
The OP concerns a particular rendering of scripture, and in particular, its logical structure.
So no other passages are particularly relevant.
Jerry S,
I sincerely appreciate the work you have put into your post above (you have structured it well, and with appropriate typeface too), but this thread is not about the overall argument of Calvinism vs anti-Calvinism, but simply about the rendering of "all men" at 1 Ti 2:4 within its own literal context.
Yes the purpose is to delete the verse from the anti-Calvinist's arsenal, but the actual focus is not on the greater debate between the 2 camps, but the verse itself.
Just to put you all out of your misery, the crux of the argument is found at about the mid section of the commentary under v5 in the OP. (Mr Muzic is aware of this, which is why he avoided that section of the OP. And he has been made aware of it previously when the thread was created under a slightly different title.)
Linear Mode
