A troublesome verse for the Calvinist

[John Mullally]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. . .

Its hard to respond directly to your purposefully hard to decipher wierd turn of phrase accusations. Please explain their meaning. It is going to come out eventually (Matthew 12:36) and its better to deal with things now (Matthew 5:25). Please make a point of being understandable and specific with your critiques in the future.

Here is a list of them just from this thread:

Your Accusation	Post
Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion..	79
Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion.	89
Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error.	91
Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error.	214
Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.	223
Your view of God is too human.	223
You cannot Biblically refute her explanation	226
Object without any Bibllical demonstration of error.	226

 

[Clare73]

Its hard to respond directly to your posts that include purposefully hard to decipher wierd turn of phrase accusations. Please explain their meaning. It is going to come out eventually (Matthew 12:36) - its better to deal with things now (Matthew 5:25). And make a point of being understandable and specific in the future.

Here is a list of them just from this thread:

Your Accusation	Post
Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion..	79
Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion.	89
Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error.	91
Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error.	214
Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.	223
Your view of God is too human.	223
You cannot Biblically refute her explanation	226
Object without any Bibllical demonstration of error.	226

That's a lot of work. . .

 

[John Mullally]

That's a lot of work. . .

If you are going to make accusations, you aught to understand them. If you can't explain your own accusations, stop polluting these forums with morons!

This is not a game. Given your many inflammatory and sarcastic posts on this thread, it seems you get your jollies from such.

 

[Clare73]

I earier said she misunderstood you - which should be obvious. I don't know BibleBeliever1611 and I don't speak for her like Mark Quayle occasionally speaks for you.

He is my unofficial "editor," and I very much appreciate his kind service to me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Its hard to respond directly to your purposefully hard to decipher wierd turn of phrase accusations. Please explain their meaning. It is going to come out eventually (Matthew 12:36) and its better to deal with things now (Matthew 5:25). Please make a point of being understandable and specific with your critiques in the future.

Here is a list of them just from this thread:

Your Accusation	Post
Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion..	79
Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion.	89
Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error.	91
Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error.	214
Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.	223
Your view of God is too human.	223
You cannot Biblically refute her explanation	226
Object without any Bibllical demonstration of error.	226

I was not closely following what Clare was saying, yet it wasn't hard, most of the time, even from one or two posts, when she had said that you had not demonstrated where or how she erred she was talking about you claiming she had erred. Frankly it became humorous to me, when she said that your claim that she had erred was an undemonstrated assertion, and you made it sound like she was just talking out of the blue.

You keep complaining about her curt answers —would you prefer that she ignored all you said and just repeated a few verses she uses differently from you to demonstrate that you are wrong, the way you, in spite of all the exegesis you are shown, instead of responding to the refutations, just keep repeating as if using a war hammer instead of a noodle, your one or two favorites that to you show that God isn't particular about whom he chooses.

I commend Clare for her diligence. I gave up a ways back, on debating with you. There's a scratch in your groove, and the needle keeps jumping back into the same place it was one 33rd of a minute or so ago.

 

[John Mullally]

I was not closely following what Clare was saying, yet it wasn't hard, most of the time, even from one or two posts, when she had said that you had not demonstrated where or how she erred she was talking about you claiming she had erred. Frankly it became humorous to me, when she said that your claim that she had erred was an undemonstrated assertion, and you made it sound like she was just talking out of the blue.

You keep complaining about her curt answers —would you prefer that she ignored all you said and just repeated a few verses she uses differently from you to demonstrate that you are wrong, the way you, in spite of all the exegesis you are shown, instead of responding to the refutations, just keep repeating as if using a war hammer instead of a noodle, your one or two favorites that to you show that God isn't particular about whom he chooses.

I commend Clare for her diligence. I gave up a ways back, on debating with you. There's a scratch in your groove, and the needle keeps jumping back into the same place it was one 33rd of a minute or so ago.

I am very willing to answer intelligible questions and pointed criticisms. It's the assymetrical attacks (the satire, disrespect, and unintelligible accusations on this and other threads) from alledged Christans that I don't know how to respond to. So I am trying here.

God is not particular about who He chooses, because He has left the choice to man. Jesus paid the ransom for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2;2). God's grace is on the table, just pick it up through faith (Mark 16:16, Act 2:38-39, Romans 10:9-10). The Holy Spirit draws - but He is commonly rejected (Acts 7:51) - so He is not irresitable. During Jesus healing ministry, he amplified the importance of faith - as the Father was always willing, but faith on the recipiant (or surrogate) was required. It is the same with salvation - God is willing, so receive through faith.

I am asking for a explanation of eight one-line unintelligible vague accusations that Clare has produced on this thread. They were presented disrepectfully as smack! It should not be hard to produce if she takes what she says seriously. It has been crickets so far. You approve that behaviour as you frequently have given likes to those attacks.

I repeat a few pithy, clear, and powerful verses that you term as a war hammer - I pick those because they render Calvinism a non-starter. Calvinism is fragile as it has no such verses - instead its supporters have to come up with long chains of reasoning on five different threads (TULIP) - with each thread easily disputed - its a house of cards. The main reason that Calvinism continues is due to their tenacity. They were far bigger in America 150 years ago - just read some Mark Twain - I like his "preforeordination" term.

I have no problem responding to your posts whether you ignore me or not.

All I know for certain is that predestination to glorification applies to the "faithful in Christ" as all the passages in Ephesians are directed to them. They are the ones labelled as being "in Christ". I don't see any persuasive argument that particular individuals are selected as "elect" from time immemorial. But even if that was the case, it does not impact God's promises. Here is renouned evangelist Greg Laurie (He lives in my area) preaching that the significance of Calvinism (true ve false) is minimal.

Per Mark 16:16 it appears that the "elect" elect themselves by choosing to believe and be baptized. Believing is a choice per John 3:19 as it is contigent on men choosing light over darkness - with God drawing and using his persuasion. Remember God desires all men be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 1:16-17), therefore God is working for all to be saved (but it is not entirely up to God) and faith is freely available - so have ears to hear! In addition, grace is universal as per 1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2, Christ died for all men. But again per Mark 16:16 Christ's ransom only avails those who believe and are baptized.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Its hard to respond directly to your purposefully hard to decipher wierd turn of phrase accusations. Please explain their meaning. It is going to come out eventually (Matthew 12:36) and its better to deal with things now (Matthew 5:25). Please make a point of being understandable and specific with your critiques in the future.

Here is a list of them just from this thread:

Your Accusation	Post
Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion..	79
Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion.	89
Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error.	91
Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error.	214
Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.	223
Your view of God is too human.	223
You cannot Biblically refute her explanation	226
Object without any Bibllical demonstration of error.	226

Here's some translations and exposition:

GodsGrace101 said:
"It doesn't mean what you believe it means." to which @Clare73 responded (#79), "Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion.." Here Clare is responding to God'sGrace101, and by "that assertion", she is referring to the claim that @GodsGrace101 had just made: that it doesn't mean what Clare believes it means. The rest of what Clare said is self-explanatory. Now what GodsGrace101 was referring to, I haven't researched; it's a shame how curt and unexpressive she was. Alas, if only she could have been more understandable and specific with her critique, this whole matter could have been avoided. But I hope this clears up your dismay and confusion.

GodsGrace101 said:
"I suggest you study it all on your very own. Nothing can convince you like your own brain." to which Clare said (#89): "Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion." I did a little research, and it turns out that Clare was talking to GodsGrace101 again, and not to you! No wonder you were confused! And true to form, she wrote a little more directly than apparently some of her opponents appreciate, in contrast with how GG101 had talked to her, as though GG was presenting a more reasonable suggestion than to explain herself, and as though Clare studying it on her own would naturally come to the same conclusion that GG had come to; thus no explanation on GG's part was necessary or to any purpose. I agree with you —Clare should never have accused GG of inability to demonstrate her assertion. She should have accused her of being lazy, or worse —wrong!

GodsGrace101 said:
To which Clare responded (#91): "Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error." After much puzzlement and conjecture, I researched a little further back to see what GG had swooned over, and it turns out that:
Clare73 said:
"She *(referring to herself in the 3rd person) is saying that divine foreknowledge (prognosis), as used in the NT, always refers to God knowing what he will do." Now, it goes without saying that the swoon was an altogether appropriate response in a debate forum, full of wit, reason and intellectual content, serving up a more convincing argument than mere denial. Yet, it seems Clare completely misunderstood GG's intent, and took GG's valid refutation *(the swoon) to fall short of a Biblical demonstration of the error in Clare's statement, that in the NT, 'foreknowledge' refers to God knowing what he will do.

John Mullally said:
"Those passages were translated into English by scholars who knew a lot more about the source language than you do. If the meaning of the source text was acctive like "decree" or something synonymous to it, those words would have been translated accordingly." which elicited the response from Clare (#214): "Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error." To be clear, this response WAS addressed to you. But as you indicated, it is obviously confusing. Clare should have mentioned exactly what error she had made that you were refuting, to include in her statement what the Bible has to say about it, and admitted to the error without reservation, thus demonstrating the error herself —nothing else would make sense to you. I'm thinking instead that she had made an assertion, subsequently refusing to admit that your claim to veracity of the English Translation needed no explanation as to relevance and so, needed no further engagement.

John Mullally said:
"I understand that translators have to balance producing translations that are easily understandable against capturing every nuance that can be gleened from the original text. Nothing in Post 215 supports how you twisted scripture in Post 19. Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation." And so Clare retorted (#223): "Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit." Here I admit to a certain amount of puzzlement myself. Seeing so many things on your part asserted without Biblical backing, trying to figure out what she was referring to, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony, and can't make up my mind. Maybe it was what you said, that she denied by stating the opposite:
John Mullally said:
"Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation. But Clare said (#223): "Foreknowledge, by definition, does not exclude causation when it comes to God." Maybe that statement made her think of the fact she mentions (#223), that as Luther said to Erasmus: "Your view of God is too human.", where Luther intended something along the lines of Erasmus thinking God was like Erasmus.

John Mullally said:
"I don't think that BibleBeliever1611 understood what Clare was saying. I think it was a knee-jerk reaction. Clare frequently answers with a wall of scripture references, with only a cursory explanation. Which is something I don't think many people like as it is difficult to respond to directly without getting into a "guessing game", and that generally does not go well. And if you ask for clarification - you can expect to hear something like "What do you think it means" - which generally does not go well either." And Clare responded (#226): "You cannot Biblically refute her explanation", which I take to be referring to an explanation she herself (again, here, in the 3rd person) had given, since it doesn't make much sense that you would want to refute what GG had said. I'm assuming the explanation she is referring to was whatever cursory one you were speaking of, because she follows it with (also #226): "Object without any Biblical demonstration of error." Of course, it is possible that she is referring to something she had claimed in the past, without having been refuted —it would be hard to say, if one is in the habit of taking statements out of context, in order to not have to deal with the unassailable assertions made in context.



*note by MQ in parenthesis

PS. This has been a lot of fun. Let's do this again real soon!

 

[John Mullally]

Here's some translations and exposition:

GodsGrace101 said:
"It doesn't mean what you believe it means." to which @Clare73 responded (#79), "Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion.." Here Clare is responding to God'sGrace101, and by "that assertion", she is referring to the claim that @GodsGrace101 had just made: that it doesn't mean what Clare believes it means. The rest of what Clare said is self-explanatory. Now what GodsGrace101 was referring to, I haven't researched; it's a shame how curt and unexpressive she was. Alas, if only she could have been more understandable and specific with her critique, this whole matter could have been avoided. But I hope this clears up your dismay and confusion.

GodsGrace101 said:
"I suggest you study it all on your very own. Nothing can convince you like your own brain." to which Clare said (#89): "Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion." I did a little research, and it turns out that Clare was talking to GodsGrace101 again, and not to you! No wonder you were confused! And true to form, she wrote a little more directly than apparently some of her opponents appreciate, in contrast with how GG101 had talked to her, as though GG was presenting a more reasonable suggestion than to explain herself, and as though Clare studying it on her own would naturally come to the same conclusion that GG had come to; thus no explanation on GG's part was necessary or to any purpose. I agree with you —Clare should never have accused GG of inability to demonstrate her assertion. She should have accused her of being lazy, or worse —wrong!

GodsGrace101 said:
To which Clare responded (#91): "Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error." After much puzzlement and conjecture, I researched a little further back to see what GG had swooned over, and it turns out that:
Clare73 said:
"She *(referring to herself in the 3rd person) is saying that divine foreknowledge (prognosis), as used in the NT, always refers to God knowing what he will do." Now, it goes without saying that the swoon was an altogether appropriate response in a debate forum, full of wit, reason and intellectual content, serving up a more convincing argument than mere denial. Yet, it seems Clare completely misunderstood GG's intent, and took GG's valid refutation *(the swoon) to fall short of a Biblical demonstration of the error in Clare's statement, that in the NT, 'foreknowledge' refers to God knowing what he will do.

John Mullally said:
"Those passages were translated into English by scholars who knew a lot more about the source language than you do. If the meaning of the source text was acctive like "decree" or something synonymous to it, those words would have been translated accordingly." which elicited the response from Clare (#214): "Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error." To be clear, this response WAS addressed to you. But as you indicated, it is obviously confusing. Clare should have mentioned exactly what error she had made that you were refuting, to include in her statement what the Bible has to say about it, and admitted to the error without reservation, thus demonstrating the error herself —nothing else would make sense to you. I'm thinking instead that she had made an assertion, subsequently refusing to admit that your claim to veracity of the English Translation needed no explanation as to relevance and so, needed no further engagement.

John Mullally said:
"I understand that translators have to balance producing translations that are easily understandable against capturing every nuance that can be gleened from the original text. Nothing in Post 215 supports how you twisted scripture in Post 19. Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation." And so Clare retorted (#223): "Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit." Here I admit to a certain amount of puzzlement myself. Seeing so many things on your part asserted without Biblical backing, trying to figure out what she was referring to, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony, and can't make up my mind. Maybe it was what you said, that she denied by stating the opposite:
John Mullally said:
"Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation. But Clare said (#223): "Foreknowledge, by definition, does not exclude causation when it comes to God." Maybe that statement made her think of the fact she mentions (#223), that as Luther said to Erasmus: "Your view of God is too human.", where Luther intended something along the lines of Erasmus thinking God was like Erasmus.

John Mullally said:
"I don't think that BibleBeliever1611 understood what Clare was saying. I think it was a knee-jerk reaction. Clare frequently answers with a wall of scripture references, with only a cursory explanation. Which is something I don't think many people like as it is difficult to respond to directly without getting into a "guessing game", and that generally does not go well. And if you ask for clarification - you can expect to hear something like "What do you think it means" - which generally does not go well either." And Clare responded (#226): "You cannot Biblically refute her explanation", which I take to be referring to an explanation she herself (again, here, in the 3rd person) had given, since it doesn't make much sense that you would want to refute what GG had said. I'm assuming the explanation she is referring to was whatever cursory one you were speaking of, because she follows it with (also #226): "Object without any Biblical demonstration of error." Of course, it is possible that she is referring to something she had claimed in the past, without having been refuted —it would be hard to say, if one is in the habit of taking statements out of context, in order to not have to deal with the unassailable assertions made in context.



*note by MQ in parenthesis

PS. This has been a lot of fun. Let's do this again real soon!

Thank you Mark.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with others. Clare in the future you should strive to be respectful, intelligible, and specific when criticizing or objecting. Avoid sarcasm and disrespect. You should not be here to get your jollies by dissing others - which is how it appears to me.

And please stop using alien phrases that no one else uses like "Biblical xxxx": No one understands what "Biblical demonstration", "Biblically understand", or "Biblical merit" mean. Being on the spectrum (its obvious) is not an excuse. Use common speech patterns: If someone says something you disagree with use quotes to identify it and briefly explain the problem. No one likes playing guessing games. Using common pat statements like "Methinks the ...." is not going to endear you to anyone.

I realize your initial response will probably be "who made those rules". Well, those are the types of rules that people who respect one another abide by. Pay day is coming (Matthew 12:36).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thank you Mark.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with others. Clare in the future you should strive to be respectful, intelligible, and specific when criticizing or objecting. Avoid sarcasm and disrespect. You should not be here to get your jollies by dissing others - which is how it appears to me.

And please stop using alien phrases that no one else uses like "Biblical xxxx": No one understands what "Biblical demonstration", "Biblically understand", or "Biblical merit" mean. Being on the spectrum (its obvious) is not an excuse. Use common speech patterns: If someone says something you disagree with use quotes to identify it and briefly explain the problem. No one likes playing guessing games. Using common pat statements like "Methinks the ...." is not going to endear you to anyone.

I realize your initial response will probably be "who made those rules". Well, those are the types of rules that people who respect one another abide by. Pay day is coming (Matthew 12:36).

John, thank you for your kindly response to my rather sarcastic post.

I did intend that you pick up on the fact that @Clare73 is not so hard to understand as you seemed to think. Also, I noticed, and I meant for you to notice, that you had not admonished @GodsGrace101 for doing the same thing you claimed Clare was doing. To be honest, Clare's directness is more polite than GG101's 'dismissal' non-answers, because although it may seem just as condescending, it does take the opponent seriously, which the 'dismissal' non-answer does not. (Just in case it is necessary for me to clue you in to what I am talking about, here is an obvious 'dismissal' —an uncaring 'flip of the hand', a "whatever" that young people lately use to dismiss someone or some subject they don't want to deal with— which is also a non-answer, I give you this sarcastic example: GodsGrace101 said: "I suggest you study it all on your very own. Nothing can convince you like your own brain."; this, given in lieu of answering Clare's question, or honoring her request.)

Sometimes when I expect a response back after my response, I will include certain details from past posts (say that 5 times real fast) just to make it easier for a reader to follow what is going on. That, however, is not requisite, and even you don't always do it. In looking into whatever you are talking about (other than where you actually quoted her) I had to search back into what you responded to, and often into what the person you were responding to, was responding to, etc etc. It is the nature of the format here on this site, and not simply indicative of any antagonism or disrespect of others on Clare's part. I am verbose, and "in many words there lacks not sin", er, uhm, "mistakes" —Clare is not. People often just phase me out, even if they are polite enough to not interrupt me with more immediate subject matter. I see their eyes glaze over when I am talking. But Clare— I commend Clare for her conciseness. She is not so hard to understand that it isn't worth looking into what she is talking about.

Granted that while a person may be forgiven for posting a few obscure, terse sentences, Clare may be in the habit of doing so more than GG101. I don't know as I haven't read as much of GG's posts as I have of Clare's. But if I am interested in what Clare is talking about, I haven't had any problem figuring out what she is saying.

 

[John Mullally]

I did intend that you pick up on the fact that @Clare73 is not so hard to understand as you seemed to think.

On many levels, she is not too hard to understand.

It's the methods she uses, that I have been harping on (being too terse, also reference Post 220 and Post 241). We all recognize when others are being systemically disrespectful.

It is frequently hard to respond to her arguments, not because the arguments are sound and well crafted, but because you would have to write an extremely long response to properly answer it - as her point(s) are generally terse but include a wall of text - so there are a lot of scriptures and it is guesswork trying to determine how she is using them. What would be better is if she would show exactly how she uses scripture and logic to make her argument - which is what I do. In that way the other person can counter by pointing out logic flaws, differences in scripture interprettation, or introduce other scriptures that confict with the argument.

And then whatever response you put out is commonly met with satire, inscrutible one liners (refer to post 241), pronouncement that you don't know what you are talking about, or some victory declaration (like QED).

 

[Mark Quayle]

On many levels, she is not too hard to understand.

It's the methods she uses, that I have been harping on (being too terse, also reference Post 220 and Post 241). We all recognize when others are being systemically disrespectful.

It is frequently hard to respond to her arguments, not because the arguments are sound and well crafted, but because you would have to write an extremely long response to properly answer it - as her point(s) are generally terse but include a wall of text - so there are a lot of scriptures and it is guesswork trying to determine how she is using them. What would be better is if she would show exactly how she uses scripture and logic to make her argument - which is what I do. In that way the other person can counter by pointing out logic flaws, differences in scripture interprettation, or introduce other scriptures that confict with the argument.

And then whatever response you put out is commonly met with satire, inscrutible one liners (refer to post 241), pronouncement that you don't know what you are talking about, or some victory declaration (like QED).

You may have a point. I, for one, only* have had a problem following her use of texts in threads on eschatology, which is definitely not my thing, but when I have, even then, put forth a bit of effort, I saw what she was saying. Granted, I come at Scripture from a similar POV as she does, so my mind will click on what she is thinking more easily than yours, but I still don't think she is doing anything wrong —at least on that account.
*(I take that back: On occasion I have not understood, and you may find me commenting or replying publicly to her; and at least once, for a long thread, we had a long discussion in private on a particular point.)

As for the things you take to be disrespectful, you will have to admit you have said disrespectful, even hateful, things yourself in your warfare against Calvinism. (And no, I'm not going to go look for an example.)

Also, concerning 'terse statements', to her they may well not be particularly terse, but merely concise. She doesn't always care to go back through a chain of posts from which to copy relevant details in order to reiterate "the argument thus far". I fear she suffers from some of the same problem I have, where once I begin such an endeavor, I want to do it right, or not do it at all —a lot of work, and a lot of words, and a lot more language that will be taken wrong, ad infinitum.

Another thing that happens, more often than I think we realize, is that the opponent doesn't seem to even have given any regard to what one has posted, if they even read the whole thing, and so one feels like, "What's the use?", and doesn't much care anymore to try to be convincing.

You also, like all of us, sometimes think the language of a Scripture reference to be so plain and obviously supportive of a point, that little or no explanation is needed. You have yet, to my knowledge, to provide an exegesis beyond that of "a plain reading" of 1 Timothy 2:4, which you continue to post without refutation of anyone's exegesis that differs in conclusion from your 'plain reading'.

Regardless, while your advice to her may be useful, as far as a means for her to be better understood or more convincing, in the end, she owes you nothing you don't owe her.

 

[John Mullally]

You also, like all of us, sometimes think the language of a Scripture reference to be so plain and obviously supportive of a point, that little or no explanation is needed. You have yet, to my knowledge, to provide an exegesis beyond that of "a plain reading" of 1 Timothy 2:4, which you continue to post without refutation of anyone's exegesis that differs in conclusion from your 'plain reading'.

Charles Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4 supports that God desiring all men, without exception, to be saved. He says it is unquestionable.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—”that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men.​

​

The quote is taken from the top of the third paragraph in this link: Charles H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4

 

[Mark Quayle]

Charles Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4 supports that God desiring all men, without exception, to be saved. He says it is unquestionable.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—”that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men.​

​

The quote is taken from the top of the third paragraph in this link: Charles H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4

Yes, I've heard that before. BTW, Spurgeon is good with words, but he is not my representative, nor my fearless leader. I like him, and I wonder what is the rest he says besides what you quoted.

So, no exegesis needed? What do you do with this, only one of several different takes on 1 Timothy 2:4? If "all" means absolutely every human that ever was or will exist, what does 'WANTS' mean, in reference to God wanting? God is not like us.

 

[Clare73]

Charles Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4 supports that God desiring all men, without exception, to be saved. He says it is unquestionable.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—”that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men.​

​

The quote is taken from the top of the third paragraph in this link: Charles H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4

What does he say about God choosing only some (1 Pe 1:2)?

BTW, in the light of Dt 29:29, the verses 1Pe 1:2 and 1Tim 2:4 are not in conflict.

 

[John Mullally]

What does he say about God choosing only some (1 Pe 1:2)?

BTW, in the light of Dt 29:29, the verses 1Pe 1:2 and 1Tim 2:4 are not in conflict.

I am not taking requests to investigate what Charles Spurgeon has to say about 1 Peter 1:2.

1 Peter 1:2. Note that foreknowledge does not mean foreordain or decree. God chooses (or elects) those He foreknows to be fit for the job.

One member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians explains: “We can see that this letter is addressed to specifically those of the faith who have been displaced. James starts his letter in a similar way, but addresses displaced Jews. In the early church, huge numbers of believers were ‘scattered’ abroad and displaced because of the persecution they faced for the faith. God did use this ‘scattering’ to help spread the word of gospel. Believers would read this introduction, self-identify as one of those who God has chosen to be obedient and covered in Christ’s blood (i.e. one of the elect), and would appreciate the blessing of grace and peace to them, and would continue to read the letter.”

Deuteronomy 29:29. The context of Deuteronomy 29:29 regards the judgments of God, in terms of the plagues and diseases (Deuteronomy 29:22), the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim (v.23), and the prophecy that God will do the same to Israel, for having forsaken their covenant with the Lord who led them out of Egypt. The context doesn’t indicate that the “secret things” refer to a Calvinistic election.

 

[John Mullally]

Yes, I've heard that before. BTW, Spurgeon is good with words, but he is not my representative, nor my fearless leader. I like him, and I wonder what is the rest he says besides what you quoted.

So, no exegesis needed? What do you do with this, only one of several different takes on 1 Timothy 2:4? If "all" means absolutely every human that ever was or will exist, what does 'WANTS' mean, in reference to God wanting? God is not like us.

Exegesis is not a specific ask and I don't like guessing games. A major purpose of the NT is to reveal God to us - and He is more than able to do that. 1 Timothy 2:4 also says that God desires us to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I find the section I quoted from Charles Spurgeon amuzing because he shows how fellow Calvinists were trying to change the meaning of the very clear text in 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean something else. Its looks like a time-honored tradition,

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—”that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

1 Peter 1:2. Note that foreknowledge does not mean foreordain or decree. God chooses (or elects) those He foreknows to be fit for the job.

Sounds like the JW —"those who are 'rightly disposed'", I think is the terminology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Exegesis is not a specific ask and I don't like guessing games. A major purpose of the NT is to reveal God to us - and He is more than able to do that. 1 Timothy 2:4 also says that God desires us to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I find the section I quoted from Charles Spurgeon amuzing because he shows how fellow Calvinists were trying to change the meaning of the very clear text in 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean something else. Its looks like a time-honored tradition,

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—”that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men.​

Yes, I can see that. You may find that among Calvinists and the Reformed there is a huge variety of ways of thought and expression, even belief. John Owen is probably my favorite, but not particularly for his expression of Calvinism/Reformed theology, but for his heart for the no foolishness pursuit of Christ.

I'm currently puzzling on an article I saw on another forum, (another site), by a dedicated Calvinist, who says things in such a way that at one point I could almost call him Arminian, but then inevitably goes into the Romans 8-style reference to depravity and inability. He, like many authors, says he doesn't care what other Calvinists and Reformed theologians come up with —he has to go with what Scripture says. I like that, very much.

 

[Clare73]

I am not taking requests to investigate what Charles Spurgeon has to say about 1 Peter 1:2.

Good for you, because I am not making any.

1 Peter 1:2. Note that foreknowledge does not mean foreordain or decree. God chooses (or elects) those He foreknows to be fit for the job.

Nor does it exclude his knowledge of what he has already ordained or decreed before the foundations of the world (Ac 15:18), making it foreknowledge (of them before they happen).

One member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians explains: “We can see that this letter is addressed to specifically those of the faith who have been displaced. James starts his letter in a similar way, but addresses displaced Jews. In the early church, huge numbers of believers were ‘scattered’ abroad and displaced because of the persecution they faced for the faith. God did use this ‘scattering’ to help spread the word of gospel. Believers would read this introduction, self-identify as one of those who God has chosen to be obedient and covered in Christ’s blood (i.e. one of the elect), and would appreciate the blessing of grace and peace to them, and would continue to read the letter.”

Deuteronomy 29:29. The context of Deuteronomy 29:29 regards the judgments of God, in terms of the plagues and diseases (Deuteronomy 29:22), the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim (v.23), and the prophecy that God will do the same to Israel, for having forsaken their covenant with the Lord who led them out of Egypt. The context doesn’t indicate that the “secret things” refer to a Calvinistic election.

Nor does it exclude them.

It corresponds well to Ro 11:33.

 

[John Mullally]

Good for you, because I am not making any.


Nor does it exclude his knowledge of what he has already ordained or decreed before the foundations of the world (Ac 15:18), making it foreknowledge (of them before they happen).



Nor does it exclude them.

It corresponds well to Ro 11:33.

Acts 15:18 says that God fulfills His word. Romans 11:33 points to God be unsearchable. Neither of these deals with God decreeing man's every action - which is what you and Calvin assert.

Your "Good for you, because I am not making any." is in response to my refusal to examine what Calvinist Charles Spurgeon has to say on 1 Peter 1:2. It is arrogant to demand others support an argument you know they disagree with.

28 Bible verses about Mockers