Acts 18:4

[FreeGrace2]

Mike wife?

No problem. The corrected post says "mile wise".

 

[FreeGrace2]

Apparently the term "might" now means "does", and the subjunctive can't mean anything else other than intent.

It would be greatly appreciated if a verse or passage were included. For context. I have no idea where you're coming from or going to here.

Ultimately, there're all kinds of places where all the term "all" does not mean without exception.

Of course not. Duh. But the context for Heb 2:9 is what precedes, not what follows.

As for the limited scope of Jesus' death and the gospel ...

I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:15, 11, 10

In that CONTEXT, Jesus notes that there are "the sheep", for which He would die, there's "His sheep", which are His, there are "other sheep" that are also His, and there are those that are "not of MY sheep". Nothing about "not sheep", as Calvinists frequently assume.

That I might by any means save some 1 Cor 9:22

What does this verse teach?

Rom 5:15 the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflowed to the many

Check the word for "many". It's 'polloi', meaning "the masses".

 

[FreeGrace2]

Fixed.

Well, sort of. "mile wise"?

 

[Hammster]

It is most certainly implied.



Yes it is. If it was the case that he was not encouraging such hope to put into practise by preaching this message to such men then his heart's desire was vacuous.



Moses words were written to Israelites. The blessings and the curses are in chapter 28 and Moses continues in the same vein in chapter 30.

You have not proved your restriction on the addressees of Moses words.

Yes, Moses' words were to Israelites. Paul the Apostle explains who the true Israelites were in chapter 9. That's a pretty important point.

 

[Hammster]

Your own statement from post #44:
"Just about everything you post concerning Calvinism is incorrect."

Sounds to me that it should quite easy to find errors of mine, since "just about everything" I post is incorrect.

Again, your dodging is very apparent. If your charge were true, you'd have been able to find any number of errors in nearly every post of mine.

Rather, we all know that your charge is untrue and that there aren't any errors regarding Calvinism in my posts.

Otherwise, you'd have posted a few.

btw, since there is no claimed desire to prove your charges, why even bother throwing them out?

If one is not ready and willing to prove their claim, they shouldn't make one.

Your opinion has been noted.

 

[Hammster]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Your theology has NO verses that SAY what you believe and claim.

btw, the Bible is full of single verses. So what? There ARE verses that actually SAY what I believe, UNLIKE your view.

And I've exegeted the context for the verses I've given plenty of times, so your claim is erroneous again. And no one has ever refuted my exegesis.

{hint} disagreement or rejection does not equal refutation.

Here's an example of a straw man. Claiming that there's no scriptural support from Calvinism is either a flat out lie, or complete ignorance. You may disagree with the scriptural support (like I disagree with your thin support for FGism), but it's dishonest to say that there is none.

Read the Camons of Dordt, LBCF or the WCF. Plenty of scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your opinion has been noted.

Great! A transparent admission that there are no posts of mine that incorrectly depict Calvinism.

But we all knew that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Here's an example of a straw man. Claiming that there's no scriptural support from Calvinism is either a flat out lie, or complete ignorance. You may disagree with the scriptural support (like I disagree with your thin support for FGism), but it's dishonest to say that there is none.

Let me repeat: there is NO Scripture that SAYS what RT claims. None.

I've asked repeatedly for Scripture that does SAY what RT claims, but no one has yet provided any. So, where's the lie?

Read the Camons of Dordt, LBCF or the WCF. Plenty of scripture.

Why would I read the opinions of men? Yes, they all quote Scripture, just as all the Calvinists here at CF. But, just like those here on CF, none of the Scriptures quoted in those commentaries actually SAYS what RT claims.

But, basically, seems your view is that these commentaries contain verses that do say what RT claims. But you haven't quoted any such verses. Haven't you read these commentaries yet?

It's rather odd that your view of my Scriptural support is "thin", yet, there is ZERO support for RT. I'd say, by those stats, my support is way FATTER than your support.

I'll convert to Calvinism the very minute I read a verse that SAYS that Christ didn't die for everyone or that He died only for the elect. {any wording will suffice, as long as the message clearly STATES that}

Or that God chooses who will believe.

Those 2 issues are huge with me. These are foundational points for Calvinism, yet Scripture NEVER even suggests either one. Not even close. I only need 1 verse for each point. That's all.

But, I'm more than willing to convert to RT when I find verses that clearly communicate those 2 ideas.

 

[Hammster]

Great! A transparent admission that there are no posts of mine that incorrectly depict Calvinism.

But we all knew that.

You sure missed the mark on that one.

 

[Hammster]

Let me repeat: there is NO Scripture that SAYS what RT claims. None.

I've asked repeatedly for Scripture that does SAY what RT claims, but no one has yet provided any. So, where's the lie?


Why would I read the opinions of men? Yes, they all quote Scripture, just as all the Calvinists here at CF. But, just like those here on CF, none of the Scriptures quoted in those commentaries actually SAYS what RT claims.

But, basically, seems your view is that these commentaries contain verses that do say what RT claims. But you haven't quoted any such verses. Haven't you read these commentaries yet?

It's rather odd that your view of my Scriptural support is "thin", yet, there is ZERO support for RT. I'd say, by those stats, my support is way FATTER than your support.

I'll convert to Calvinism the very minute I read a verse that SAYS that Christ didn't die for everyone or that He died only for the elect. {any wording will suffice, as long as the message clearly STATES that}

Or that God chooses who will believe.

Those 2 issues are huge with me. These are foundational points for Calvinism, yet Scripture NEVER even suggests either one. Not even close. I only need 1 verse for each point. That's all.

But, I'm more than willing to convert to RT when I find verses that clearly communicate those 2 ideas.

It's been given. So your claim is without merit.

 

[janxharris]

Yes, Moses' words were to Israelites. Paul the Apostle explains who the true Israelites were in chapter 9. That's a pretty important point.

Scripture is clear that no one is excluded from becoming adopted as a son.
Since Moses spoke to all the Israelites, then Paul's citation is to all of them too.

 

[Hammster]

Scripture is clear that no one is excluded from becoming adopted as a son.
Since Moses spoke to all the Israelites, then Paul's citation is to all of them too.

Unbelievers are excluded.

 

[janxharris]

Unbelievers are excluded.

No, Calvinism has it that one is not elected/reprobated because of foreseen faith/disbelief, but through God's choice. Unconditional choice.

 

[Hammster]

No, Calvinism has it that one is not elected/reprobated because of foreseen faith/disbelief, but through God's choice. Unconditional choice.

Unbelievers are not adopted. Therefore, scripture is clear that some are excluded from adoptions.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You sure missed the mark on that one.

Yeah, sure.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's been given. So your claim is without merit.

Lots has been given. But NONE of them SAY what RT claims. ZERO.

What passage teaches that Christ died ONLY for the elect?

What passage teaches that God chooses who will believe?

None do. That's a fact. RT is a theology by inference, which is the only defense it has. Which is no defense.

These 2 points are the crux of RT and it can't find any verses or passages that teach either point.

 

[Hammster]

Lots has been given. But NONE of them SAY what RT claims. ZERO.

What passage teaches that Christ died ONLY for the elect?

What passage teaches that God chooses who will believe?

None do. That's a fact. RT is a theology by inference, which is the only defense it has. Which is no defense.

These 2 points are the crux of RT and it can't find any verses or passages that teach either point.

They all say what "RT" says they say. You just disagree to the point where you dismiss instead of engage. My our theology leaves it's followers unable to see the big picture of passages, and has reduced itself to only being able to understand single verses without context. That's shallow. And until you're willing to jump into the theologically rich deep end of Calvinism, you'll never even try to understand.

 

[janxharris]

Acts 18:4
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
What was Paul trying to persuade the Jews and Greeks of?
And how does this comport with reformed theology which claims that Christ didn't die for everyone?
Yet, Paul tried to persuade everyone.
It is clear that Paul believed that Christ died for everyone and the gospel was good news for everyone.
There is no other way to understand Acts 18:4.

Paul would have quoted Moses' words which were specifically addressed to them in Deuteronomy 30:11-14

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Unconditional election/limited atonement contradicts Moses' words. Paul's 'heart's desire' for his kinsmen's salvation together with the remedy (Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes - Romans 10:3-4) renders unconditional election/limited atonement untenable.

 

[heymikey80]

It would be greatly appreciated if a verse or passage were included. For context. I have no idea where you're coming from or going to here.

You cited it. I quoted it

Of course not. Duh. But the context for Heb 2:9 is what precedes, not what follows.

It is in the verse itself. As well as before and after.

In that CONTEXT, Jesus notes that there are "the sheep", for which He would die, there's "His sheep", which are His, there are "other sheep" that are also His, and there are those that are "not of MY sheep". Nothing about "not sheep", as Calvinists frequently assume.

So? They are all His sheep. And it is pretty clear therere those that are not His sheep.

What does this verse teach?

Even Paul didn't expect all.

Check the word for "many". It's 'polloi', meaning "the masses".

Plenty of people. Not all.

 

[janxharris]

So? They are all His sheep. And it is pretty clear therere those that are not His sheep.

Why does Jesus continue to preach to those he identifies as not his sheep?

John 10:37,38
Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

So Jesus is saying, 'You are not my sheep - I won't die for you - but, even so, believe the miracles that I perform'?
What for?

Jesus was clear that nobody is excluded:
v.9 I am the gate; anyone who enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out and find pasture.