"All"

[Jon_]

Thats the Greek All means all not just Christians, dang i could be a good Weslyan, to bad i think He got it wrong.

You have to look at context, my Wesleyan friend.

If I say that everyone has to pay taxes, I do not mean that every living soul has to pay taxes. I mean that everyone who is obligated to pay taxes must pay them.

Another example:

We all went to the ice cream parlor after the baseball game. Well, who is all here? It is we. Who are we? Context defines it. Many Scriptures follow this use of all, such as 2 Peter 3:9, which is one of the most often misquoted Scripture proofs for Wesleyans:

(2 Peter 3:9 KJV) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
​

"The Lord is longsuffering to us-ward." Us here does not mean all men, instead it means all beloved, which we know from context. See v. 8:

(2 Peter 3:8 KJV) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
​

Beloved is a synonym for believers. 2 Peter 3:9 does not talk about God's desire for all men to come to repentence, it talks God's desire that all the beloved should not perish. This verse affirms eternal security.

This is just one of many examples where "all," "us," or "we," needs to be considered in context. All rarely means all in Scripture.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Antman_05]

But you can not say that God doesn't command all to be Saved, otherwise those who weren't commanded could say on Jugement Day i wasn't commanded so it didn't apply for me, and God would have to let them in.

 

[Antman_05]

I'll have to debate another day i got work Cya you all God Bless.

 

[frumanchu]

But you can not say that God doesn't command all to be Saved, otherwise those who weren't commanded could say on Jugement Day i wasn't commanded so it didn't apply for me, and God would have to let them in.

Nobody is saying that all men individually and without exception are commanded to believe. But the command to obey does not necessarily imply the ability or willingness to obey. This was at the core of the dispute between Pelagius and Augustine.

Have a great day, antman!

 

[Jon_]

But you can not say that God doesn't command all to be Saved, otherwise those who weren't commanded could say on Jugement Day i wasn't commanded so it didn't apply for me, and God would have to let them in.

Again, I think this is largely a semantical argument. God requires perfection. His righteousness cannot permit him anything else. The only source of perfection by which we have access is Jesus Christ. This is why we are required to accept Christ.

We're required to accept Christ because it is the only way that we can be perfect. If Pelagius was correct and we were capable of being perfectly righteous (perfect), then we would not need Christ at all. But because the fall has totally depraved man and rendered him incapable of any inherent righteousness, we must receive Christ in order to receive atonement.

The requirement of perfection applies to all men. Anyone who is not perfect on Judgment Day will be judged. That God chooses only some to renew to repentence in Christ is to his glory. God has appointed men to their own unbelief, even this so that he might receive glory.

[. . .] for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed (1 Peter 2:8 NASB).

Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory (Rev. 16:9 NASB).
​

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Lockheed]

Again, I think this is largely a semantical argument. God requires perfection. His righteousness cannot permit him anything else. The only source of perfection by which we have access is Jesus Christ. This is why we are required to accept Christ.

Right... this isn't about God commanding people to "be saved" but to "be righteous". While faith in Christ is the only means we obtain the perfect righteousness required to be saved, God commands men to acknowledge Him as creator and worship Him, Christ's coming was to save those who would not.

 

[Jon_]

Right... this isn't about God commanding people to "be saved" but to "be righteous". While faith in Christ is the only means we obtain the perfect righteousness required to be saved, God commands men to acknowledge Him as creator and worship Him, Christ's coming was to save those who would not.

Precisely.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Antman_05]

Well people i have read over these posts a few times, and i don't really have any come back. that Romans one was the best one was like the nail in the coffvin.

 

[rnmomof7]

Is it possible for a Calvinist to believe that "salvation is available to every individual" if the meaning is clarified the right way? Or do you think that that is definitely not a Calvinist statement.

God will not refuse any that come to Him.

The Gospel is to be universally available to men .

The question is who will 'choose" to come


The problem with Arminian theology from my stand point is that it implies that man is somehow worthy of anything but damnation and so God owes him an opportunity .

 

[TSIBHOD]

The problem with Arminian theology from my stand point is that it implies that man is somehow worthy of anything but damnation and so God owes him an opportunity.

I won't argue this, but I want to clarify that an Arminian would probably imply not that God owes everyone an opportunity, but that He simply wants to give everyone an opportunity. They think that giving everyone an opportunity is more in line with what we know about God's nature.

But like I said, this is not the place for me to argue, so what I say is just to hopefully prevent any misunderstanding of the other side.

 

[Lockheed]

God will not refuse any that come to Him.

"No one seeks for God."

The Gospel is to be universally available to men.

"...we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."

The question is who will 'choose" to come...

"There is none righteous, no not one."

The problem with Arminian theology from my stand point is that it implies that man is somehow worthy of anything but damnation and so God owes him an opportunity .

Yup.

 

[rnmomof7]

"No one seeks for God."



"...we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."



"There is none righteous, no not one."



Yup.

Exactly

 

[Jon_]

I won't argue this, but I want to clarify that an Arminian would probably imply not that God owes everyone an opportunity, but that He simply wants to give everyone an opportunity. They think that giving everyone an opportunity is more in line with what we know about God's nature.

But like I said, this is not the place for me to argue, so what I say is just to hopefully prevent any misunderstanding of the other side.

It is impossible for God to give man an "opportunity." Opportunity implies chance, it implies that there are multiple possible outcomes. God has already foreordained everything. He doesn't give chances, he gives mercy and he gives punishment, each according to his good and pleasing will.

Thanks for clarifying the faulty reasoning of the Arminian perspective!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[rnmomof7]

I won't argue this, but I want to clarify that an Arminian would probably imply not that God owes everyone an opportunity, but that He simply wants to give everyone an opportunity. They think that giving everyone an opportunity is more in line with what we know about God's nature.

Is there a reason why God must adhere to mans idea of 'fair" Did God give Adam and Eve another chance? the builders of babble another shot? the residents of Sodom ? Those killed in the flood?

When God ordered israel into to take the land, did he tell them to try to convert them or to slay them?

Why would we assume that the righteousness of God can not be so offended that destruction is not His choice?
I would think that the justice of God demands it, only His mercy spares some that deserve that fate .


God is so offended by man that it is a miracle that He spares any I think




Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.


Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.


Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.


Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

 

[TSIBHOD]

Is there a reason why God must adhere to mans idea of 'fair"

I'm not going to argue with you here. It's not the place for it. But I will say that I never used the word "fair" in the post you quoted. An Arminian doesn't (or at least he doesn't have to) think that God must give everyone the opportunity of salvation in order to be "fair"; the Arminian can just think that God wants to give everyone the opportunity because that is how He works and because that is His nature. Okay? It's not that "God must adhere to man's idea," but that God wants to.

Now, you may not think that it is God's nature to offer everyone the opportunity. I'm not arguing that here. But I do wish that all of you would quit spreading misinformation about Arminians. I'm not even an Arminian myself, but I don't like to see them mischaracterized.

 

[rnmomof7]

I'm not going to argue with you here. It's not the place for it. But I will say that I never used the word "fair" in the post you quoted. An Arminian doesn't (or at least he doesn't have to) think that God must give everyone the opportunity of salvation in order to be "fair"; the Arminian can just think that God wants to give everyone the opportunity because that is how He works and because that is His nature. Okay? It's not that "God must adhere to man's idea," but that God wants to.

Now, you may not think that it is God's nature to offer everyone the opportunity. I'm not arguing that here. But I do wish that all of you would quit spreading misinformation about Arminians. I'm not even an Arminian myself, but I don't like to see them mischaracterized.

Can you tell us why God would feel constrained to offer a second chance to men ? Why would he want to ?

 

[TSIBHOD]

Can you tell us why God would feel constrained to offer a second chance to men ? Why would he want to ?

Why does he want to offer a second chance even to the elect?

 

[Lockheed]

Why does he want to offer a second chance even to the elect?

He doesn't offer chances, He saves sinners.

 

[TSIBHOD]

He doesn't offer chances, He saves sinners.

I don't suppose that He could do both....

 

[Lockheed]

I don't suppose that He could do both....

What we suppose is unimportant, what the Bible says is.

Christ did not come to "give a chance" but "to save sinners". Christ's sacrifice doesn't make people saveable if only they'll do x, y or z but it actually affects salvation for those whom the Father gives to the Son.

We all had our 'chance' in Adam, and through him we are all under condemnation. Our 'chance' is already done for us we are "in sin from birth" and so show that Adam rightly represented us.

Thus God saves whom God wills because He is God.