Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Happy Father's day. I remember our interaction on CF when you were a Calvinist - you were always respectful.Na he is on the other forum that banned me on Father’s Day for exposing the errors of their sacred father Calvin lol.
I’m so glad this forum allows freedom of speech and expressing one’s theology . It’s such a breath of fresh air. And I commend the moderators on this site . Touché
Thanks much appreciated brotherHappy Father's day. I remember our interaction on CF when you were a Calvinist - you were always respectful.
Fair's fair. Let's drop the noise here, and go to post #1498 which deals with the subject and not with who is being fair.
If 1 Timothy 2:1-6 does not include that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”, and that Christ “gave Himself a ransom for all”, then what is it saying? I have given you my arguments.
Those statements in verses 4 & 6 are not congruent with a God that decrees some to heaven and some to hell before they were ever born. To say that "all men" means "all types of men" does not fit the context as Paul was not contrasting Jew & Greek here like he does in Romans. To say that "all men" means just the "elect", then Paul is using the wrong term as all men are not elect.
I quoted 1 Timothy 2:1-6 earlier on this thread and the response I got indicates that the reader only got the part that we are to pray for all men, but did not pickup on reasons given in verses 4 & 6.
1 Timothy 2:1-6 is not like other references in which the Reformed typically claim "all" means "all the elect." The language there allows for the point that what he is saying by "ALL" is that both both Jew and Gentile are included; thus, God wants Jew and Gentile saved— not just Jew, but all men. God gave himself a ransom for more than just Jew, he is the ransom for Gentile as well.
The fact that Paul's main point here is not the contrast between Jew-alone vs both-Jew-and-Gentile does not mean it is not a constant theme in his writings and here also. I won't go into that more than to say that the text allows for it, and that is enough to show your proofs weak.
Does not Matthew 20:28, "to give his life as a ransom for many" make clear which meaning of "all" is intended in 1 Timothy 2:6; i.e., "all without distinction," rather than "all without exception". . .seein' as Paul got his gospel from Jesus n' all (Galatians 1:11-12).There is also another use I consider a valid possibility, for "ransom for all people": That "If there is anyone ransomed, Christ is the one who did it. None can escape or sidestep that principle. Thus 'all' are subject to it." I personally don't hold to this as applicable in this instance, as it seems to me out of place for the passage, but I will admit the possibility. And it could be Paul even means both those uses, by what he says.
Ha! Even apart from your subject at hand, what you say there demonstrates bad logic: Whether or not I can define what I believe, or even describe it, does not make it an unsound belief. We are all dependent on words for our communication. Our communication has no bearing on the truth of a thing. Yet here you demand a final count of meaning from what is hardly more than child's prattle. Have you not considered how little we know, and how self-assuming our words are, for example, when we ask something of God? It's not just that we know not what we ask, but that we know not if our words mean anything definite. We know in part, but our answers, when we see him face to fact, may be too often, that our questions were meaningless. Our answers are more likely to be very few, not because there are no answers for the question, but that the questions are near meaningless. One answer may suffice for a thousand questions, or even for all one's questions.You certainly claim to not know how God defines simple words like “sincere” and terms like “well meant.” Which in itself shows the desperate need to avoid my well meant offer of the gospel objection. Notice you’ve shared.
Can you really define what, from God's point of view, is well meant, or sincere, for him to do?Sadly this is going to require another medical dose of logic, logic which you don’t believe in. So I’m going to ask you another either/or.
Either you can define “well meant” and “sincere,” or you can’t. If you can’t then the objection stands, since regular human definitions are what we have to go on and I’ve long defined these words by the classical shared meaning.
Can you define that language or do you throw yourself on mystery’s sword and stop wasting my time.
Does not Matthew 20:28, "to give his life as a ransom for many" make clear which meaning of "all" is intended in 1 Timothy 2:6; i.e., "all without distinction," rather than "all without exception". . .seein' as Paul got his gospel from Jesus n' all (Galatians 1:11-12).
Yes, it's pretty plain you don't know what to tell me. After all, every passage that you say describes prevenient grace works for actual regeneration, too, and to add insult to injury, the 'results of regeneration' works better than your claim that those are acts of the fallen (unregenerate) human will. That's gotta be frustrating.You are using a common stereotypical Calvinist objection. Draw of the Father taking you to Jesus is forceful and overpowering, the loud knock at the door is something His sheep can hear, the soil has to be prepped before a farmer can plant.
If you cant get what those 3 analogies of Jesus mean I don't know what to tell you.
I need you to clarify your point regarding Hebrews 6, I`m not sure what we are doing there.
1 Timothy was written over 15 years after the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to the Gentiles which affirmed their status as believers without the need to follow almost all Jewish traditions, and about 8 years after the book of Romans. Unlike Romans, the book of Timothy makes no discussion between Jews and Greeks.1 Timothy 2:1-6 is not like other references in which the Reformed typically claim "all" means "all the elect." The language there allows for the point that what he is saying by "ALL" is that both both Jew and Gentile are included; thus, God wants Jew and Gentile saved— not just Jew, but all men. God gave himself a ransom for more than just Jew, he is the ransom for Gentile as well.
So you allow adding context to God's word that is no where present in the letter. And then you call my argument "weak". Wow!The fact that Paul's main point here is not the contrast between Jew-alone vs both-Jew-and-Gentile does not mean it is not a constant theme in his writings and here also. I won't go into that more than to say that the text allows for it, and that is enough to show your proofs weak.
Grasping at straws. Verse 4 & 6 could not be more plain.There is also another use I consider a valid possibility, for "ransom for all people": That "If there is anyone ransomed, Christ is the one who did it. None can escape or sidestep that principle. Thus 'all' are subject to it." I personally don't hold to this as applicable in this instance, as it seems to me out of place for the passage, but I will admit the possibility. And it could be Paul even means both those uses, by what he says.
Yes, it's pretty plain you don't know what to tell me. After all, every passage that you say describes prevenient grace works for actual regeneration, too, and to add insult to injury, the 'results of regeneration' works better than your claim that those are acts of the fallen (unregenerate) human will. That's gotta be frustrating.
I meant to write Hebrews 11:6. Must've gotten it wrong. "Without faith...", and I contend this is salvific faith, the kind that only the Spirit of God can generate, "...it is impossible to please God." Yet, you would have the faithless heart of flesh somehow genning up something worthy of God's respect. when Romans 8:8 says it cannot please God.
I like that very much! It does indeed help define ("crystalize", lol (I don't much like trendy or clichéd language)) the issue, though I don't think the fact that Matthew says it, bears evidence that Paul meant it, here. In the times I have studied the use of 1 Tim 2:1-6, I have seen several other, better (in my estimation), evidences that Paul would mean that when he wrote Timothy, such as what he says in verse 7, directly referring it back to what he had just finished saying in 4 and 6, or even, the fact that it is such a constant theme in his letters. But yes, all those evidences build on that meaning shown so clearly in Matthew 20:28.Does not Matthew 20:28, "to give his life as a ransom for many" make clear which meaning of "all" is intended in 1 Timothy 2:6; i.e., "all without distinction," rather than "all without exception". . .seein' as Paul got his gospel from Jesus n' all (Galatians 1:11-12).
Not according to Jesus in John 3:3-8.You are debating me like a wounded swordsman. Prevenient grace is similar to regeneration except that it isn't one because you must repent to get a real regeneration.
I already addressed Hebrews 11:6. Moot because faith cometh by hearing. Moot because faith is given to prep the soil. Moot because merely understanding the reality of the cross does not save you.
I dunno what you mean by worthy of Gods respect. Do you think you're His hero just because you believe in Jesus? Surely that is a typo.
1 Timothy was written over 15 years after the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to the Gentiles which affirmed their status as believers without the need to follow almost all Jewish traditions, and about 8 years after the book of Romans. Unlike Romans, the book of Timothy makes no discussion between Jews and Greeks.
Bad logic, my man.So you allow adding context to God's word that is no where present in the letter. And then you call my argument "weak". Wow!
Paul refers to "all men" in verses 1, 4, and 6 in 1 Timothy 2:1-6. The reading from verse 2 amplifies that the "all men" in verse 1 is "all men without exception". And if verse 1 is "all men without exception", so is verse 4 & 6.
Grasping at straws. Verse 4 & 6 could not be more plain.
It isn't one? One what? And again, how does one repent without one's will (mind of flesh) regenerated?You are debating me like a wounded swordsman. Prevenient grace is similar to regeneration except that it isn't one because you must repent to get a real regeneration.
I already addressed Hebrews 11:6. Moot because faith cometh by hearing. Moot because faith is given to prep the soil. Moot because merely understanding the reality of the cross does not save you.
My contention is that we are incapable of being worthy of respect by God. How did you get that so wrong?I dunno what you mean by worthy of Gods respect. Do you think you're His hero just because you believe in Jesus? Surely that is a typo.
1 Timothy 2:1-6 is not like other references in which the Reformed typically claim "all" means "all the elect." The language there allows for the point that what he is saying by "ALL" is that both both Jew and Gentile are included; thus, God wants Jew and Gentile saved— not just Jew, but all men. God gave himself a ransom for more than just Jew, he is the ransom for Gentile as well.
1 Timothy was written over 15 years after the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to the Gentiles which affirmed their status as believers without the need to follow almost all Jewish traditions, and about 8 years after the book of Romans. Unlike Romans, the book of Timothy makes no discussion between Jews and Greeks.
I was making a case for the fact that your argument is not supported in the text. The differences between Jew & Greek believers was resolved in principle long before this – although Judaizers remained a problem. Paul does not address the differences between Jew & Greek anywhere in the 1 Timothy. The fact that he states that he is appointed as Apostle to Gentiles in verse 7 is referring to his credentials – which he reiterates in many of his letters. Peter was spoken of as being the Apostle to the Gentiles in Acts 15 – fifteen years previous. The chief Apostle to the Jews, affirms Paul’s ministry in Acts 15 and in 2 Peter 3:14-16.How does that relate? Do you suppose the novelty of Paul's appointment as Apostle to the Gentiles was finally wearing off by that time or something, so that it would not have been on his mind?
I assumed that if you had a reasonable argument you would have presented it by now. That's usually how it works. Although some people hold back hoping their opponent will lose interest or slip up.Bad logic, my man.
A. You seem to assume I had no further add-able comments, simply because I added none. But there are several reasons to believe Paul means "without distinction" (referring to the Jew vs Gentile matter) rather than "without exception". Look for example to verse 7, and see how Paul directly relates his appointment as "Apostle to the Gentiles" to what he had just been saying.
B. You do not show how, if it is "all men without exception" in verse 1, that it is therefore also in verse 4 and 6. Nor do you even establish, but only assert that it is "without exception" in verse 1. (Don't worry, I agree that it probably is, but you didn't show it.)
It doesn't relate at all.How does that relate? Do you suppose the novelty of Paul's appointment as Apostle to the Gentiles was finally wearing off by that time or something, so that it would not have been on his mind?
Bad logic, my man.
A. You seem to assume I had no further add-able comments, simply because I added none. But there are several reasons to believe Paul means "without distinction" (referring to the Jew vs Gentile matter) rather than "without exception". Look for example to verse 7, and see how Paul directly relates his appointment as "Apostle to the Gentiles" to what he had just been saying.
B. You do not show how, if it is "all men without exception" in verse 1, that it is therefore also in verse 4 and 6. Nor do you even establish, but only assert that it is "without exception" in verse 1. (Don't worry, I agree that it probably is, but you didn't show it.)
Hardly, John. I have been purposefully treating you differently from such as @Cormack , because I considered you generally more humble, mannerly and less antagonistic. I thought it was plain in my answer that there is more to say, but that I need not say it, since all I have to do, is to show that your proofs do not, shall we say, demonstrate that "all" can reasonably mean only what you take it to mean.
The Scriptures which I hold to present no universal salvation--narrow is the way and few there are that find it.The Arminian Prevenient grace position which I hold to dictates that Universal salvation is available but not Universally accepted and applied.
It isn't one? One what? And again, how does one repent without one's will (mind of flesh) regenerated?
But perhaps, since that isn't the first time you fail to answer Romans 8, I should just have said, "Bare assertion".
You asked me to explain. So I explained why it was brought up.
My contention is that we are incapable of being worthy of respect by God. How did you get that so wrong?
I was saying that you seem to hold to some self-contradictory claim, that though we are possessed of a heart of flesh, at enmity with God and unable to please him, having no interest in the things of God, we, (somehow), impress(?) him, with real knowledge of him and real faith and even the ability to repent.
The NT disagrees with you in Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, because the unregenerate man does not have the Holy Spirit.Unregenerated people believe in God and have a conscience. You don't have to be saved to repent.
You take Calvinism's favorite verse out of context. Romans 8 is post-salvation so I dunno what you think I`m supposed to say about it. The rest of your statement seems ad hominem to me.
The Scriptures which I hold to present no universal salvation--narrow is the way and few there are that find it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?