Why do other Christians hate Calvinist so much?

[His_disciple3]

All DOES mean "all" and world DOES mean "world".

But the fact is, "all" has more than one definition, and "world" has around 10 definitions.

Are you ignorant of this fact? It seems the burden of proof is on you to prove that "all" and "world" only has one definition, when the Greek concordance proves the opposite. It seems the person who denies these facts is either ignorant or purposely ignoring it.

Who is more deceptive and guilty of twisting the meaning of words? The person who insists that these words have less definitions than they actually have, or the person who acknowledges the truth that they have several definitions according to the Greek dictionary?

see post #332, the whole world in 1 john would lump them all together, man there I go again assuming the "ALL" Means "ALL", i just realized something, it is hard to explain God to an atheist, for you have to reference scriptures in your discussion, and they take no stock in scriptures, How can I ever explain grace by faith when calvinist take no stock in faith. or the God given ability to use that faith given to every man. man there I go again assumming "every" means "every" when will I ever learn. I think we are suppose to use scriptures to prove our doctrine not use our doctrine to prove scriptures. or should I say line our doctrines up with scriptures not lines scriptures up to our doctrine, how do we know that gentiles were in the elect, I mean after all didn't Jesus just come for the House of Israel, then when God blinded them so that we the wild olive branch could be grafted in, You think that God used His foreknowledge to know that some gentiles would be allowed in, no way that would put another black eye with a round house right on the calvinist, wait I can't go there for that would mean that when the bible said that He came for the house of Israel, then gentiles were in the elect before time begin, then that would mean that Jesus came for the house of Israel wouldn't mean what that said either, I just don't understand anymore is scripture right or John calvin, I guess that is the million dollar question now ain't! then wait lets throw joseph smith in there also I mean after all John calvin just had His interpretation of scripture and Joseph smith had the golden plates shown by the angel. doesn't the bible say it is not for a private interpretation, oh what is the use that can't mean what is says either!

 

[Skala]

His_discple, you're not fond of reading and responding to arguments are you?

I think your favorite kind of animal is red herring!

 

[Robs07M6S]

I have heard the word red herring used a lot around here and didnt know what it was so I looked it up and this is what I found........

 

[Hammster]

see post #332, the whole world in 1 john would lump them all together, man there I go again assuming the "ALL" Means "ALL", i just realized something, it is hard to explain God to an atheist, for you have to reference scriptures in your arguement, and they take no stock in scriptures, How can I ever explain grace by faith when calvinist take no stock in faith. or the God given ability to use that faith given to every man. man there I go again assumming "every" means "every" when will I ever learn. I think we are suppose to use scriptures to prove our doctrine not use our doctrine to prove scriptures. or should I say line our doctrines up with scriptures not lines scriptures up to our doctrine, how do we know that gentiles were in the elect, I mean after all didn't Jesus just come for the House of Israel, then when God blinded them so that we the wild olive branch could be grafted in, You think that God used His foreknowledge to know that some gentiles would be allowed in, no way that would put another black with a round house right on the calvinist, wait I can't go there for that would mean that when the bible said that He came for the house of Israel, then gentiles were in the elect before time begin, then that would mean that Jesus came for the house of Israel wouldn't mean what that said either, I just don't understand anymore is scripture right or John calvin, I guess that is the million dollar question now ain't!

Why do you go on these strawman rants when you are backed into a corner? Are you really so scared of facing actual reformed doctrines that you must try to ridicule us and make false accusations?

 

[Skala]

Pas translated into English as "all"
Pas - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version

1 individually
1a each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2 collectively
2a some of all types

Kosmos translated into English as "world"
Kosmos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

1 an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3 the world, the universe
4 the circle of the earth, the earth
5 the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6 the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7 world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
8 the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
9 any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
10 the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

His_disciple, repeat after me:

"all" and "world" have more than one definition
"all" and "world" have more than one definition
"all" and "world" have more than one definition
"all" and "world" have more than one definition
"all" and "world" have more than one definition

Repeat that until it sticks in your brain brother

 

[Skala]

I have heard the word red herring used a lot around here and didnt know what it was so I looked it up and this is what I found........

Exactly brother. Logically speaking, a red herring is a logical fallacy in which you attempt to distract the audience by taking the conversation into another direction from the original topic.

This is a debate tactic used so that it looks like you answered a question and it looks like you formulated a reply, but you actually didn't.

His_disciple does it all the time..

More info here
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

 

[His_disciple3]

Did he die for the stars? Rocks? Pulsars?

you know you may have just stumbled on one of those mysteries the bible speaks of ? what do you think, you think God loved that part of His creation also, I mean didn't genesis say that when He had created them He saw it was Good!! it also said to go preach to every creature, Billy Graham said he preached to aligators down in Florida, woops there I go again assuming every means "EVERY"

 

[Hammster]

you know you may have just stumbled on one of those mysteries the bible speaks of ? what do you think, you think God loved that part of His creation also, I mean didn't genesis say that when He had created them He saw it was Good!! it also said to go preach to every creature, Billy Graham said he preached to aligators down in Florida, woops there I go again assuming every means "EVERY"

Let's run with that (hopefully without the snide remarks). In what manner do you see Christ dying for the whole world?

 

[DeaconDean]

I understand.

I don't think you do.

Because if somebody would do the same thing to you, I would stand by you also.

I know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but that has not stopped us from having a meeting of minds.

I don't think you do understand.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[His_disciple3]

Exactly brother. Logically speaking, a red herring is a logical fallacy in which you attempt to distract the audience by taking the conversation into another direction from the original topic.

This is a debate tactic used so that it looks like you answered a question and it looks like you formulated a reply, but you actually didn't.

His_disciple does it all the time..

More info here
Fallacy: Red Herring

so again I refer to scriptures and you refer to some website and man's interpretation of those scriptures, and I am the one trying to distract the audience, kool. hey Skala with all your great knowlegde on grace and I believe this is the second time you used the word "LOGICALLY" to reason out scriptures, could you explain to the audience "LOGICALLY" why it is that God Loves you, Could you explain "LOGICALLY" to the Audience the Trinity. Could You explain "LOGICALLY" why God could create mankind when He knew they would just turn against Him, Could you explain to the Audience "LOGICALLY how A man borned lame can Jump up and walk and leap and praise God and Could you explain "LOGICALLY" how "LOGICALLY" really means "LOGICALLY" cause I haven't seen too many words to you that mean what they say! let me spell out my point: there is nothing "LOGICALLY" about the great supernatural God That I serve, and this may be your problem trying to LOGICALLY figure out how God works or thinks! you want me to study red herring , here want you try studying hebrews 11, wait I shouldn't have been so hard on you, I give you something a little more easy to explain "LOGICALLY" to the audience. maybe you could learn something also :


Isaiah 55:8-9
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
KJV

 

[DeaconDean]

Job?

If you are speaking of Job, the man God allowed to be tried by Satan, was he not a Hebrew by birth?

"And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron." -Gen. 46:13 (KJV)

Job, lived after the flood, but before the giving of the Law.

Was not Issachar born of Leah, wife of Jacob? -Gen. 35:23 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think that you missed Dean's point. He wasn't judging them eternally he was making the point that as far as the physical outward sight they were outside of the people of God. Yet God used them for His glory and the good of His people. We also are not told whether they worshipped many god's one of which was the Hebrew God. We do know that they had kind intentions toward the Hebrew people and that is about it. We must notice that not one of them is said to have been circuncised and became a Jew.

Thank you, somebody understood the point I was making.

Thank you brother, thank you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Skala]

so again I refer to scriptures and you refer to some website and man's interpretation of those scriptures, and I am the one trying to distract the audience, kool. hey Skala with all your great knowlegde on grace and I believe this is the second time you used the word "LOGICALLY" to reason out scriptures, could you explain to the audience "LOGICALLY" why it is that God Loves you, Could you explain "LOGICALLY" to the Audience the Trinity. Could You explain "LOGICALLY" why God could create mankind when He knew they would just turn against Him, Could you explain to the Audience "LOGICALLY how A man borned lame can Jump up and walk and leap and praise God and Could you explain "LOGICALLY" how "LOGICALLY" really means "LOGICALLY" cause I haven't seen too many words to you that mean what they say! let me spell out my point: there is nothing "LOGICALLY" about the great supernatural God That I serve, and this may be your problem trying to LOGICALLY figure out how God works or thinks! you want me to study red herring , here want you try studying hebrews 11

You know the difference between interpretation and translation right? It seems you think they are the same thing.

Also, you accuse me of a "man's interpretation", yet you yourself are a man too. Should I listen to your interpretation? Or would that be against your advice?

 

[Hammster]

If you are speaking of Job, the man God allowed to be tried by Satan, was he not a Hebrew by birth?

"And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron." -Gen. 46:13 (KJV)

Job, lived after the flood, but before the giving of the Law.

Was not Issachar born of Leah, wife of Jacob? -Gen. 35:23 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

From what I understand (and that can be taken with a grain of salt), most scholars think Job is a contemporary if Abraham.

 

[His_disciple3]

Why do you go on these strawman rants when you are backed into a corner? Are you really so scared of facing actual reformed doctrines that you must try to ridicule us and make false accusations?

so you call 1 John a strawman rants??????? amazing simply amazing

 

[Hammster]

so you call 1 John a strawman rants??????? amazing simply amazing

No, but your post is. Where in that post did you even quite 1 John? It was all a rant.

 

[Skala]

His_disciple

I have a straightforward question and it only needs a "yes" or "no" response from you.

Does "kosmos" (translated as "world" in English) only and always mean, without exception "every single individual human being in the human race since Adam"?

Yes or no?

Please answer.

 

[His_disciple3]

I really don't mind be called a strawman, but I resent the cooked fish, ok I have posted this before, But since there was like 10 to 12 pages a day posted on this thread, I may have missed some posts, according to john calvin Paul preached predestation from scriptures. Note this arguement against the way John Calvin intrepreted the scriptures concerning predestation, is using scriptures Not some other preacher not some other website but scriptures now If Paul taught the same doctrine of Grace as did John Calvin or John calvin taught the same doctrine or grace as Paul, ever how you want it worded, why did paul preach this:

2 Timothy 2:10
10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
KJV
you can't say the normal "LOGICALLY" Calvinist response to this for Paul didn't say we needed to know who the elect were He said that the very elect needed to be saved. also Paul said this about the elect as referring to the elect as "US"

Titus 2:14
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
KJV
now take note Please that paul preached that Jesus gave Himself for us, that He MIGHT, now mole, skala and deac I know Might has more than one meaning, but that he may redeem us, is the meaning meant here.

Jesus Gave Himself for Us, Jesus Died for us,
1. that He might or might not save us.
2. that He has saved us, we being the elect

which one fits best what paul intened to say you make the call?

clearly paul say that Jesus died for some that may be saved which also means that some may not be saved, sorta puts a hole in the limited atonement to me! ok maybe paul was wrong here. look at one more

John 3:17
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
KJV
ok now I know world can mean different from the human race which is intended in john 3:16 But It don't! it don't even mean the world of the elect, we can see this in john 3:17. look carefully see it yourself please don't take this cooked fish's word. God sent His son not to condemn the elect (world) but that the World (elected) MIGHT BE saved. so if world in JOHN 3:16 means that Jesus only died for the world of the elect then "MIGHT' implies that the elect could be saved or it can also means that the elect could not be saved, this is red letters in My KJB meaning this is coming straight From the MOUTH of God himself, No No!! Jesus Died for the Whole world in john 3:16 that some might be saved, and limited atonement is a false teaching, I have shown you from scriptures which world God meant in John 3:16 the whole world, all sinners, that some might be saved, not all.

 

[Hupomone10]

I just want to give caution to some. The Bible warns we will be judged for every careless word out of our mouth. It has been shown that many times those claiming to know truth are deceived. I just advise against saying G-D is this or that simply because you think an interpretation of the Bible is correct. This thread seems more about you being right in your interpretation, and the other being wrong, than it is about honoring G-D and the depths of His wisdom that none can fathom. Please watch your words to one another, speaking in patience and love. There is little fruits of the Spirit here, so I am withdrawing. Blessings to you all.

Amen, bro. where've ya been lately?


Bella certainly didn't intend it, but you know what this thread reminds me of the way everyone is ignoring her OP and circling the wagons and shooting at anyone and everyone perceived to the the enemy?

An ol' fashioned gunfight
Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in TOMBSTONE - YouTube
and maybe a little of this...

 

[cimbk]

I'd say that many are called but few are chosen



In all seriousness I am not sure that parable has anything to do with election, but the manner at which we come to God.

Everyone was invited to the feast, and of the ones that showed up, if anyone was not dressed in the proper attire, they were cast out. In like manner if one comes to God without being clothed in Christ's righteousness, he is cast out. He did not come before the Lord clothed properly. If anyone enters in by any other door than Christ, he is a thief and a robber. Christ is the only way to the Father.

What are your thoughts on the parable brother?

well I agree with what you said concerning the clothed with Christ righteousness, as for the chosen, I don't know any other terminology better fitting than the elect, I guess it just flys in the face of your doctrine that people were called to be saved but left the faith and fell away into apostasy