M
- Status
M
mikeledes
Guest
Earlier in this thread, Sandunksy, you presented the following verse:
Proverbs 21:1
**1The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD;
He turns it wherever He wishes. **
The King who wrote this is King Solomon. Now let’s read the following on King Solomon:
1 Kings 11:1-10
**1Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women,
2from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love.
3He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.
4For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites.
6Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done.
7Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon.
8Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice,
10and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded. **
Now God turns the Kings heart wherever He wishes. Did God desire and cause King Solomon to turn away his heart from Him and sin? If He did, why would He be angry if He is directly responsible for what Solomon did?
You might say that God “allowed” King Solomon to sin. If “allowing” means that God does not directly cause the act, then that means that God gave Solomon the freedom to chose between remaining faithful to God or to turn away from Him. Could Solomon have chosen not to sin? Was the division of the Kingdom of Israel as punishment for Solomon’s sin an eternal decree of God? If it was, how do you reconcile that with God giving Solomon libertarian freedom to choose to sin or not to sin?
God Bless,
Michael
Proverbs 21:1
**1The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD;
He turns it wherever He wishes. **
The King who wrote this is King Solomon. Now let’s read the following on King Solomon:
1 Kings 11:1-10
**1Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women,
2from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love.
3He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.
4For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites.
6Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done.
7Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon.
8Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice,
10and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded. **
Now God turns the Kings heart wherever He wishes. Did God desire and cause King Solomon to turn away his heart from Him and sin? If He did, why would He be angry if He is directly responsible for what Solomon did?
You might say that God “allowed” King Solomon to sin. If “allowing” means that God does not directly cause the act, then that means that God gave Solomon the freedom to chose between remaining faithful to God or to turn away from Him. Could Solomon have chosen not to sin? Was the division of the Kingdom of Israel as punishment for Solomon’s sin an eternal decree of God? If it was, how do you reconcile that with God giving Solomon libertarian freedom to choose to sin or not to sin?God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Let me clarify that the one who added the qualifier “withour exception” was you. That I recall, I never said without exception. Please correct me if I’m wrong. What I always argued was that “all men” refers to both the elect and the reprobate. When God is specifically referring to believers or the elect, he describes them as “elect”, “believers”, “household of faith,” etc. Now you brought up Romans 3:23. Is this referring to all mankind (elect and reprobate/non-elect), just the elect, or just the reprobate? If it is referring to the elect and the rebrobate, then you have just provided another verse that supports my understanding of “all men” as meaning the elect and the reprobate. As I shown using other verses, the elect or believers are always presented as a subset of “all men.” An especially favored subset, but a subset nonetheless. “All men” and “elect” are not used interchageably. Therefore, the “all men” in John 12:32 can only refer to both the elect and the non-elect.
You admit that the non-elect receive grace. But does this grace have a salvific end, even if it ultimately proves inefficacious? Furthermore, “drawing” grace is not a mere external call through the preached word. To “draw” means to pull, attract, drag. That can only happen internally, in the heart of man. It is an internal call, an internal illumination from God.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Stop cheating, play fair…come on, give us a hint…
G
guanophore
Guest
What are you saying? That God holds us accountable for things over which we have no control?
For example, you say:What I’m hearing undergirding your demands for sincerity, Mike, is,***“how can God hold me responsible if I can’t make the choice He demands because my sin has impaired my decision making abilities?”***I submit that a rejection of a command is a choice. Whether or not the choice is made when one is impaired, is irrelevant, unless one is attempting to skirt their responsibility for the choice.
I assume that you have laws against drunk-driving in your town.
The drunk-driving law, sincerely written, sincerely desires that you don’t drive drunk.
You understand that law, and you go out, and you proceed to get hammered.
Then, in your hammered condition, a condition which you brought on yourself, you get in your car, and you drive, and you get busted.
You go to court. What do you do?
Complain that the law is insincere, if it doesn’t first make you sober, so you could make the right choice before you drove the car drunk?
Man is drunk on sin, Mike; why should God have to sober him up to make a choice
he’s already made? Is he not responsible for his sin?
This is not a proper analogy. Original sin corresponds more appropriately to the body’s natural response to alcohol. The fact that a man is able to get hammered and lose his judgement when in that condition is a better correlate to original sin. If a man drinks, knowing what will happen, that is more comparable to a personal sin. In the first case, he did not have a choice. He was born with a liver that only metabolizes at a certain rate. In the second, he makes a choice to ingest a substance that will produce predictable results.
sandusky;2387493:
Then I think you are mislabelling it. A person cannot come to the Father unless the Son draw him. This is prevenient grace. However, not all those drawn are saved. Some seed sprouts, then withers away. Therefore, the grace that draws may not result in salvation.
No, you hear the Apostolic teaching here sandusky. A mortal sin is one which is committed willfully with understanding. this is one of the defintions of mortal sin. If a person is ignorant, then he is less responsible (still may be in sin, but less culpable).
I think, for the vast majority of people, it is a choice. However, they would have no choice at all if not for prevenient grace.
prevenient grace, not a demand put upon the creator by the creature?
I have not finished reading the thread, but it seems to me that this represents a misunderstanding. It seems to me that the gospel is sincere no matter what. However, since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, prevenient grace must exist in order for a person to hear, before such a one can reject.
Well, that and the Apostolic Teaching!
G
guanophore
Guest
Then you DO believe that prevenient grace is necessary?
Let’s not be so black and white, shall we? The above statement is true, of course, but we know that grace and sin both happen in many degrees. A “light has dawned”, but not everyone will notice it. A star may rise in the East, but not all may recognize or appreciate it. The wise men may travel a great distance, but Herod may not cross town.
This is the difference between Calvanistic Theology and CAtholic Theology. Catholics do not believe in total depravity. Catholics believe that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, and that our hearts are restless until they rest in God. We also believe that God reveals His truth to us through nature, conscience, and reason.
S
sandusky
Guest
**1 Peter 2:8
…“A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.**The guys in 1 Pet, are probably friends of the those in 2 Pet.**Revelation 5:9-10
9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
10 “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”**Notice as well, Mike, that those purchased were so purchased to be a kingdom, and priests.
And how is it they come to be a kingdom and priests? Christ made them to be…such** John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.**
In the Rev 5 passage, all heaven was looking for someone worthy to open the books, and a worthy One was found; He is described as ”a Lamb standing, as if slain…"; He was worthy because He purchased the earth with His Blood; therefore, the earth is His to do with as He pleases (Ps 115:3).
In what way did Christ “purchase” those who are eternally damned?
How Mike, ”in the broadest sense,” is Jesus the savior of those who are now in hell, and those who will be in hell in the future—forever?
And, what do you mean, ”He made provision for all their sins?” What do mean?
That verse has been asked and answered at least four times, Mike, and my response to it has not changed.
In what way does God desire the salvation of those who are now in hell, and who will be in hell in the future—forever?**Romans 9:22-23
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory**In what way is He their savior?
With 1 Jn 2:2, another of our differences is brought out; in what way is Christ a propitiation for sin if He didn’t bear the punishment for it?
(continued)
S
sandusky
Guest
(continued from post #287)
mikeledes:
mikeledes:
But, the important thing that you’ve demonstrated, at least for yourself, is that ”all men without exception have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In that, you have disproven the immaculate conception. And you’ve proven to me that you’ll say anything, just to win an argument.
mikeledes:
mikeledes:
to give it.**Romans 9:12-16
12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.**Any choosing that’s happening is initiated by God, and the response of that choosing is on the basis of God’s mercy in giving to the respondent the ability to respond; it’s all about God, and His choice. And that has confounded men always.
All of the verses that you re-offer, have been asked and answered as often as you have
offered them.
mikeledes:
And what are the elect, and the reprobate, if not all men without exception. That’s been your argument from the beginning; yours and every other Arminian with whom I’ve ever discussed this very same subject.
You are a word-twister, Mike; the elect, and the reprobate comprise “all men without exception.” Even the elect sin and fall short of the glory of God.
But, the important thing that you’ve demonstrated, at least for yourself, is that ”all men without exception have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In that, you have disproven the immaculate conception. And you’ve proven to me that you’ll say anything, just to win an argument.
Jn 12:32 has been asked, and answered, Mike; in the context of that passage, the Jews were blinded, and thus they are not drawn to Christ; therefore, because the Jews are part of all men, and they were not drawn to Christ, “all men,” in that passage is not “all men without exception.” Stop bringing that verses up, Mike; I’ve shown your understanding of it to be error.
Correct, and it is not a grace—a favorable disposition of the creator toward the creature—given to “all men without exception,” but it is a grace given only to those to whom He desires
to give it.**Romans 9:12-16
12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.**Any choosing that’s happening is initiated by God, and the response of that choosing is on the basis of God’s mercy in giving to the respondent the ability to respond; it’s all about God, and His choice. And that has confounded men always.
All of the verses that you re-offer, have been asked and answered as often as you have
offered them.
An attempt to change the subject; always a sure sign that the attempter’s original argument has been laid to rest.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Good questions. How can Jesus be the Savior of the World? What do you think that means?
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
You calling me a word twister?(continued from post #287)
And what are the elect, and the reprobate, if not all men without exception. That’s been your argument from the beginning; yours and every other Arminian with whom I’ve ever discussed this very same subject.
You are a word-twister, Mike; the elect, and the reprobate comprise “all men without exception.” Even the elect sin and fall short of the glory of God.
But, the important thing that you’ve demonstrated, at least for yourself, is that ”all men without exception have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In that, you have disproven the immaculate conception. And you’ve proven to me that you’ll say anything, just to win an argument.
Jn 12:32 has been asked, and answered, Mike; in the context of that passage, the Jews were blinded, and thus they are not drawn to Christ; therefore, because the Jews are part of all men, and they were not drawn to Christ, “all men,” in that passage is not “all men without exception.” Stop bringing that verses up, Mike; I’ve shown your understanding of it to be error.
Correct, and it is not a grace—a favorable disposition of the creator toward the creature—given to “all men without exception,” but it is a grace given only to those to whom He desires
to give it.Romans 9:12-16
12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.Any choosing that’s happening is initiated by God, and the response of that choosing is on the basis of God’s mercy in giving to the respondent the ability to respond; it’s all about God, and His choice. And that has confounded men always.
All of the verses that you re-offer, have been asked and answered as often as you have
offered them.
An attempt to change the subject; always a sure sign that the attempter’s original argument has been laid to rest.
You may not see the difference, but I do. For example, Protestants are divided into two basic groups, Calvinists and Arminians. So if I were to say, “I would like to invite all Protestants to this forum,” it is understood that this includes both Arminians and Calvinists. If I were to say, “I would like to invite all Protestants to this forum, especially Calvinists”, it means the same thing. The only subtle difference is that I am showing preference for a specific kind of Protestant. This does not mean, however, that I want to invite all Protestants without exception. There might be an individual Calvinist or Arminian out there that I would not want to invite.Therefore, I understand “all men” to mean both elect and non-elect and this is the way it is clearly used in Scripture. “All men” is never coextensive with “elect” in the Bible. The elect represent “some men” with the “all men”. They are a group within mankind.
1 Timothy 2:3-4
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers
Galatians 6:10
10As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
In these verses, “all men” is clearly being used to mean both elect and non-elect. But let’s look at a couple of other verses:
Titus 2:11
**11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, **
Titus 3:4 (NASB)
**4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, **
4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, (KJV).
Another verse in which “all men” is clearly used to mean “mankind”, not merely the elect.
To be continued…
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
You call me a word twister and then you accuse me of doing anything to win an argument. Why don’t you just completely destroy my integrity by calling me a coniving liar. It is very sad when someone cannot engage in a decent discussion without name calling and attacking a person’s character.
Now that’s a sure sign that a person is having serious trouble in a discussion.Regarding the verse in Romans. So you believe there are exceptions to this verse? That “all” means that there can be people who have never sinned? If so, then you have just crushed a standard Protestant argument against the immaculate conception. Secondly, do you believe that the “all” in this verse is referring to the elect alone or to the elect and the non elect?
I am not here to win an argument and I will not compromise my integrity to do so. Unfortunately, we often project our own attitude and way of thinking on others. We think a certain way and assume others think the same way too.
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
This is not an attempt to change the subject, Sandunksy. We have been discussing the relationship between the Divine will and the will of man, among other things. The fact that you refuse to address this reflects a problem in your own argument.Earlier in this thread, Sandunksy, you presented the following verse:
Proverbs 21:1
**1The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD;
He turns it wherever He wishes. **
The King who wrote this is King Solomon. Now let’s read the following on King Solomon:
1 Kings 11:1-10
1Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women,
2from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love.
3He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.
4For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites.
6Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done.
7Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon.
8Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice,
10and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded.
Now God turns the Kings heart wherever He wishes. Did God desire and cause King Solomon to turn away his heart from Him and sin? If He did, why would He be angry if He is directly responsible for what Solomon did?
God Bless,
Michael
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
That last question you should ask yourself and answer it. 2 Peter describes men bought by Christ. Were dogs purchased by Christ through His Cross as well? “Bought” is the equivalent of ransomed and is thus inextricably linked to the Cross. The intent of the Cross was to ransom men.
9And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
He is worthy because He was slain and purchased men through His blood. How were the men of 2 Peter “purchased” by Jesus, Sandunsky. God did not need to purchase the earth through His blood to do whatever he pleased to do with it. That right comes from being the Creator. But God is not arbitrary in dealing with mankind and has clearly expressed his love for mankind and His desire for their repentance.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
God primarily imparts grace through His Word:
Romans 11:17
**17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. **
Ephesians 4:29
**29Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. **
Prevenient grace is like a divine seed planted in the heart of man through the Word of God that enlightens the heart and mind and pulls him towards God. Not all respond the same way to this grace:
Luke 8:11-12
12"Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.
It is the Devil, with the cooperation of man’s will, that harden hearts. God does not directly/positively hardens anyone’s heart. Note that the word did reach the person’s heart and had the ability to save.
Luke 11:13-14
**13"Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.
14"The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity. **
Now there are others who do respond to God’s internal call through the implantation of His word in their hearts and believe. However, these do not persevere in the kindness of God and fall from grace through apostasy or the decietfulness of sin. Jesus constantly warns His apostles not to be like these two groups of people:
Luke 21:34
**34"Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap; ** (Note the similarity with Luke 13:14).
Luke 12:35
** 35"Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit." **
Mark 10:50
50"Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
Matthew 5:13
**13"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. **
The two groups in Luke 11:13-14 represent those among the non-elect who have been justified.
Finally, we have those that do persevere:
**15"But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance. **
These are those who are predestined to glory. That initial prevenient grace efficaciously bears its ultimate fruit, eternal glory.
Jesus draws all men to Himself. This does not mean that all will respond to His “drawing” will come to faith or that those that do respond and believe will persevere. Only in those predestined to glory will God’s gift of final perseverance be efficacious.
God Bless,
Michael
S
sandusky
Guest
Sorry, Mike, I didn’t realize you were that sensitive; I can never destroy your integrity on this forum, Mike; you’re the Catholic; I’m the heretic, and for me, this has not been a discussion, but a repetitive replay of your assertions sans support for them.
The serious problem that I’m having Mike, is that I’ve shown you, many times using Jn 12:32, that “all men” does not mean “without exception,” but “without distinction” concerning tribe, tongue, people, and nation.
With respect to Jn 12:32, I stated:
It’s not as though my response to Jn 12:32 is simply, ”no they’re not.” I’ve gone through the verse, and explained it to you.
The only ones drawn to Christ are the ones given to Him by the Father (see my post #221 on this thread).
Furthermore, you continue to assert the existence of a group you call “the justified reprobate.” I’ve asked you before Mike, in light of Php 1:6, how is a justified reprobate possible.
** Philippians 1:6
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.**Is justification not a good work? How can those you mention above be justified, and lose their justification in light of what Paul says above?
Notice in Paul’s statement as well, Mike, that the actions of the justified person, whether good, or bad, are not even in view (cf Rom 9:11-23); the statement is all about the work of God—what He began in the person, and what He will continue to do in the person until the day of Christ.
I’ve asked you many, many questions concerning your assertions, and, my many, many questions you have ignored—not very convincing.
The questions that I’ve asked you regarding the assertions you’ve made throughout this thread are difficult questions to answer; if you can’t answer the questions I’ve asked, I can only conclude that you really don’t know why you believe what you believe, you just believe what you do—no questions asked.
M
mikeledes
Guest
And I’ve shown you a number of verses where the exact phrase “all men” is used and it is always used to mean "mankind’, not just the elect. The truth, Sandunksy, is that you have not shown a single verse where “all men” is exclsuively used to refer to the elect. I, on the other hand, have given you several verses where “all men” is clearly used to refer to both the elect and the reprobate. When you have a verse that says God is the Savior of all men, especially believers, you know that “all men” must include the reprobate. Otherwise, it would simply say “God is the Savior of Believers.” If I were to say “I love to talk to Protestants, especially Calvinists.” Am I saying that only Calvinists are Protestants? Or am I saying that I only love to talk to Calvinists? Obviously not! You, however, chose to defy the express meaning of the words and then accuse me of being a word twister.
Then you have a verse like Titus 2:11
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
You insist that this verse is only referring to the elect. And yet several verses later we have:
Titus 3:4
4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
This clearly demonstrates that “all men” is the equivalent of “mankind” and is not - I repeat - NOT interchangeable with the elect. Moreover, Titus 3:4 bears a striking resemblance to:
John 3:16-17
**16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. **
There is another verse in Titus in which “all men” is used to refer to both the elect and the reprobate:
Titus 3:2
**2to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. **
Does this mean that the Christian should show every consideration to the elect alone or the elect and the reprobate (i.e. “all men”)?
Time and time again, the Bible uses “all men” to refer to all mankind or the world, not just the elect. And yet you keep insisting that “all men” in John 12 can only refer to the elect, despite the fact that the Bible does not use “all men” as the equivalent of “elect”.
The verse you cite from Revelation proves nothing. That is specifcially talking about who will be included within the redeemed (i.e. tribe, tongue, nation, etc.). “All men” however is used in a universal sense and “the elect” are always presented as a group within “all men.” Even the verse in Romans 3 that you cited in your favor (“all have sinned”) applies to both elect and reprobate. So I don’t see how that helped your case, except as a vain attempt to expose an alleged inconsistency. In doing that, you exposed your own inconsistency. You claim that “all men” mean “elect” and then you present a verse in which “all” is obviously being used to mean “elect and reprobate”, thus proving my point!
God Bless,
Michael
C
clmowry
Guest
Another clear demonstration of why Sola Scriptura is pure lunacy.
I guess the way disputes in Scriptural interpretation are settled, is that eventually someone will get tired of playing and then both parties will walk away claiming they were correct.
Next thing you know, you’ve got as many belief systems as you’ve got believers.
I wonder who will give up first on this one.
goes to get some pop corn, and pulls a chair and waits
Chuck
I guess the way disputes in Scriptural interpretation are settled, is that eventually someone will get tired of playing and then both parties will walk away claiming they were correct.
Next thing you know, you’ve got as many belief systems as you’ve got believers.
I wonder who will give up first on this one.
goes to get some pop corn, and pulls a chair and waits
Chuck
M
mikeledes
Guest
Interesting. Let’s take a look at:Romans 14:15, 20
15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.
Compare that with 1 Corinthians 8:9-10
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
The work of God destroyed? A brother for whom Christ dies perishing?
Also, we must read that verse in Philippians within its context:
**6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; 7 just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart… **
Why does Paul think that the God will complete His work in the Phillipians? Because he is infallibly certain that they are predestined to glory? That’s not the reason he gives. He says that he thinks this of the Phillipians because he has them in his heart. He is expressing a personal thought rooted in his love for the Phillipians. He is not making a universal statement about all Christians.
Finally, God will not abandon His work. If he intends to complete
his work till the day of Christ, He will. If he intends to work until a certain point in time, he will not abandon it until that point in time is reached.
God Bless,
Michael
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
You do start to wonder… hey horsey here’s the water, you’ve got to be thirsty… oh well you can’t force him to drink. free will and all.
It is possible that this one man’s interpertations are somewhat flawed. He’s doesn’t have perfect understanding of God’s Word.
Hey Sandusky if God presents the Truth to you at your time of judgement and “The Truth” is the very things that you’ve been arguing against here, will you be able to accept it, the Truth?
- Status