Faith Alone disrupted in 3 easy steps!

[Wisdom]

Romans 9:14-24 the “Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart”

Well lets clear up a few thing here you just cut and past a Bible verse like its and end all to an argument. In fact catholic embrace the teaching of predestination as found here but we have to include other parts of the Bible that we have to reconcile the passage with like “Almighty God desires that all men without exception be saved” 1 Tim 2:4. Now both passages are true but need to be included in comprehensive ideology not an out of context bullet. The Church Councils and theologians have done the job over the years. Catholics accept the notion of God’s sovereign grace against the Pelagians as per Augustine but at the Council of Orange we also rejected the notion of any predestination of people to evil and these persons to be predestined to Hell by God but not rejected by Calvinism as you seem to think this verse implies God predestines evil and some to Hell.

As Dave Armstrong notes:
When the Bible says that God did this, it is in the particular sense of “God allowed the Pharaoh to become hardened of his own accord, then used it for His purposes, to free the Hebrew slaves.” In other words, it is a typically vivid, pungent, dramatic Hebrew way of speech: “God did it [in the sense of it being ultimately used for His purposes, in His providence].”

Because it is pre-philosophical language, all that is bypassed and the writer just says “God hardened Pharaoh.” But nevertheless, other passages give the fuller sense of this, so it can be better understood. Thus, the literature teaches by deduction what might be expressed in more logical-type language all in one sentence.

Accordingly, we have in the Bible many passages stating that God hardened Pharaoh (e.g., Exodus 4:21; 7:3,13; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8 etc,), and even hardening the Egyptians (14:17), but it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15; 8:32; 9:34; 1 Sam 6:6).

Furthermore, Scripture states the fact of Pharaoh “hardening” without saying who caused it (Ex 7:14,22; 8:19; 9:7,35) and that one shouldn’t harden one’s own heart, as a generality (Deut 15:7; Ps 95:8; Heb 3:8,15; 4:7).

The obvious, straightforward way to interpret all this data is as I have done. It is neither internally contradictory nor troublesome with regard to the problem of evil. This is easily understood by means of some familiarity with Hebrew oft-poetic, non-literal manner of speaking. And Scripture interprets Scripture. This is a classic case, but if one reads only one sort of passage to the exclusion of others, then an incorrect meaning will be obtained that seems to cast doubt on God’s goodness and moral self-consistency.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, 1338, “Harden,”:

The "hardening" of men's hearts by God is in the way of punishment, but it is always a consequence of their own self-hardening. In Pharaoh's case we read that "he hardened his heart" against the appeal to free the Israelites; so hardening himself, he became always more confirmed in his obstinacy, till he brought the final doom upon himself . . .

In Hebrew religious thought everything was directly attributed to God, and the hardening is God’s work, . . . but it is always the consequence of human action out of harmony therewith.

That explains it completely. Men start hardening themselves, and they reach a point where God gives up on them and starts judging. But it is not God’s fault. They brought the judgment upon themselves. Therefore, God didn’t have an active part in the evil (which was my original task to deny, since this was a sub-argument in the larger Problem of Evil discussion).

To use a common analogy, we might say, “the police caused John Doe’s death to come about.” This would be a true statement, but the entire statement, fleshed out, shows that John Doe actually caused his own demise and is primarily responsible for it, since he had taken five children hostage. They were eventually freed through negotiations, but John was obstinate, and (if you will) “hardened his heart.” The police then fired a shot into the building as a sort of warning. It happened to hit some flammable materials stored there and the building exploded, killing John.

So the police caused his death, and John caused his death. But John was primarily responsible, and bears the guilt, whereas the police were only secondarily responsible and bear no guilt. Furthermore, they were agents of the state’s “wrath” to punish criminals and to protect the innocent harmed by them.

This is a pretty good analogy to Pharaoh and God. He was stubborn. God started sending judgments to make him back down (first persuasion through Moses, then actual miraculous calamities). He would not. So God judged him and his army and people died. Was that God’s fault? I say no. Not at all. The Egyptians were given many chances to let the slaves go and they would not.

 

[Linkowski]

I am with Mr. Clear Gospel in saying that God elects some to be saved and the rest are going to be condemned…this is clearly taught in scripture. It is spelled out in Romans 9:

Romans 9:11-13 NAS95 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 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.”

It is not of he who wills or runs…but of God that shows mercy…

Now, the Catholic Church claims that there is a group of elect…they were chosen as it is mentioned above. They were predestined…So, if you want to present the scriptures about God desiring all men to be saved, you cannot, because the Catholic Church does support this type of choosing. BUT, the difference is that they say that there is a group of non-elect that will be justified.

I believe that you can see from scripture that “elect” and “Christian” are synonymous…

1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

We as Christians are to make our certain of His choosing us…

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;

Ac 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been **appointed to eternal life **believed.

And the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world according to His plan and purpose…

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Before any good or evil was done…

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Yes - God desires all men to be saved…but, for some reason, this is not part of His plan.

Just as Christ was foreknown, we were foreknown - chosen before the foundation of the world. The elect are Christians and Christians are elect. Talk about no boasting. None of us ever deserved salvation…but he chose to save some according to His plan.

Those elect are justified and henceforth glorified…

Romans 8:30 NAS95 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Other scriptures…

Acts 16:14 NAS95 14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and **the Lord opened her heart to respond **to the things spoken by Paul.

1 Peter 1:3 NAS95 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has **caused us to be born again **to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

John 6:44 NAS95 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:65 NAS95 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

John 17:2 KJV 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

John 17:9 KJV 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

John 15:16 KJV 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Acts 18:27 KJV 27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

So, when one repents and trusts Christ by the grace of God, and God gives them that gift of life - they have it forever - and it is by faith.

Romans 8:30 KJV 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

May God Help Us…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase, is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

With these facts from scripture in the background, I submit that the burden of proof rests upon those who insist that the doctrine of justification be taught using language that Scripture itself does not use.

 

[Wisdom]

Here we go again select quotations without context or reasonable explanation and you think you have a viable argument. Its far more complicated than that my freind or else you protestants might actually agree on the issue and you don’t you have many differing opinions on this issue and of course others each with their different Bible verses.

I was not saying anything about a Jesus saving all people your reading comprehension needs work. I was quoting that to proove a point you can’t use verses in isolation and say here’s a doctrine. You have to have an explanation how on the surface polar opposite verses fit into Christian theology. Catholics usually don’t go to extreme in either direction to avoid pigeon holing themselves into heresey but protestants due to their prevelance for selecting some bible verses and ignoring others are prone to bad explanations for verses that oppose their extremsim. The Not Saved By Faith Alone verse in James is a perfect example.
Ok here’s the Catholic explantion which avoids the extremism of Palaginism and extreme Calvinism.

From the Wisdom of Father Most

1. Man’s power of decision: But equally, Sacred Scripture always takes it for granted, as something beyond doubt, that man can really decide whether and when he will sin or not sin. Hence, for example, the prophets frequently exhort the peoples e.g., Zechariah says:4 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you. . . .” Or, in Malachi:5 “Return to me, and I will return to you. . . .” And similarly in the New Testament, Christ Himself says, with many tears:6 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! . . . How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not.” The Epistle to the Romans represents the Lord as saying:7 “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” And St. Paul begs the Corinthians:8 “. . . we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.”

In all these passages it is most clearly implied that man can in some way determine when and whether he will sin or not. For a condition is supposed: “If you return . . . I will return to you.” But if the determination did not basically depend on man, God would not exhort men but would merely determine the outcome Himself. Similarly, Christ would not shed tears over the hardness of Jerusalem nor would He stretch out His hands to an unbelieving people, nor would St. Paul exhort his sons not to receive the grace of God in vain, if the decision and determination were not really made basically by man whether he would receive grace in vain or not.

Similarly, Psalm 80:14 represents God as speaking: “If only my people would hear me, and Israel would walk in my ways. . . .” But again, these words suppose that it really does depend on Israel whether or not Israel listens to God when He speaks. Otherwise God would not say: “If only, . . .” but rather, He by Himself would arrange everything, for it would be a mockery to ask a people for that which is not in some way under their control.

1. St. Paul explicitly teaches that a condition is required on the part of man. For he says that even in the first justification, faith is required of man:9 “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” And he repeats the same condition, in a more general way, speaking of the Christian life as a whole10 “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

So it is beyond doubt that the basic decision as to whether and when a man will sin or not is in some way within the control of man. For if the decision basically depended on God alone, the exhortations which God makes directly and through His prophets and apostles would be vain-or rather, a mockery. As we said above, if the basic decision depended on God alone, God would not exhort men, but would arrange it all by Himself.

 

[Wisdom]

1. The nature of the human condition: But we must investigate further into the nature of the human condition. As we have seen, St. Paul says that the condition is faith. Now this faith, as Fr. Lyonnet explains well, is not a mere intellectual assent, but it is,11 “the adherence of the whole man (including, of course, the intellect) to a living person, that is, to God Himself, who is our supernatural end.” The same condition is required in works after the first justification, for, as St. Paul says: “The just man lives by faith.” So the adherence of man to God is the condition in all good works.

Faith, in this sense of a total adherence, will produce various effects according to the situation: When God manifests a truth, we adhere by intellectual assent; when He promises, we adhere by confidence; when He commands, we adhere by obedience (and also intellectually, in as much as in obeying, we also believe what He commands is good, and we believe we need His help).

1. In what sense is the condition in man’s power?: It is also important to explore precisely to what extent this condition is in the unaided power of man. For as we saw above, St. Paul also teaches that divine power is required not only for the exterior performance of a good act, but also for the good will and for the good thought that precede. How then can faith be in the power and control of man if man without God can have neither good will nor even a good thought? It must be in man’s control in some way, as is evident from the passages we have just seen.

To solve the problem, we must take careful note of precisely what it is that Scripture excludes from man’s unaided power. St. Paul says that by our unaided powers we cannot perform an outward good act, nor have a good decision of will, nor even a good thought. What sort of things are these that St. Paul excludes from our power? They are all salutary goods, they are positive things, that is, they are not absences or privations of things. So we gather that St. Paul teaches that we can have no positive salutary good without grace.

What then did he leave to us, by which we can condition or control the reception of grace, so that we do not receive it in vain? Since he has excluded positive goods nothing is left but negative things and evil things.12 These we can have without grace. For we can resist grace13 without the help of grace. But Scripture also plainly supposes that still another negative thing is in our power, namely: When grace is offered, we can at least merely do nothing, or not resist grace. For if we could not omit resistance to grace, then the exhortations of the prophets would be mere mockery, and St. Paul would speak in vain in exhorting the Corinthians: “We exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” For the prophets and St. Paul would urge men on to that which men could not really control.

 

[Wisdom]

1. In what sense can we omit resistance to grace? It is possible to speak of omission of resistance to grace in two senses: Non-resistance can mean:

1. A positive decision, a complete act, in which we formally decide not to resist or not to sin: In this case, a man makes a positive decision as if he were saying: “I will not resist grace.” It is obvious that such a decision is a salutary act, a positive good. Hence, it is not in man’s unaided power. (Sometimes in a difficult struggle against a temptation, many such positive decisions are made before the temptation is finally vanquished).
2. The mere absence of an evil decision, in which the will does not move itself at all, in the first part of the process. Here the will does not make a decision, so as to say, as it were: “I will not resist.” It is not difficult to see how this is possible. For (in the simplest type of movement by grace) grace initiates14 the process by presenting a good to our mind, which God wishes us to perform, and by moving our will to take pleasure in that good. Now precisely because it is grace-not our own activity-that has produced these two effects (making our mind see a good, and our will take pleasure in it), the two effects can continue without any positive decision on our part. If we merely do nothing, they continue, for they are produced by grace and the grace does not withdraw unless we resist. On the contrary, to interrupt these effects, something from us would be required, for without a resistance from us, they will continue by the power of grace.15

We must notice that this type of omission of resistance is only the first stage of the process leading to a decision. On condition of this omission, the second stage follows, in which grace moves us further, so that we do make a decision:16 “It is God who . . . works in you both the will and the performance.” Of course, we do actively cooperate with grace in the second stage. The entire process need not take more than one instant of time.17

It is obvious that, at very least, Scripture teaches that we can omit resistance in this sense of merely doing nothing, remaining without any positive decision at all, in the first part of the process. Such an absence of any decision is not a salutary good act:18 it is no act at all. To do nothing is in our power. But yet we must add, that even this very doing nothing is sustained by grace inasmuch as grace attracts us, and maintains the two effects in our minds and wills by its own power, without any contribution from us.

Would it be contrary to Scripture to assert that we receive at once from grace even the power of a positive good decision? The Molinists, as we shall see later,19 do say this. But their view seems to harmonize less readily with Scripture, especially with the words of St. Paul that it is God “who works20 in you . . . the will.” Their view seems to fit less well also with the teaching of the Councils.21 And it seems to clearly contradict St. Thomas.22

To sum up, since Scripture teaches that man can control the decision to sin or not to sin, it necessarily implies that, at least, man can refrain from resistance in the sense of making no decision at all against grace, in the first part of the process. Scripture does exclude from our unaided power all positive salutary goods: but such an absence of resistance is merely doing nothing-a doing nothing that is sustained by grace itself.

1. This conclusion is confirmed by the words of Christ weeping over Jerusalem. For He assigned a reason why Jerusalem was not gathered under His wings, in saying: “You would not.” He did not say that Jerusalem had the power of gathering itself under His wings: grace does that. But He plainly supposed that Jerusalem at least had the power of doing a mere nothing against the grace by which He willed to gather her children. Otherwise, Christ would have no reason to weep and lament: He would be merely indulging in histrionics.

Similarly, when the Lord says through the Apostle that He stretched out His hands all day in vain to an unbelieving people, He supposes that that people had the power of at least doing nothing against the grace which He offered with outstretched hands.

Again, when God so often exhorted the Jews through the prophets to return and be converted, He did not say they could do this without grace: but He plainly supposed that they can do the nothing of merely making no decision against the grace. Otherwise, the Lord could not have spoken sincerely, if the decision were not basically in man’s control. Rather, He should have merely arranged it all Himself.

 

[Wisdom]

1. Likewise, if at least this much were not in the control of man, Scripture could not speak of rewards and punishments for men. For he who cannot control basically whether he sins or not cannot be worthy of punishment. Man cannot make a good decision without grace: but he can do the nothing of making no decision against the grace that God offers so abundantly.
2. The same conclusion is implied in the Scriptural teaching on the universal salvific will. For if a man could not at least do nothing against grace, then there would be absolutely no condition in man according to which God could decide who should be reprobated or not. But then, the salvific will could not be sincere, because God could not simultaneously say sincerely that He willed the salvation of this man, e.g., of Marcus, and still decree the ruin of Marcus unconditionally,23 i.e., without any condition which Marcus could really control.
3. Our conclusion is not Pelagian or Semipelagian: St. Paul excluded from man’s unaided power only the ability of performing or initiating any positive salutary good without grace. He did not say that man could not control whether or not he would resist grace. Rather, as we have seen, his exhortations presuppose precisely that man can control this matter.24

Again, if God made man so perverse that man could not only not perform any salutary good by his own power, but could not even refrain from resisting the grace offered by God-then a great dishonour would be reflected on God Himself for making a man incapable of omitting evil.

1. It is very important to note also this: Very many of the passages cited from Scripture were spoken to sinners. Therefore it is clear that even sinners (i.e., in general, at least if they are not hardened and blinded) can omit resistance to grace in the sense we have described. The Lord Himself often pleaded with sinners:25 “Repent.” Therefore He presupposes that sinners can omit resistance to grace: otherwise, such exhortations would be merely an empty mockery.

Taken From The MOST Theological Collection
Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions: “Pt. 1: Research in the sources of revelation - Ch. 7: The power of man for good and for evil, and the dependence of man on God”

 

[cleargospel99]

Well lets clear up a few thing here you just cut and past a Bible verse like its and end all to an argument. In fact catholic embrace the teaching of predestination as found here but we have to include other parts of the Bible that we have to reconcile the passage with like **“Almighty God desires that all men **without exception ****be saved” 1 Tim 2:4. .

Wisdom,

My dear verbose friend, I read laboriously through your posts, but something struck me about how you quoted 1 Tim 2:4. I looked it up in my NIV and didn’t see “without exception” in my copy. So to be fair I looked up the Douhay-Rheims and found this:

1 Tim 2:4 (Catholic Douhay-Rheims 1899)

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Do you see the phrase "without exception" in the text?

Now here we have clear evidence for everyone on this board to see that as part of your apologetic you have inserted** “without exception”** into the text.

You didn’t qualify that assertion by putting quotes or separating it with parenthesis.

Now that may be your private interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4, but “without exception” is NOT scripture. You have quoted fraudulently and have demonstrated that you can’t be trusted.

Bearing a false witness completely undermines your contribution to the discussion.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Wisdom,

My dear verbose friend, I read laboriously through your posts, but something struck me about how you quoted 1 Tim 2:4. I looked it up in my NIV and didn’t see “without exception” in my copy. So to be fair I looked up the Douhay-Rheims and found this:

1 Tim 2:4 (Catholic Douhay-Rheims 1899)

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Do you see the phrase "without exception" in the text?

Now here we have clear evidence for everyone on this board to see that as part of your apologetic you have inserted** “without exception”** into the text.

You didn’t qualify that assertion by putting quotes or separating it with parenthesis.

Now that may be your private interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4, but “without exception” is NOT scripture. You have quoted fraudulently and have demonstrated that you can’t be trusted.

Bearing a false witness completely undermines your contribution to the discussion.

What is your point ClearGospel? You don’t think “God will have all men saved” means the same as “God will have all men saved without exception”?

 

[KJK80]

Bearing a false witness completely undermines your contribution to the discussion.

Good thing none of the reformers were guilty of bearing false witness. Wheew!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Good thing none of the reformers were guilty of bearing false witness . Wheew!

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Linkowski]

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase, is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

With these facts from scripture in the background, I submit that the burden of proof rests upon those who insist that the doctrine of justification be taught using language that Scripture itself does not use.

I don’t see anything in scripture about smoking either yet I believe there are principles in scripture…like, God made your body and it is the temple of the Holy Spirit…etc…IOW, it is implied.

Just like faith alone is implied in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. Again, you need to read my postings more clearly to see the context of justification in Romans and James 2…clearly a different context.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

Wisdom,

My dear verbose friend, I read laboriously through your posts, but something struck me about how you quoted 1 Tim 2:4. I looked it up in my NIV and didn’t see “without exception” in my copy. So to be fair I looked up the Douhay-Rheims and found this:

1 Tim 2:4 (Catholic Douhay-Rheims 1899)

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Do you see the phrase "without exception" in the text?

Now here we have clear evidence for everyone on this board to see that as part of your apologetic you have inserted** “without exception”** into the text.

You didn’t qualify that assertion by putting quotes or separating it with parenthesis.

Now that may be your private interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4, but “without exception” is NOT scripture. You have quoted fraudulently and have demonstrated that you can’t be trusted.

Bearing a false witness completely undermines your contribution to the discussion.

Cleargospel,

My friend you could not possibly be more in error. I have no idea whether Wisdom was working off of translation that used those words, or whether he inserted it as what he saw as implied, but please rest assured, the phrase “without exception” is certainly not violative of the spirit of that verse. 1 Tim. 2:4, as well as 2 Peter 3:9, contain a striking word of which you need to take greater notice. That Greek word, transliterated, is “pas,” and it means “all,” as in:

“God our Savior, who wants ALL men to be saved.” 1 Tim. 2:4

and

“The Lord … is patient, not wanting anyone to perish, but ALL (some translations rendered as “everyone”) to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9.

That word, “pas,” is one of the more unlimited words in Greek, it effectively means “all that are, were, or ever will be.” So when Paul uses “pas” in Timothy, and when Pope St. Peter uses the word in his second Papal Encylical (2d Peter), they know they’re using a word loaded with meaning, which would eliminate any possible need to write “without exception.” On this, we can rest assured in the very “clear gospel.”

 

[HailMary]

Just like faith alone is implied in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians.

It is not implied, only from the 16th century and on did people start thinking it was “implied”.

 

[Linkowski]

Cleargospel,

My friend you could not possibly be more in error. I have no idea whether Wisdom was working off of translation that used those words, or whether he inserted it as what he saw as implied, but please rest assured, the phrase “without exception” is certainly not violative of the spirit of that verse. 1 Tim. 2:4, as well as 2 Peter 3:9, contain a striking word of which you need to take greater notice. That Greek word, transliterated, is “pas,” and it means “all,” as in:

“God our Savior, who wants ALL men to be saved.” 1 Tim. 2:4

and

“The Lord … is patient, not wanting anyone to perish, but ALL (some translations rendered as “everyone”) to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9.

That word, “pas,” is one of the more unlimited words in Greek, it effectively means “all that are, were, or ever will be.” So when Paul uses “pas” in Timothy, and when Pope St. Peter uses the word in his second Papal Encylical (2d Peter), they know they’re using a word loaded with meaning, which would eliminate any possible need to write “without exception.” On this, we can rest assured in the very “clear gospel.”

I have already made the statement that the Catholic Church indeed teaches that there is an elect group. By Romans 9, we know that they were chosen before they did any good or evil…and it is not of him who wills or of him who runs - but God that shows mercy. They are chosen only in accorance with God’s gracious choice.

So, you cannot use these scriptures as an argument (i.e. that God desires all men to be saved) as a defense against election because if he can do it for some, why did He not do it for all. So this argument not only falls on us but on the CC as well. The only difference between us is that we say only the elect are justified, whereas you say that the is a non-elect group that can be justified and saved as well. But in my posting on the previous page, I show clearly that “elect” and “Christian” are used synonymously.

 

[cleargospel99]

What is your point ClearGospel? You don’t think “God will have all men saved” means the same as “God will have all men saved without exception”?

It doesn’t matter what I think. It is a matter of intellectual integrity and quoting the Word of God faithfully.

If you want to make an editorial comment that “all” means “everyone without exception”, so be it. But make it clear those are your words. Inserting them, without qualification into the text is bearing a false witness.

I am appealing to your honesty and your obligation to Christ to faithfully quote his words as they were written by the apostles and not embellish them with your preconceptions.

You might say a person has taken something out of context, by quoting a specific piece of scripture and point out his error, by providing the context in greater fidelity and correct and error of understanding.

It is another thing all togther to actually corrupt the text in order to make it say something it doesn’t say.

Whether you agree with Wisdom or not, you can’t support a method that undermines your integrity.

People can certainly disagree, but you are not allowed to cheat.

What Wisdom did with the text of scripture was simply unethical.

v/r
cg99

 

[cleargospel99]

Cleargospel,

My friend you could not possibly be more in error. I have no idea whether Wisdom was working off of translation that used those words, or whether he inserted it as what he saw as implied, but please rest assured, the phrase “without exception” is certainly not violative of the spirit of that verse. 1 Tim. 2:4, as well as 2 Peter 3:9, contain a striking word of which you need to take greater notice. That Greek word, transliterated, is “pas,” and it means “all,” as in:

“God our Savior, who wants ALL men to be saved.” 1 Tim. 2:4

and

“The Lord … is patient, not wanting anyone to perish, but ALL (some translations rendered as “everyone”) to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9.

That word, “pas,” is one of the more unlimited words in Greek, it effectively means “all that are, were, or ever will be.” So when Paul uses “pas” in Timothy, and when Pope St. Peter uses the word in his second Papal Encylical (2d Peter), they know they’re using a word loaded with meaning, which would eliminate any possible need to write “without exception.” On this, we can rest assured in the very “clear gospel.”

My dear Christian,

In order to support your assertion I respectfully request that you provide us with a cite of which English language translation that actually includes the words exactly as “without exception” in 1 Tim 2:4.

v/r
cg99

 

[cleargospel99]

Getting back to the topic at hand:

Refuting Sola Fide

Starting with step one.

What does Romans 4:3 have to do with the doctrine of Sola Fide?

 

[Montgomeryatty]

My dear Christian,

In order to support your assertion I respectfully request that you provide us with a cite of which English language translation that actually includes the words exactly as “without exception” in 1 Tim 2:4.

Um, re-read my post. I did nothing to suggest that there IS such a translation. My point, which you did not even attempt to address, was that “without exception” would most assuredly be consistent with the spirit of the verse. And, by the way, finding an English translation that DID include these words would not necessarily support my assertion, I have seen truly horrendous translations.

It seems, as a broader point, that you bear the burden of proof to justify your interpretation, which takes the word “all” and makes it say “not all.”

 

[cleargospel99]

Um, re-read my post. I did nothing to suggest that there IS such a translation. My point, which you did not even attempt to address, was that “without exception” would most assuredly be consistent with the spirit of the verse. And, by the way, finding an English translation that DID include these words would not necessarily support my assertion, I have seen truly horrendous translations.

It seems, as a broader point, that you bear the burden of proof to justify your interpretation, which takes the word “all” and makes it say “not all.”

I didn’t translate or interpret 1 Tim 2:4. I simply demonstrated Wisdom’s mendacity by inserting words that did not exist into the text.

If he wanted to make an editorial comment and say that “all” meant “everyone without exception”, that was within his right to do so. However, he did not do that.

He represented it as a quote of God’s HOLY Word, which was dishonest.

Scroll back and see for yourself.