Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,516
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,865
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:02 PM
Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:07 AM
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Tom #5169 Thu Sep 11, 2003 12:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Would I be correct that you are not talking about Arminians here? (Though obviously some may be included)<br><br>Is criley's interpretation the same as what the average Arminian would conclude?</font><hr></blockquote><p>No, you are not correct in that I would indeed include Arminians here. And yes, I do believe that criley's misuse of the Scriptures is what the average and learned Arminian would conclude. Just think of how they want to make those passages which speak of man's responsibility the ground to establish their doctrine of "free-will"! Think further on how they are want to take those passages which have the word "all" in them, in regard to Christ's atonement and make them teach that Christ has died efficiently for all. Need I say more? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] I say, ALL, without exception who deny the doctrines of God's sovereign free grace in the salvation of sinners hold to synergism to one degree or another. As with sin, it matters not how small a sin may appear to one's senses, it is still sufficient enough to earn eternal damnation. So likewise, to depart from the biblical doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide is to deny Solus Christus. For, if salvation is not by sovereign free grace ALONE, through faith ALONE, in Christ ALONE . . . it is no salvation of God.<br><br>In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#5170 Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:50 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Criley wrote: <i>And of course here you will try and hide in the false doctrine of "irresistable grace." As if God forces a GIFT upon men. That is CALVINISM, not B-I-B-L-E. The Bible makes clear "AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, to them GAVE" - men are offered and men must RECEIVE. It isn't forced. Love CAN'T be forced. Calvinism knows nothing of love.</i><br><br>Dear Criley, I don't think I can speak for Calvinism but let's let the Scriptures speak for themselves:<br><br>Matt.19:25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved ? 26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.<br><br>"Many are called but few are choosen" does not say nor even imply that "Many are called but few choose." If one is chosen one will receive Him.<br><br>And since Jesus said that "No man can come to the Son unless the Father draw him" how are we to understand "as many as received Him"? This surely is not speaking of a sort of free-will reception or rejection. Rather, should one "receive Him" it is due to several factors which are due to God and not due to something residing originally in man to receive Him.<br><br>God must open the heart as He did Lydia in Acts.<br>If the heart is not opened by God then no one will receive Christ.<br><br>The person must be drawn to Christ by God otherwise the person will not draw himself. As a matter of fact the person, if God does not intervene, will actually run from God and Christ for Romans says that "There is none that seeketh after God. All avoid him" or "all are gone out of the way." God must seek and intervene in the life of one who receives Him.<br><br>I'm sure some of you can say this better than me.<br><br>Sorry if I have not brought this out as good as it could have been.<br><br>Zoe

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I'm sure some of you can say this better than me.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>You said it just fine, Zoe, and by the way, [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hello.gif" alt="hello" title="hello[/img] Welcome!<br>Susan<br>

#5172 Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:07 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
<center>[Linked Image]<br><br>An Exegetical Study of 1Tim 2:4 by Gary Long</center><br><br>


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#5173 Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:21 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Hello<br><br>The problem i see with Christ dying for all men without exception is the fact that as a result all men would be be saved and none go to Hell. Criley, I would look into how scripture defines Atonement in the Old and New testaments(sp?) I would also look at the doctrine of the Substitutionary death of Christ. Paul I believe goes through this in the book of Romans. Romans 5 would be a good place too start. I believe the Scriptures teach that "propitiation" and "Atonement" are very definite acts and therefore are not subjective in any way. Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27 are good places too start. Oh....and some good Reformed /Calvinistic authors wouldnt hurt either [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>PS: If I put my response in the wrong order let me know [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>

Pilgrim #5174 Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:27 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Pilgrim,<br><br>I just read the article [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/read.gif" alt="read" title="read[/img]...good stuff dude <br><br>[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/thewave.gif" alt="thewave" title="thewave[/img]

Pilgrim #5175 Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:48 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Pilgrim, I just read the article by Gary Long. I really groove on reading such theological ideas which he provides.<br>Though I was not raised a Calvinist (I was raised a Catholic but God saved me on a sandy hill behind my parents house under a starry night, and left the RCC) I surely agree wholeheartedly on the Calvinist's position on many matters. <br><br>But something keeps nagging me about 1Timothy 2:4 which the writer didn't bring out.<br><br>What if 1Timothy 2:4 is like this:<br><br>What if it is like a modern day kidnapping, ransom and rescue? Let's say a baby has been kidnapped by a couple nasty villains. They have burried this baby in a box with just enough oxygen to keep the baby alive until a ransom is met. The FBI really want to save this baby but they must wait until the villains call to demand a ransom and tell them where to find the baby. The phone rings, the villains demand a ransom, the baby is ransomed and now the FBI will that the baby be saved. The FBI go to the ground where the baby is and they yell "Do you believe you've been ransomed?!" but the baby just goes "goo goo, da da." So the FBI, frantic, call into headquarters and try to find the interpretation of that, otherwise they can't make their move. Precious minutes go by. Some of the brightest specialists are called in. Some mathemeticians strive to unravel the coded words which the baby has said. Finally they come to the conclusion that what the baby has pronounced does not meet the requirements and so sadly the FBI must let the baby die. They really wanted to save that baby but the baby made it so that they could not. It thwarted the FBI's will. <br>Or let's take it that the person burried is an adult male. And suppose the ransom was made for him. The FBI will that the man be saved. So they go to where he is burried and ask: "Do you believe you've been ransomed?" Sadly, the man says "I don't believe anyone would ransom me" so the FBI, just leave the man to rot. But is this how it actually happens?<br><br>Does not the sole responsibility of believing the baby or man was ransomed lie solely upon the FBI and not the individual ransomed?<br><br>Well do I remember reading this passage (1Tim.2:4-6 and 4:10,11) for the first time back in 1973. Being raised a Catholic I didn't even know such scriptures existed. (No I'm not ragging on the Catholics). But when I read it I automatically said to myeslf: "Yea, but they have to believe." But I am in a quandry. My King James Version says that "God will have all men to be saved" and I see that "men" is plural for "humans" so that it should read "God will have all humans to be saved." And then the reason is given "For...Christ gave Himself a ransom for all (humans)." So isn't it that God has to believe that the ransom has been met and not the humans?<br><br>And I am in another quandry (I'm in lots of quandries these days) [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/weep.gif" alt="weep" title="weep[/img] concerning the word "all" or "ta panta" "the all." While it is true that there are places where "all" is used in a restrictive sense and not to be meant as "absolutely all without exception," is it really logical to say that since "all" is sometimes used in a restrictive sense at times in the Scriptures that it therefore must be restrictive here as well, especially when one can find where the word "all" does mean absolutely all?<br><br>Man o man do I ever open the cans of worms? Being new here I hope you will take it easy on me. Once there was one message board where I argued for God's sovereignty in salvation as the Calvinists. The snide remarks and caustic remarks were about all I could handle. It was so sad. I really didn't know that Christians could treat other Christians that way. It was just so sad.<br><br>So I am really on tip toes here hoping I have met more mature believers and letting you all know I am a little gun shy.<br><br><br>Peace,<br>Zoe <br><br>

#5176 Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:34 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Zoe,<br><br>Actually, I don't care for your little illustrative story. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] Why? because it isn't true to the facts of the biblical case. For, it is GOD who demands the ransom, not some "bad guys". Secondly, those held in ransom are sinners who actually have no desire to be set free from that which is holding them in bondage, i.e., their sinful nature. The Scriptures do not describe them as babies nor adults, but cadavers; they are dead. Thirdly, it is Christ who pays the ransom to God, after which those held in bondage will infallibly be set free, for God is a holy and righteous God and cannot go back on His word. He Who has received the payment of ransom is under obligation to release those held in captive. Thus ALL for whom the ransom has been paid MUST be released. And so it is, that in God's perfect time, the Spirit comes to those who have been predestined to eternal life and recreates their dead soul, giving them spiritual life which immediately reaches out and takes hold of Christ unto salvation. They are "set free" from the bondage which held them captive.<br><br>In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #5177 Sun Dec 21, 2003 12:06 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Pilgrim,<br>I really liked how you said that. It is very clear. There are some things I am still not completely sure about as to what you wrote. Ijust hope no one minds if I have questions.<br><br>I guess I should take a few days and digest what you wrote before I ask any more.<br><br>Thanks!<br><br>Zoe

bishop3 #5178 Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:39 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
bishop3 ,<br><br>Sorry but you are little late in response to Criley. He was given the boot a long time ago. In any case, he would have just evaded your questions and challenges as he did in the rest of the posts.<br><br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos

Last edited by carlos; Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:41 PM.

"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
carlos #5179 Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:59 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Carlos<br><br>Ok thanks...I guess I should have read down the thread a little farther, Sorry [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/blush.gif" alt="blush" title="blush[/img]

#5180 Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:40 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Pilgrim, I have another question [shrug]:

Gary Long, whom you pointed us to said this:
[i]3. Biblical: The term "all men" taken by itself is capable of an absolute meaning but the the context of 1 Tim. 2 does not support it. That "all" or "all men" do not always mean all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by nearly 500 instances found in Scripture. "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the . . ." (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles).[i]

But what if Paul is saying it like this:

I remember when my mother would come into my bed room when I was young and would say: "I want all your clothes picked up . . . the socks, the pants, the shirts." Do you think I could get away with not putting away my coat on the floor and underwear etc? After all, she qualified the term "all your clothes" with just groups or classes of clothes. But we know she really meant "all of the clothes" and should I be derelict, I may not get disciplined.

Paul is using the same logical construction is he not?

He wrote in 1Tim.2:1 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; (lit. all humans) 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

I just find it hard to see Mr. Long's position (actually he quotes William Hendriksen's position) on this matter as being correct. I'm not saying I am, but I think I am.

Thanks. I'm still thinking about what you wrote to me before.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I remember when my mother would come into my bed room when I was young and would say: "I want all your clothes picked up . . . the socks, the pants, the shirts." Do you think I could get away with not putting away my coat on the floor and underwear etc? After all, she qualified the term "all your clothes" with just groups or classes of clothes. But we know she really meant "all of the clothes" and should I be derelict, I may not get disciplined.<br><br>Paul is using the same logical construction is he not?</font><hr></blockquote><p>[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/nope.gif" alt="nope" title="nope[/img] Sorry, he is not using the same "logic" in that text as you have offered in your illustration. A better and far more accurate illustration might be this: You are sitting in your History class with your other classmates and at the end of the period, the teacher says, "I want all/everyone to write a 6 page paper on the history of the Visigoths and on my desk by Monday morning at 9:00 a.m." Does this mean that "all/everyone" in the entire school is to write this paper? Well, hardly! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] And how do we know this? Because the CONTEXT reveals how his words are to be understood. The "all/everyone" is qualified by grammar, circumstance, audience, etc. Here are some biblical examples:<blockquote>Matthew 8:16 (KJV) "When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with [his] word, and healed [color:red]all</font color=red> that were sick:" (Did Jesus heal EVERY sick person that ever existed?)<br><br>Matthew 10:22 (ASV) "And ye shall be hated of [color:red]all</font color=red> men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." (Did Jesus mean every single man that ever lived shall hate those who follow Him? Certainly not. For all Christians are to love one another.)<br><br>John 12:19 (ASV) "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Behold how ye prevail nothing: lo, the [color:red]world</font color=red> is gone after him." (Are we to understand that every last man, woman and child followed Christ? Hardly, for the Pharisees who spoke those words didn't follow him.)<br><br>Mark 1:37 (ASV) "and they found him, and say unto him, [color:red]All</font color=red> are seeking thee." (Did every single individual seek after Jesus? Not according to Paul in Rom 3:11 they didn't.)<br><br>Mark 11:32 (ASV) "But should we say, From men--they feared the people: for [color:red]all</font color=red> verily held John to be a prophet." ("All" here can't mean every man without exception, for the Pharisees didn't esteem John the Baptist a prophet.)<br><br>John 3:26 (ASV) "And they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and [color:red]all men</font color=red> come to him." (Did every man in the entire world, even those who were living at that time, submit to John's Baptism?)</blockquote>I hope you get the point here? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img] The text clearly qualifies:<ol>[*]The meaning of "desires", which is God's preceptive will, that is what man is called to do as their responsibility: "to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth."</li>[*]The extent and meaning of "all men", i.e., all types of men, e.g., "kings and all that are in high place" as opposed to just common men.</li>[/LIST]Lastly, there are simply far too many passages which speak DIRECTLY of the extent the purpose of God in sending forth Christ and His atonement as being for the "sheep", "those whom the Father has given Me", etc., etc.... which would thus be found to contradict an interpretation that would make [color:red]all men</font color=red> to mean, every man, woman and child that has ever lived, is living and who will ever live.<br><br>In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Pilgrim,
But was Paul saying for us to pray for all mankind? He could just as easily said "pray for some of mankind" could he not?

I don't see how the teacher you speak of relates to what Paul was saying. The "all" of the teacher's demand is the "all" of the classroom. The "all" of Paul's request is the "all" of mankind.
Now if the teacher said: "All mankind has a brain, even kings and those in authority," we know she might be fibbing a little since not all who are in authority have brains...do they? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" /> But really, Paul may have been addressing a class (church) but we know he was not telling everyone in that class to just pray for everyone in that class. Otherwise he could have just said to pray for each other and for those in authority in your churches, right?

So where Paul wrote to the believers this:

Quote
2:1 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all humans; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority;"

I really believe he means "all mankind" and not just "all believers" to whom he is addressing such as you might think in your illustration of the teacher and the classroom.

Now I realize there are instances of where "all" is used in a restrictive sense. But there are instances where "all" is used in an absolute sense such as in Romans 5:12,18,19. But I don't see how one can limit the "all" here that we are to pray for.

Anyway, why not pray for all mankind so that "we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty"?

Does it make sense that Paul would say "Pray for just some of mankind, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life..."?

Just some thoughts to toss around. It is nice here fellowshipping with you folks by the way.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 60 guests, and 9 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,484 Gospel truth