SALVATION - Meaning.
n.
Preservation or deliverance from destruction, difficulty, or evil.
A source, means, or cause of such preservation or deliverance.
Deliverance from the power or penalty of sin; redemption.
The agent or means that brings about such deliverance.
The primary Greek noun translated salvation is soteria (found 45 times in the Greek New Testament). Soteria means, "denotes deliverance, preservation, salvation"
Luke 3:6
NIV© And all mankind will see God's salvation.'"
NAS© AND ALL FLESH WILL SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD.'"
ISV© Everyone will see the salvation that God has provided.'"
GWT© All people will see the salvation that God gives.'"
KJV And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
AKJ And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
ASV And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
BBE And all flesh will see the salvation of God.
DRB And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
DBY and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
ERV And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
WBS And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
WEY and then shall all mankind see God's salvation.'"
WEB All flesh will see God's salvation.'"
YLT and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'
yup... everyone will see, percieve, witness and identify.... it doesn't however say be enveloped, or included.
Great scripture, but not diffinitive.
Quote from: Dallas on October 30, 2009, 09:03:11 AM
yup... everyone will see, percieve, witness and identify.... it doesn't however say be enveloped, or included.
Great scripture, but not diffinitive.
Breaking the meaning down further...
Luke 3:6
And all mankind will see God's salvation.'"
And all mankind will see preservation.
And all mankind will see deliverance from destruction.
And all mankind will see deliverance from difficulty.
And all mankind will see deliverance from evil.
And all mankind will see deliverance from the power of sin
And all mankind will see deliverance from the penalty of sin
And all mankind will see redemption.
What I have found in my journey so far is that proof is really what people accept AS proof. People can make the Bible say whatever they want. I am not saying that there is no objective truth, just the opposite. But I what I am saying is that if someone doesn't want to agree with you, they will twist the scripture, so that there really aren't any definitive proofs to them who cannot see the texts for what they say.
There are two scriptures that I find very powerful though, if you want to really narrow it down.
1 Timothy 2:4
God will have all men to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.
Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
With that, they must face two possibilities: 1) either they believe God can do all his pleasure by saving everyone only he does not want to, which contradicts the first scripture saying he DOES want to or 2) they must say that God does want to save everyone, but cannot which contradicts the second scripture.
Even if they find ways to twist either the first or second scripture, they still have to deal with that dilemma and those scriptures underline the dilemma which is completely solved by saying "God does want all to be saved and he both can and will do all his pleasure."
Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.) But the dilemma will never change as long as they teach that either God wants to but cannot, or can but does not want to.
Again, this will not be taken as proof by them, but it will at least get them thinking and will establish that it is not the URer who is confused.
While I agree with you Seth, it does get harder to prove if they are not even willing to accept the scripture at face value.
Try posting 1 Tim 2:4 over at the CARM board and you will just get laughed at by the Calvinists. They all "know" it doesn't really mean "all men", but only means "all sorts of men"... CONTEXT CONTEXT! LOL.
There is no reasoning with them. Its funny, an Arminian will post 1 Tim 2:4 and say look: God desires to save all men. And the Calvinist laughs and says, if you really believe God desires to save all men, then you must believe in universalism because God gets what He desire! :BangHead: So close yet so far... :sigh:
Then of course they will go on, "since universalism is false, that can't be the meaning" and then come to the conclusion that God doesn't really want all men saved.
I like the verse in the OP, it floored me when I first read it... but people skew it as you suggest.
Personally I like this verse now; its in an obscure versions, but man oh man is it clear. From the CEV (see biblegateway):
Titus 2:11 God has shown us how kind he is by coming to save all people.
Can't get much clearer than that. Its still twistable though, all verses are. People will say its not really "all", or He doesn't actually do it etc.... nothing is proof if they are not open to it.
How do you deal with the "context" argument? For example Titus 2:11:
Titus 2:11 God has shown us how kind he is by coming to save all people.
People will say this is only Paul talking to Titus, so the "all people" is only referring to believers. When words cease to mean anything, you can make them say whatever you want I guess... but no one will admit that.
No need to prove anything and the way of the cross is anything but easy.
cp
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 07:15:28 PM
While I agree with you Seth, it does get harder to prove if they are not even willing to accept the scripture at face value.
Try posting 1 Tim 2:4 over at the CARM board and you will just get laughed at by the Calvinists. They all "know" it doesn't really mean "all men", but only means "all sorts of men"... CONTEXT CONTEXT! LOL.
Exactly, so then they will say that God does not want to save ALL men, just all sorts of men. Then you point out that Jesus Christ came to die for the WHOLE WORLD. They make the "all sorts of men" argument from a Calvinist perspective that Christ actually did not die for all men, just for the elect. Easy to disprove....to those who are willing to accept what the Word says.
Not only that, contextually the Timothy verse says that we are supposed to pray for ALL men, then it says that God desires for ALL men. If a Calvinist were to try to disprove that God wants all to be saved, they would also be saying that we are not supposed to pray for ALL men, just all types of men. hmmmm....
QuoteThere is no reasoning with them. Its funny, an Arminian will post 1 Tim 2:4 and say look: God desires to save all men. And the Calvinist laughs and says, if you really believe God desires to save all men, then you must believe in universalism because God gets what He desire! :BangHead: So close yet so far... :sigh:
Exactly. Both verses expose the duelling and equally wrong concepts.
QuoteThen of course they will go on, "since universalism is false, that can't be the meaning" and then come to the conclusion that God doesn't really want all men saved.
Probably. I had an experience where a minister told my friend in one meeting that God CANNOT get what he wants, and this was directly after he told me that God can get what he wants. He wasn't lying to either of us, just making arguments to suit the moment.
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 07:20:57 PM
How do you deal with the "context" argument? For example Titus 2:11:
Titus 2:11 God has shown us how kind he is by coming to save all people.
People will say this is only Paul talking to Titus, so the "all people" is only referring to believers. When words cease to mean anything, you can make them say whatever you want I guess... but no one will admit that.
Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them." So what happens here with a Calvanist is a larger issue which will be exposed with those two scriptures: does God want all to be saved? If not, then why did Christ die for the WHOLE WORLD? When Christ says "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save mens lives" why do they contradict him by saying Christ WANTS only some lives to be saved and WANTS to destroy other men's lives.
Well then they will either say that Christ either wants to destroy some lives, or wants to save those lives. If they say that Christ wants to destroy some men's lives, they contradict not only that verse but many others. If they say that Christ wants to save all men's lives, then they just contradicted themselves.
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 07:15:28 PM
While I agree with you Seth, it does get harder to prove if they are not even willing to accept the scripture at face value.
Try posting 1 Tim 2:4 over at the CARM board and you will just get laughed at by the Calvinists. They all "know" it doesn't really mean "all men", but only means "all sorts of men"... CONTEXT CONTEXT! LOL.
Exactly, so then they will say that God does not want to save ALL men, just all sorts of men. Then you point out that Jesus Christ came to die for the WHOLE WORLD. They make the "all sorts of men" argument from a Calvinist perspective that Christ actually did not die for all men, just for the elect. Easy to disprove....to those who are willing to accept what the Word says.
Not only that, contextually the Timothy verse says that we are supposed to pray for ALL men, then it says that God desires for ALL men. If a Calvinist were to try to disprove that God wants all to be saved, they would also be saying that we are not supposed to pray for ALL men, just all types of men. hmmmm....
Of course some of them come to that conclusion too... why should we pray for all men? God won't save them all. Why should we love God's enemies? God doesn't love them... and on and on it goes. Its all circular based on the notion that God predetermines people to eternal torment - a sick sick twisted doctrine.
Quote
Probably. I had an experience where a minister told my friend in one meeting that God CANNOT get what he wants, and this was directly after he told me that God can get what he wants. He wasn't lying to either of us, just making arguments to suit the moment.
When you believe in contradictions (God is love, God wants to save all, God doesn't get what he wants, so God tortures people instead) etc, sooner or later you will have to contradict yourself when explaining it to another.
Try to explain a square circle to someone. Its completely square, yet completely round!
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:03:16 PM
Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them." So what happens here with a Calvanist is a larger issue which will be exposed with those two scriptures: does God want all to be saved? If not, then why did Christ die for the WHOLE WORLD? When Christ says "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save mens lives" why do they contradict him by saying Christ WANTS only some lives to be saved and WANTS to destroy other men's lives.
Well then they will either say that Christ either wants to destroy some lives, or wants to save those lives. If they say that Christ wants to destroy some men's lives, they contradict not only that verse but many others. If they say that Christ wants to save all men's lives, then they just contradicted themselves.
Well many Calvinists freely admit that verses like "Jesus is the savior of the world" don't mean "Jesus is the savior of every single individual".
But you are right, they completely miss the character of Christ. Instead it always come down to "us" and "them". I had one Calvinist tell me that you must understand it is about "us" and "them" before you even start reading the bible.
Even simple concepts like this elude them: they claim "God is love" is not the primary attribute of God. God is holy holy holy - yes, but this does not contradict His nature which is love.
For example: they will claim Christ only died for some people, not all.
But Christ gave His life up for mankind, partly because there is no greater act of love than to sacrifice yourself for another, and to sacrifice yourself for ALL mankind is simply the greatest act of love one could do. So which "act of love" would be more in character with the God of love: one which only has Jesus sacrificing himself for some of mankind, or one which is for ALL of mankind?
It seems obvious to me. God does indeed harden peoples hearts.
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:05:26 PM
Of course some of them come to that conclusion too... why should we pray for all men? God won't save them all. Why should we love God's enemies? God doesn't love them... and on and on it goes. Its all circular based on the notion that God predetermines people to eternal torment - a sick sick twisted doctrine.
Exactly. This is why I will use those two scriptures because like any sword it cuts straight to the issue. It exposes concepts which are not Biblical, until the entire belief system is shown to be what it is: as sick twisted doctrine. Now that might now convince them, but as the scripture says,
Ezekiel 2:5
And whether they listen or fail to listen--for they are a rebellious house--they will know that a prophet has been among them.
They will know they have heard the Word.
QuoteWhen you believe in contradictions (God is love, God wants to save all, God doesn't get what he wants, so God tortures people instead) etc, sooner or later you will have to contradict yourself when explaining it to another.
Yes, and if you study to show yourself approved of God you will expose the contradictions. They won't want to talk to you for very long. But exposing those contradictions in me is what changed my mind. Some folks will or will not listen but they will know they have heard the Word of God.
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:03:16 PMWell Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."
If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:03:16 PMWell Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."
If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.
God's rolling the dice again I guess. "With a few more years I'll give'em 60/40."
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:03:16 PM
Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them." So what happens here with a Calvanist is a larger issue which will be exposed with those two scriptures: does God want all to be saved? If not, then why did Christ die for the WHOLE WORLD? When Christ says "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save mens lives" why do they contradict him by saying Christ WANTS only some lives to be saved and WANTS to destroy other men's lives.
Well then they will either say that Christ either wants to destroy some lives, or wants to save those lives. If they say that Christ wants to destroy some men's lives, they contradict not only that verse but many others. If they say that Christ wants to save all men's lives, then they just contradicted themselves.
Well many Calvinists freely admit that verses like "Jesus is the savior of the world" don't mean "Jesus is the savior of every single individual".
But you are right, they completely miss the character of Christ. Instead it always come down to "us" and "them". I had one Calvinist tell me that you must understand it is about "us" and "them" before you even start reading the bible.
Even simple concepts like this elude them: they claim "God is love" is not the primary attribute of God. God is holy holy holy - yes, but this does not contradict His nature which is love.
For example: they will claim Christ only died for some people, not all.
But Christ gave His life up for mankind, partly because there is no greater act of love than to sacrifice yourself for another, and to sacrifice yourself for ALL mankind is simply the greatest act of love one could do. So which "act of love" would be more in character with the God of love: one which only has Jesus sacrificing himself for some of mankind, or one which is for ALL of mankind?
It seems obvious to me. God does indeed harden peoples hearts.
That's right. The concept that Jesus does not want all to be saved is so easily disproved. Take a look at Romans 5. That is an ANTI "limited atonement" chapter. That's the chapter I go to to show that the gift is for all men for that all men were sinners. Then there's the verse that says, "If one man died for all, then were all dead." So how many were dead? All men, or all types of men.
This of course reminds the Calvanist of the total depravity theology. They cannot admit that NOT ALL men were dead because they teach rightly that everyone is born in sin. So if all men are dead that means Christ died for all, not all types of men, but all who were dead which is ALL.
If they teach that Christ did not die for all men, then they unwittingly teach that not all men were dead.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:03:16 PMWell Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."
If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.
Yup and that answer is one I have received. That is the obsfucation I was talking about. They will retreat to generalities rather than addressing the point.
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 07:02:27 PMMost of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.)
Isn't that pure blasphemy? They accuse God of lies, mistakes or changing His mind. A divided kingdom shall not stand. Verses are the pilars of Gods kingdom. And the way they put it the pilars are divided...
On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle". The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas". Then they quote this verse:
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4. The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all". But it does make the issue more difficult.
It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".
Comments?
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:20:43 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 07:02:27 PMMost of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.)
Isn't that pure blasphemy? They accuse God of lies, mistakes or changing His mind. A divided kingdom shall not stand. Verses are the pilars of Gods kingdom. And the way they put it the pilars are divided...
YUP!
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:03:16 PMWell Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."
If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.
Yup and that answer is one I have received. That is the obsfucation I was talking about. They will retreat to generalities rather than addressing the point.
We have a saying that translates as: "Because of the trees don't see the forest."
Is there a similar saying in English? It very well applie sto this discussion.
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:21:39 PM
On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle". The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas". Then they quote this verse:
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4. The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all". But it does make the issue more difficult.
It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".
Comments?
Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.
Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:24:56 PM
Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.
And in wider context it means only the elect/believers/etc... :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:20:43 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 07:02:27 PMMost of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.)
Isn't that pure blasphemy? They accuse God of lies, mistakes or changing His mind. A divided kingdom shall not stand. Verses are the pilars of Gods kingdom. And the way they put it the pilars are divided...
YUP!
I find with the Calvinists (at CARM at least), is that they have this "superior" attitude and assume you don't know what you are talking about. The whole Calvinist system is relatively stable if you assume God doesn't love everyone, which is what the hardcore's believe. Any verse that says "world" is simply redefined to mean "some people throughout the world". ie. God so loved the world...
For evidence they will use an expression like "I am travelling the world" -> does that mean you will travel to every country and to every individual's house? NO.
Of course the rational response is that world must be understood "in context", and when there is nothing to limit the use of the word "world", it should not be limited. But of course the Calvinist counter is: obviously it is limited because many people go to hell.
So then you have to try to disprove "hell" (the hades/sheol/gehenna/lake of fire obfuscation) and also disprove "aion" = "eternity" (which most people rarely accept).
Its all so circular, and there is no way you are getting out of that mindset if you want to believe there is an eternal hell. Logically, Calvinists have the holes plugged up. It all fits, but they end up with a "god" who only loves some people.
What are the best verses that say God loves all? I present Psalm 145:9 and 17 alot myself. But people find excuses to not believe those too. "It can't really mean all, because how is sending someone to hell 'loving'?" etc. circular reasoning again.
Psalm 145
9 The LORD is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made.
17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways
and loving toward all he has made.
I've spoken to Calvinists who have admitted that their are problems with their doctrine especially of "limited salvation" and have been in conversations where a Calvinist simply stopped addressing my questions because the proofs that Christ died for each and every individual were overwhelming. He simply stopped addressing it and started focusing on other people in the thread. I was like "hello?" No more answers.
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:24:56 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:21:39 PM
On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle". The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas". Then they quote this verse:
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4. The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all". But it does make the issue more difficult.
It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".
Comments?
Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.
Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.
Good answer. Thats what I tend to believe, "all" is not limited unless context demands it. But then of course anyone can play the context card: "See 1 Tim 2 is only talking about Kings - that is a kind of person, therefore its all kinds BLAH BLAH BLAH".
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of
all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:24:56 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:21:39 PM
On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle". The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas". Then they quote this verse:
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4. The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all". But it does make the issue more difficult.
It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".
Comments?
Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.
Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.
Good answer. Thats what I tend to believe, "all" is not limited unless context demands it. But then of course anyone can play the context card: "See 1 Tim 2 is only talking about Kings - that is a kind of person, therefore its all kinds BLAH BLAH BLAH".
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Well I simply tell them that Pas is defaulted to universal all unless context limits it.
So if I get the Timothy is only talking about Kings, then I bring up the point that if Timothy says we should only be praying for kings, then that means they are disobeying scripture by praying for anyone BUT kings, including your own children...or how about an unbelieving friend?
I would ask: if Paul is not saying we should pray for all men universally, then why pray for anyone at all? Kings need prayer, but our friends and family do not? It would mean that God only wants all KINGS to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth. What about Vlad the Impaler? He was a king. Does that mean that Vlad will be saved? If not, why not? Contextually the same people we are to pray for are the ones that God wants to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.
If that is so, then does that mean all Calvinists were former kings?
That pretty much squashes the idea that Paul is saying we should only pray for kings and not all men especially since Christ died for all men who were dead, which is the universal all according to their own doctrine.
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)
Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife. (no money)
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:38:28 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 08:24:56 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:21:39 PM
On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle". The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas". Then they quote this verse:
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4. The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all". But it does make the issue more difficult.
It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".
Comments?
Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.
Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.
Good answer. Thats what I tend to believe, "all" is not limited unless context demands it. But then of course anyone can play the context card: "See 1 Tim 2 is only talking about Kings - that is a kind of person, therefore its all kinds BLAH BLAH BLAH".
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Well I simply tell them that Pas is defaulted to universal all unless context limits it.
So if I get the Timothy is only talking about Kings, then I bring up the point that if Timothy says we should only be praying for kings, then that means they are disobeying scripture by praying for anyone BUT kings, including your own children.
That pretty much squashes the idea that Paul is saying we should only pray for kings and not all men especially since Christ died for all men who were dead, which is the universal all according to their own doctrine.
Yes good point, although some will just say we shouldn't pray for all men.
I find a good proof that God loves all is that God tells us to love our enemies so we will be perfect like Him. You will get all sorts of squirming when you bring that up like "God doesn't have to do what He tells us to do" or "We are only supposed to love elect enemies" (bizarre I know).
Both of these objections lead to contradictions - when we get to heaven, are we supposed to love our enemies (because God told us to), or are we supposed to rejoice that God has thrown our enemies in hell (because it is for His glory)? Bizarre mind twisting.
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:40:26 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)
Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife. (no money)
NET 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
The red limits not the type of evil but the number of people who reach for the money.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:47:22 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:40:26 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)
Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife. (no money)
NET 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
The red limits not the type of evil but the number of people who reach for the money.
Good point. Maybe it really is the root of ALL evil. If we are loving money, then we are not loving God nor our neighbor as ourselves, and these are the two commands we are to follow to fulfill all of God's commands.
Loving money conflicts with loving God and neighbors.
1 Timothy 2:4 AND Isaiah 46:9-10
are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time.
As for Catholics, it may be easier. Most of them only believe what comes from the Catholic Church, so you can show them the article:
"Universal salvation and the Roman Catholic Church" which is in this site, along with quotes from Jean Paul II and England Cardinal Cormac.
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:53:37 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:47:22 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:40:26 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2009, 08:39:27 PM
Quote from: legoman on October 30, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
So do you agree 1 Tim 6:10 is rendered correctly then?:
Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
I think it must be correct because certainly some evil has nothing do with money (adultry for example). This would be an example of the context demanding "pas" cannot literally mean "all without exception"?
Adultery: how about prostitution. (money)
Sure, but how about cheating on your wife with your best friends wife. (no money)
NET 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
The red limits not the type of evil but the number of people who reach for the money.
Good point. Maybe it really is the root of ALL evil. If we are loving money, then we are not loving God nor our neighbor as ourselves, and these are the two commands we are to follow to fulfill all of God's commands.
Loving money conflicts with loving God and neighbors.
Can't remember the verse but there is one similar to "If you break one law/commandment you have broken them all."
And money is indeed the root for many sins. Just a few I can think of now. Far from complete.
Prostitution, jelousy, theft, murder, slavery, greed, fraud(lie), etc
I also think we should limit the word money to cash as we know it. Maybe for a yet undiscovered tribe coconuts are money.
Quote from: Nicolás on November 02, 2009, 05:29:19 AM
1 Timothy 2:4 AND Isaiah 46:9-10
are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time.
Good point - its called compartmentalization; I believe many people do this in order to hold two contradictory ideas. ie. God does what He desires, but God can't get what He desires when it comes to saving all men. Or God is love, but God MUST torture people forever if people don't love Him...
Compartmentalization is the only thing that holds their world together.
They will use "context" as an excuse to justify the compartmentalization. "God only desires to save people in 1 Tim 2:4 - that's only in the context of the letter to Timothy, but in Isaiah 46:9-10, its an entirely different context, so it doesn't apply" etc.
Quote from: Nicolás on November 02, 2009, 05:29:19 AM
1 Timothy 2:4 AND Isaiah 46:9-10
are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time.
As for Catholics, it may be easier. Most of them only believe what comes from the Catholic Church, so you can show them the article:
"Universal salvation and the Roman Catholic Church" which is in this site, along with quotes from Jean Paul II and England Cardinal Cormac.
I am married into a Catholic family, and one thing I have encountered is that they tend not to take the Bible as the final authority, but all the teachings of the Catholic writers put together.
I have found that with Calvanists, 1 Timothy 2:4 AND Isaiah 46:9-10 exposes the "limited atonement" falsehood easily disproved by Romans 5, and many many more,
With Arminians....well, it pretty much tends to ends the conversation.
Quote from: legoman on November 02, 2009, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: Nicolás on November 02, 2009, 05:29:19 AM
1 Timothy 2:4 AND Isaiah 46:9-10
are strong proof of UR. However, when I present them to someone who's not open to UR, they answer in ways that totally miss the point, as if they were unable to keep in mind the 2 statements at the same time.
Good point - its called compartmentalization; I believe many people do this in order to hold two contradictory ideas. ie. God does what He desires, but God can't get what He desires when it comes to saving all men. Or God is love, but God MUST torture people forever if people don't love Him...
Compartmentalization is the only thing that holds their world together.
They will use "context" as an excuse to justify the compartmentalization. "God only desires to save people in 1 Tim 2:4 - that's only in the context of the letter to Timothy, but in Isaiah 46:9-10, its an entirely different context, so it doesn't apply" etc.
With Armenians, it's a more challenging proposition, because they do believe that God can "get what he wants" they just forget that when talking about salvation of all. So they two scriptures put together very tightly two things that they believe at different times:
1. God will do what he wants
2. God wants to save all
An Armineist basic doctrine is: "God wants to but it's up to humans." So, if they try to argue context with Isaiah, they are put into the position of admiting that they believe God to be incapable of something. The only reason they would want to contextualize Isaiah is to say it only applies to a specific context, meaning that in other contexts, "God cannot" and they don't really want to say that, because they don't want to limit Him, certainly not to a heathen universalist who is proclaiming God's might and power, when they do the same thing in their praise and worship.
Then, on the other hand, the only reason they would want to contextualize Timothy is to say that God doesn't want ALL men to be saved. They can't do that either.....because it would make them Calvinists. They believe He does want all to be saved. So contextualizing either Isaiah or Timothy is pointless.
They are then put in the same position I was: either God is able, and cruelly does not want to save all. Or He is kind and does want to save all, yet is weak. Neither option is savory to the Armeniest, and the two scripture show the choice.
YEs, Calvanists have the "limited atonement" theory, which Arminians consider heresy, but limited atonement is pretty easily dismantled as you know.
Quote from: Seth on November 03, 2009, 04:29:59 AM
They are then put in the same position I was: either God is able, and cruelly does not want to save all. Or He is kind and does want to save all, yet is weak.
Just like to add that even in the second proposition...he is still cruel, because that means he brought the majority of humanity into existence
knowing that they would suffer a terrible eternal fate...yet created them anyway.
and when you break it down to those two inevitable conclusions, you realize that cannot be God.
Quote from: NinjaWizards777 on November 03, 2009, 04:53:02 AM
Quote from: Seth on November 03, 2009, 04:29:59 AM
They are then put in the same position I was: either God is able, and cruelly does not want to save all. Or He is kind and does want to save all, yet is weak.
Just like to add that even in the second proposition...he is still cruel, because that means he brought the majority of humanity into existence knowing that they would suffer a terrible eternal fate...yet created them anyway.
and when you break it down to those two inevitable conclusions, you realize that cannot be God.
Yup, the Calvinist is comfortable with that conclusion. The Arminiest is not.
Salvation
What is the most important
thing in the Scripture for the sinner?
Many will answer, Salvation. Yet this
important term only came into use in
the English language about the twelfth
century, say eight hundred years ago.
It is a purely Latin word. At that time
it bore the meanings both of safty or
salvation, and of health. The believer's
salvation was his "health". Salvation
occurs not once in the Anglo-Saxon
Scriptures (680-900 A.D.),or in Wiclif's
version (1380 A.D.). Wiclif always uses
the word "health", although he uses the
terms"make safe" and "safe". The old
word used for the Saviour was Haelend,
or "Healer". Not only does He make one
safe, but He heals. Tyndale, in the year
1526A.D. was the first one to use the word
salvation in the Scriptures, and he used
it once only, in John 4:22("for salvacion
commeth of the Jews". Wiclif had, "for
heelthe is of Jews") Thereafter the fine
old English word "health" dropped out
and was completely displaced by the
imported but now most important Latin
word " salvation". A Rising Son Ministries & Services
From,Whence Eternity? Alexander Thomson. Concordant
Publishing Concern, Retyped by Lee Damboise II
Quote from: Lee Damboise on November 04, 2009, 04:48:54 AM
Salvation
What is the most important
thing in the Scripture for the sinner?
Many will answer, Salvation. Yet this
important term only came into use in
the English language about the twelfth
century, say eight hundred years ago.
It is a purely Latin word. At that time
it bore the meanings both of safty or
salvation, and of health. The believer's
salvation was his "health". Salvation
occurs not once in the Anglo-Saxon
Scriptures (680-900 A.D.),or in Wiclif's
version (1380 A.D.). Wiclif always uses
the word "health", although he uses the
terms"make safe" and "safe". The old
word used for the Saviour was Haelend,
or "Healer". Not only does He make one
safe, but He heals. Tyndale, in the year
1526A.D. was the first one to use the word
salvation in the Scriptures, and he used
it once only, in John 4:22("for salvacion
commeth of the Jews". Wiclif had, "for
heelthe is of Jews") Thereafter the fine
old English word "health" dropped out
and was completely displaced by the
imported but now most important Latin
word " salvation". A Rising Son Ministries & Services
From,Whence Eternity? Alexander Thomson. Concordant
Publishing Concern, Retyped by Lee Damboise II
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Hi Lee,
Thanks for bringing this up again. I posted the same article here (http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6289.0) a while back. Since then I use the quote I have under my avatar now.
John 4:22 Ye worschipen that ye knowen not; we worschipen that that we knowen; for helthe is of the Jewis.
Wiclif's is about the only place (+this article) Jesus is called Healer.
But there are plenty of site that will inform you that Yahshua means: Yah(weh) Saves instead of Yah(weh) Heals.
What's going on? Wiclif was wrong? Meaning of the word changed? Got corrupted by church?
Don't know if anything is wrong, just the article I have and knew about.
it was all for His reasons.
Lee, perhaps wrong is the wrong word...
Let me rephrase it: "I like the word Healer; do you have more information about it Lee?"
As I wrote in that other thread "Healer" sounds a bit stronger than "Saviour"
Both very positive words but I somehow prefer Healer.
Ofcourse it changes nothing or very very little about the Bible. It's just that from all the aion and fire stuff I learned that it's not wise just to accept (well intended) mistranslations.
:2c:
I will check and get back asap
WW, the only thing I found so far is a book that I am almost pos. that you know, but is a must for any person that believe as we do.
Restitution of all things
by Andrew Jukes
March of 1867
sold by tentmaker-sigler-concordant Pub. concern
Click here for the original version on Google books. (http://books.google.com/books?id=_psCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Restitution+of+all+things%22+jukes&num=100&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
Quote from: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Restitution%20of%20All%20Things/restofall.htmAnd here for online version on the TM site.
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 07:02:27 PM
With that, they must face two possibilities: 1) either they believe God can do all his pleasure by saving everyone only he does not want to, which contradicts the first scripture saying he DOES want to or 2) they must say that God does want to save everyone, but cannot which contradicts the second scripture.
Even if they find ways to twist either the first or second scripture, they still have to deal with that dilemma and those scriptures underline the dilemma which is completely solved by saying "God does want all to be saved and he both can and will do all his pleasure."
Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.) But the dilemma will never change as long as they teach that either God wants to but cannot, or can but does not want to.
Again, this will not be taken as proof by them, but it will at least get them thinking and will establish that it is not the URer who is confused.
I talked to a Calvinist one time and asked her, "If God can save all people [and she believed he could], and he desires to [I believe I used 1 Timothy 2:4], then why doesn't he?"
Her reply was: "Well, that's just desire [that is, it's JUST God's desire]. That's something different."
Either God has two natures waring against each other, a will to eternally lose certain men, and a will to eternally save all men, what she said was a blatant absurdity. Unless she accepts the option I just suggested (that God must have two warring natures), she would have to accept that God is not all powerful.
Quote from: Tim B on November 04, 2009, 07:47:07 PM
I talked to a Calvinist one time and asked her, "If God can save all people [and she believed he could], and he desires to [I believe I used 1 Timothy 2:4], then why doesn't he?"
Her reply was: "Well, that's just desire [that is, it's JUST God's desire]. That's something different."
Either God has two natures waring against each other, a will to eternally lose certain men, and a will to eternally save all men, what she said was a blatant absurdity. Unless she accepts the option I just suggested (that God must have two warring natures), she would have to accept that God is not all powerful.
That's really interesting because a hardcore and knowledgeable Calvinist would say that God doesn't want to save all people because Jesus didn't die for all people.
What is most notable to me about the Isaiah scripture is that it declares that not only CAN God get what he wants but it says "I SHALL do all my pleasure." That's a stronger statement than "I CAN." It's more like "I SHALL."
Quote from: Tim B on November 04, 2009, 07:47:07 PM
I talked to a Calvinist one time and asked her, "If God can save all people [and she believed he could], and he desires to [I believe I used 1 Timothy 2:4], then why doesn't he?"
Her reply was: "Well, that's just desire [that is, it's JUST God's desire]. That's something different."
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
2656 #p,xe chephets {khay'-fets}
Meaning: 1) delight, pleasure 1a) delight 1b) desire, longing 1c) the good pleasure 1d) that in which one takes delight
No further comment needed I guess.
Quote from: Tim B on November 04, 2009, 07:47:07 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 30, 2009, 07:02:27 PM
With that, they must face two possibilities: 1) either they believe God can do all his pleasure by saving everyone only he does not want to, which contradicts the first scripture saying he DOES want to or 2) they must say that God does want to save everyone, but cannot which contradicts the second scripture.
Even if they find ways to twist either the first or second scripture, they still have to deal with that dilemma and those scriptures underline the dilemma which is completely solved by saying "God does want all to be saved and he both can and will do all his pleasure."
Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.) But the dilemma will never change as long as they teach that either God wants to but cannot, or can but does not want to.
Again, this will not be taken as proof by them, but it will at least get them thinking and will establish that it is not the URer who is confused.
I talked to a Calvinist one time and asked her, "If God can save all people [and she believed he could], and he desires to [I believe I used 1 Timothy 2:4], then why doesn't he?"
Her reply was: "Well, that's just desire [that is, it's JUST God's desire]. That's something different."
Either God has two natures waring against each other, a will to eternally lose certain men, and a will to eternally save all men, what she said was a blatant absurdity. Unless she accepts the option I just suggested (that God must have two warring natures), she would have to accept that God is not all powerful.
Have you guys read Arthur Pink's "Sovereignty of God" before? It is quite a good read; long, sometimes wordy, but still good to read. Gives you some perspective on things. IMHO It gets a lot of things right about God's sovereigty. The flaw of course is they believe God predestines billions into hell -> which leads to Calvinism.
If a Calvinist is honest, they will flat out tell you God doesn't love everyone. They will say God does get all He desires, but they change the meaning of 1 Tim 2:4 to be "all sorts of men" will be saved. The whole Calvinist system is very internally consistent. They don't believe God is all-loving, but only loves the elect. Why would He love those in hell?
Where it becomes inconsistent is when they try to reconcile it with all the UR type scriptures. Word twisting is always needed. They also have problems if you point out God could have predestined all the Calvinists to hell, and there's not one thing they could do about it. They could just be all under a strong delusion. Try pointing that out the next time you talk to a Calvanist, Tim! :happygrin:
The problem is there is a lot of "half-Calvinists" out there. They want to be part of the "cool Calvinist club", but can't fully stomach the logical conclusions of the full doctrine - namely that God doesn't want to save everyone and purposely predestines people to hell. Sounds like you talked to one of these "half-Calvinists" Tim.
Well, like I said, with a Calvinist, as I am sure you will agree, their internal consistency runs afoul of the pain spoken word when it comes to who Christ died for.
That is why the concept of "limited atonement" Will come up in a conversation like this. Yet, you can, and I have, show them the Scriptures that show that Christ died for everyone who ever lived. They deny that Christ died for every single person, because if if they confirmed it then they would have to say that God does indeed WANT everyone to be saved. That puts them in a precarious position. That is why "limited atonement" was invented, which by the way is considered a severe heresy to non-Calvinists.
One of the Calvenist proof texts for limited atonement is this:
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
A Calvanist tried to use that to say that Christ did not die for all but only for many. Nice try. If someone tries to say that to you, you can demonstrate that "all" and "many" are not mutually exclusive. As I told him, all the stars in the sky and grains of sand on the beach constitute many stars and many grains.
Many is simply a "great number of...." and "all" or "the whole world" constitutes many people. Needless to say, he obfuscated and ignored me.
Quote from: Seth on November 04, 2009, 08:31:40 PM
Well, like I said, with a Calvinist, as I am sure you will agree, their internal consistency runs afoul of the pain spoken word when it comes to who Christ died for.
That is why the concept of "limited atonement" Will come up in a conversation like this. Yet, you can, and I have, show them the Scriptures that show that Christ died for everyone who ever lived. They deny that Christ died for every single person, because if if they confirmed it then they would have to say that God does indeed WANT everyone to be saved. That puts them in a precarious position. That is why "limited atonement" was invented, which by the way is considered a severe heresy to non-Calvinists.
Yes I agree.
You can show them 1 John 2:2 "Christ is the sacrifice for our sins, and non only for ours, but for the sins of the whole world", and they will boldly say "obviously whole world cannot mean every single individual".
And their reason?
Because that would mean all are saved! They fully acknowledge that Christ's sacrifice fully covers what it was intended to cover, but they argue it was only intended to cover the elect.
Its amazing to see someone walk that close to the truth and completely miss it. :happy3:
Quote from: Seth on November 04, 2009, 08:40:38 PM
One of the Calvenist proof texts for limited atonement is this:
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
A Calvanist tried to use that to say that Christ did not die for all but only for many. Nice try. If someone tries to say that to you, you can demonstrate that "all" and "many" are not mutually exclusive. As I told him, all the stars in the sky and grains of sand on the beach constitute many stars and many grains.
Many is simply a "great number of...." and "all" or "the whole world" constitutes many people. Needless to say, he obfuscated and ignored me.
A lot of the scriptures about the elect are used as proof-texts for limited atonement. For example Romans 8:29 talking about those He forknew being predestined to be conformed to His image. They assume this means the rest will never be saved.
They assume:
elect = predestined to be saved
non-elect = predestined to be not saved
When really it is this:
elect = predestined to be saved first (and understand God's plan of salvation)
non-elect = predestined to be saved later (and not understand God's plan of salvation - until later)
Yeah particularly the scriptures which say that Jesus died for the Church. They use the same faulty reasoning as they do with "blood shed for many." That a scripture says that Jesus died for the Church, simply references a group of people within the larger "WHOLE world" that Christ died for.
One Calvinist I saw on YouTube rationalized the "whole world" statement to mean basically a figure of speech. He related it to when someone says "I have been sitting here forever" where forever is not literal. So saying that Christ died for the whole world amounted to an exaggeration. Can you believe that?! You probably can. ;-)
The first thing I thought of is: if we are free to interpret the "whole world" as nothing more than an exaggeration, then why wouldn't we also interpret "eternal torment" to be equally an exaggeration? Hmmmmm?
Quote from: Seth on November 04, 2009, 11:14:35 PM
Yeah particularly the scriptures which say that Jesus died for the Church. They use the same faulty reasoning as they do with "blood shed for many." That a scripture says that Jesus died for the Church, simply references a group of people within the larger "WHOLE world" that Christ died for.
One Calvinist I saw on YouTube rationalized the "whole world" statement to mean basically a figure of speech. He related it to when someone says "I have been sitting here forever" where forever is not literal. So saying that Christ died for the whole world amounted to an exaggeration. Can you believe that?! You probably can. ;-)
The first thing I thought of is: if we are free to interpret the "whole world" as nothing more than an exaggeration, then why wouldn't we also interpret "eternal torment" to be equally an exaggeration? Hmmmmm?
There is something of a point that can be made about the "whole world". For example, if I say "I'm going to see the whole world" - I don't literally mean I'm going to see every individual or every place in the world. That would be impossible as I have a finite amount of time. In that case it really is a form of exaggeration.
But the error the Calvinists make (perhaps like the person in the youtube video you mentioned) is then applying that same meaning of "the whole world" to a statement about God. For God, it is not an exaggeration to say He atoned for the sins of the whole world. That can be a true literal statement, so we should treat it as such.
Quote from: legoman on November 04, 2009, 11:31:41 PM
Quote from: Seth on November 04, 2009, 11:14:35 PM
Yeah particularly the scriptures which say that Jesus died for the Church. They use the same faulty reasoning as they do with "blood shed for many." That a scripture says that Jesus died for the Church, simply references a group of people within the larger "WHOLE world" that Christ died for.
One Calvinist I saw on YouTube rationalized the "whole world" statement to mean basically a figure of speech. He related it to when someone says "I have been sitting here forever" where forever is not literal. So saying that Christ died for the whole world amounted to an exaggeration. Can you believe that?! You probably can. ;-)
The first thing I thought of is: if we are free to interpret the "whole world" as nothing more than an exaggeration, then why wouldn't we also interpret "eternal torment" to be equally an exaggeration? Hmmmmm?
There is something of a point that can be made about the "whole world". For example, if I say "I'm going to see the whole world" - I don't literally mean I'm going to see every individual or every place in the world. That would be impossible as I have a finite amount of time. In that case it really is a form of exaggeration.
But the error the Calvinists make (perhaps like the person in the youtube video you mentioned) is then applying that same meaning of "the whole world" to a statement about God. For God, it is not an exaggeration to say He atoned for the sins of the whole world. That can be a true literal statement, so we should treat it as such.
Exactly. That is what they will say "the whole world" is an exaggeration. If they make that claim, they cannot call themselves "Biblical literalists" which many would claim to be. So if "the whole world" is nothing more than an exaggeration, then why is "going to hell forever" not an exaggeration? Kind of a slippery slope...
Quote from: Seth on November 05, 2009, 01:03:42 AM
Quote from: legoman on November 04, 2009, 11:31:41 PM
Quote from: Seth on November 04, 2009, 11:14:35 PM
Yeah particularly the scriptures which say that Jesus died for the Church. They use the same faulty reasoning as they do with "blood shed for many." That a scripture says that Jesus died for the Church, simply references a group of people within the larger "WHOLE world" that Christ died for.
One Calvinist I saw on YouTube rationalized the "whole world" statement to mean basically a figure of speech. He related it to when someone says "I have been sitting here forever" where forever is not literal. So saying that Christ died for the whole world amounted to an exaggeration. Can you believe that?! You probably can. ;-)
The first thing I thought of is: if we are free to interpret the "whole world" as nothing more than an exaggeration, then why wouldn't we also interpret "eternal torment" to be equally an exaggeration? Hmmmmm?
There is something of a point that can be made about the "whole world". For example, if I say "I'm going to see the whole world" - I don't literally mean I'm going to see every individual or every place in the world. That would be impossible as I have a finite amount of time. In that case it really is a form of exaggeration.
But the error the Calvinists make (perhaps like the person in the youtube video you mentioned) is then applying that same meaning of "the whole world" to a statement about God. For God, it is not an exaggeration to say He atoned for the sins of the whole world. That can be a true literal statement, so we should treat it as such.
Exactly. That is what they will say "the whole world" is an exaggeration. If they make that claim, they cannot call themselves "Biblical literalists" which many would claim to be. So if "the whole world" is nothing more than an exaggeration, then why is "going to hell forever" not an exaggeration? Kind of a slippery slope...
The other way I've seen this (mis)represented is to say it means this:
God atoned for sins
throughout the whole world.
Of course that doesn't work so well with this phrase: Jesus takes away the sin of the world.
If Jesus didn't really take away all sin, and there is still some sin left in the world, then we can't very well say Jesus takes away the sin of the world can we?
The phrase "sin of the world" (sin singular) really specifies all sin.
Romans 5
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
It's that phrase "even so" that's interesting. That phrase means "in the same way." As by the action of Adam judgment came upon all to condemnation...how many people would they say judgment came upon? Each and every individual right? I doubt they would argue against the notion that one judgment came upon each and every person due to Adam....after all that doctrine is part of the 5 point pillars: Total Depravaty
from Wiki:
"The doctrine of total depravity (also called "total inability") asserts that, as a consequence of the fall of humanity into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin."
Romans 5
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
I am sure even a scripture as clear as that can be twisted, but the outside observer can usually see the folly in it.