All means all

[Josheb]

That changes, entirely, the meaning of the word "desires".

No, it does not. That is a baseless statement.

Such an understanding is not consistent with either the meaning in English or Greek.

Sure it is. This is another baseless statement.

Thus, it comes not from what the Bible says there, but what you have read into it from your own thinking.

Another baseless statement.

Desire does not mean decree.

Not once did I say "desire" means decree. I did not imply it and I did not remotely insinuate any such premise. This statement is non sequitur.

Nor is okay to change the meaning from what it actually says.

Another non sequitur. At no place did I say, imply, or insinuate the meaning of "desire" is any different than the normal meaning of the word applied in ordinary usage.

It is the failure to consider one desire of God's apart from all other desires of God's that is the problem. It is that reading that abuses the definition of "desire."

That is never sound exegesis and always leads to bad doctrine.

Baseless statements do not prove anything. Baseless protests do not persuade, either. If there is disagreement with anything I posted the specify the one statement that is incorrect and prove how and why it is incorrect, beginning with scripture and not baseless dissent. If I made two or more incorrect statements, then address them one at a time but be specific and explanatory.

In the absence of substance, the protest is meaningless and invalid.

1 Timothy 2:4 does NOT define all of God's soteriological (or eschatological) desires and it is both eisegetic and irrational to treat the verse that way for the reasons already provided. In other words, I did what you should be doing. I provided a scripture-based rationale for why that verse cannot and should not be proof-texted. The response was a protest devoid of scripture, devoid of exegesis, and devoid of reason. It was baseless. I do not mind disagreement. I invite the discussion, but you have to show up with something more than "Nunh unh."

So...

• Form your argument.
• Then make your case.
• Use scripture and use whole scripture - not just selectively used scripture supporting an already-existing position.
• Be specific where and how anything I posted was incorrect. In the absence of any evidence then bow to that content.
• It's not enough to protest. Proving my post incorrect does not prove your position correct. An affirmative case must be prvided, AND it must withstand others' review.
• Then post it AND avail it to examination and critique.

Please do not repeat what just happened.

 

[Carbon]

Why did God prepare to create people destined for eternal hell? I know you said it is for His glory, and I know you say everybody deserves hell from conception, but why should any of that be the case? How does God get glory from reprobating people to hell for a reason nobody can understand save for "mystery"?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—Roman’s 9.

 

[Carbon]

You, I think, are referencing Romans 9. Most of that passage is not speaking about choosing anyone for salvation; rather it speaks of God's choosing people for service. The mention of Pharoah, or Jacob or Esau really has nothing to do with whether they are saved or lost. Instead it speaks of God's using them for His purpose.

Paul is addressing the common fallacy of the Jews that since they were members of God's chosen people, then they must be chosen for salvation as well. Paul says that is not so. His point in Romans 9 is that God is free to use anyone He wants for His own purpose without any requirement to save them. Therefore just because they, Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh, were used by God to bring Christ into the world that does not mean that God must save them. That is what verse 21 about the clay, about honorable and dishonorable use is all about. It is not about any "clay" being saved or lose. It is about using the clay however and for whatever He wants in this world and that has no connection whatsoever with whether or not He saves the clay.

Consider for a moment verse 22. How can God's punishment of the wicked in the hereafter show His wrath and make known His power in the world today? It can't. His wrath was shown and His power was made known when He used Pharoah as He did to set His people free. And that having nothing to do with where Pharoah ends up in the hereafter.

I know that none of that is the Calvinist's understanding of Romans Chapter 9, but I think it is the correct understanding.

Okay. Thanks for sharing

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It means exactly what it says. All men, not just the Jews.

Ok, but what if the means of saving them involves turning them into Israelites? (I think it does).

 

[JIM]

Okay. Thanks for sharing

Do you have any idea at all of just how condescending things like that really are? I suspect that you do and it is fully intended.

 

[JIM]

• It's not enough to protest. Proving my post incorrect does not prove your position correct. An affirmative case must be prvided, AND it must withstand others' review

I have no reason whatever to think that if must withstand your review, or the review of anyone else in fact. However, I know of many people whose review it withstands.

 

[atpollard]

I have no reason whatever to think that if must withstand your review, or the review of anyone else in fact. However, I know of many people whose review it withstands.

Respectfully, few posts stand up to review. Most are merely "liked" by those that already agreed [both sides of any issue].

To withstand review, someone (anyone) must:

• state a premise
• offer Scriptural support
• exegete the scripture to logically present your argument
• defend your argument against counterarguments that:
  • offer Scriptural support
  • exegete the scripture

Then a post has both been reviewed and stood up to review.

[We could use a few good Formal Debates to demonstrate how to argue soundly and politely.]

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—Roman’s 9.

What if, in other words, God sends people to hell. ETC. The only word in Romans 9 you quoted there that changes the whole meaning is that word "patience".

 

[JIM]

Respectfully, few posts stand up to review. Most are merely "liked" by those that already agreed [both sides of any issue].

To withstand review, someone (anyone) must:

• state a premise
• offer Scriptural support
• exegete the scripture to logically present your argument
• defend your argument against counterarguments that:
  • offer Scriptural support
  • exegete the scripture

Then a post has both been reviewed and stood up to review.

[We could use a few good Formal Debates to demonstrate how to argue soundly and politely.]

That, however desirable it might be, will never be a part of a forum, nor could it be. What you are describing is an honest-to-goodness debate. That is not what forums like this are really all about.

I would add that a post, having been reviewed and having stood up to review as you described, does not necessarily present truth.

 

[atpollard]

That, however desirable it might be, will never be a part of a forum, nor could it be. What you are describing is an honest-to-goodness debate. That is not what forums like this are really all about.

I would add that a post, having been reviewed and having stood up to review as you described, does not necessarily present truth.

Even if the IDEAL is unobtainable [as it usually is], making a clear statement and supporting it with both logical argument and scripture - all in one post - does not seem out of our reach. Perhaps I should give it a shot? (money where my mouth is, as it were)

 

[Carbon]

Ok, but what if the means of saving them involves turning them into Israelites? (I think it does).

Well all the elect are spiritual Israel. This is both Jews and gentiles. That’s how I understand

 

[Carbon]

Do you have any idea at all of just how condescending things like that really are? I suspect that you do and it is fully intended.

If you feel I am condescending I apologize. Exactly what do you mean, explain. Thanks

 

[atpollard]

Even if the IDEAL is unobtainable [as it usually is], making a clear statement and supporting it with both logical argument and scripture - all in one post - does not seem out of our reach. Perhaps I should give it a shot? (money where my mouth is, as it were)

All means "All without distinction" and not "all without exception". [a clear bold statement]

The whole premise of the OT was that GOD would send salvation to a select people, through a covenant with THEM, and not to all men without exception. [logical arguments]

• Gen 12:1-3 [NLT] 1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father's family, and go to the land that I will show you. 2 I will make you into a great nation. I will bless you and make you famous, and you will be a blessing to others. 3 I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt. All the families on earth will be blessed through you."
• [Gen 17:7-8 NLT] 7 "I will confirm my covenant with you and your descendants after you, from generation to generation. This is the everlasting covenant: I will always be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 And I will give the entire land of Canaan, where you now live as a foreigner, to you and your descendants. It will be their possession forever, and I will be their God."
• [supported by scripture]

God made a "covenant" with Abram, separating him out from all other men for a blessing that was unavailable to anyone else.

• [Exo 19:3-6 NLT] 3 Then Moses climbed the mountain to appear before God. The LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "Give these instructions to the family of Jacob; announce it to the descendants of Israel: 4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians. You know how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you will obey me and keep my covenant, you will be my own special treasure from among all the peoples on earth; for all the earth belongs to me. 6 And you will be my kingdom of priests, my holy nation.' This is the message you must give to the people of Israel."

From Abraham, God restricted his salvation to the children of Israel in a new Covenant.

• [Mat 10:5-7 NLT] 5 Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with these instructions: "Don't go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, 6 but only to the people of Israel--God's lost sheep. 7 Go and announce to them that the Kingdom of Heaven is near.

Even Jesus ministry focused on bringing salvation to the Jews.

• [Act 10:44-48 NLT] 44 Even as Peter was saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the message. 45 The Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, too. 46 For they heard them speaking in other tongues and praising God. Then Peter asked, 47 "Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?" 48 So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Afterward Cornelius asked him to stay with them for several days.

So when the HS fell on gentiles, it was a preconception shattering revelation that EVERYTHING was different. Salvation was indeed for ALL MEN ... all without distinction! or as the authors of the bible describe it, over and over ...

• [Rom 1:16 NLT] 16 For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes--the Jew first and also the Gentile.
• [Rom 10:12 NLT] 12 Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They have the same Lord, who gives generously to all who call on him.
• [Gal 3:28 NLT] 28 There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
• [Col 3:11 NLT] 11 In this new life, it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbaric, uncivilized, slave, or free. Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us.

and my personal favorites:

• [Rev 5:9-10 NLT] 9 And they sang a new song with these words: "You are worthy to take the scroll and break its seals and open it. For you were slaughtered, and your blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth."
• [Rev 7:9-10 NLT] 9 After this I saw a vast crowd, too great to count, from every nation and tribe and people and language, standing in front of the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes and held palm branches in their hands. 10 And they were shouting with a great roar, "Salvation comes from our God who sits on the throne and from the Lamb!"

ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION!!!! [pathos, an emotional call to action designed to signal the end of a rhetorical speech]
(Soli Deo Gloria!)


Any questions? [invitation for rebuttal]

 

[JIM]

If you feel I am condescending I apologize. Exactly what do you mean, explain. Thanks

It is much like the southern expression, "Well bless your heart".

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Well all the elect are spiritual Israel. This is both Jews and gentiles. That’s how I understand

As I understand...

God's covenant with Abraham was to make him a father of many nations (Heb: Goyim = Gentiles). The fulfillment of that covenant is that believing Gentiles are adopted to Abraham. That makes them Israelites, albeit they are adopted at a point before the Law of Moses, and are thus not subject to it.

It's confusing to talk about 'saved Gentiles' because the saving makes them... not Gentiles anymore.

-Jarrod

 

[Josheb]

I have no reason whatever to think that if must withstand your review, or the review of anyone else in fact.

Do you see the irony in that comment?

I have no reason whatever to that that it must withstand your review, or the review of anyone else.

Well...

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."

Jesus reasoned with his audiences and Paul did the same. This is the example God the Father, God the Son, and the apostles set for us. Iron sharpens iron... and the purpose of the forum is discussion. There is plenty of reason.

The topic of this op is the nature of the "all" in the verses cited in this op, NOT the one singled out desire of God in 1 Timothy 2:4. This forum's tou do not require people to stay on topic but it does require forum members to, "Use self control and focus on reconcilliation when discussing differences. Address the issue, not the person. Do not make derogatory personal remarks or you will be removed from the thread."

Post accordingly, please.

However, I know of many people whose review it withstands.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. I recommend avoiding that sort of appeal.

 

[fastfredy0]

The whole premise of the OT was that GOD would send salvation to a select people, through a covenant with THEM, and not to all men without exception.

Agreed ... when it came to predestination of Gentiles between the times of Abraham and Christ's death the odds of a Gentile making it to heaven "sucked" (non-biblical term meaning poor odds of success.

• Amos 3:2 “I have known [chosen, cared for, and loved] only you of all the families of the earth; Therefore I shall punish you for all your wickedness.”
• Christ compared Jews and Gentiles to "children and dogs" ... Mat. 15:24 He answered, “I was commissioned by God and sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” ... 26 And He replied, “It is not good (appropriate, fair) to take the [e]children’s bread and throw it to the [f]pet dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord; but even the pet dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their [young] masters’ table.”

Guess there's not many of our Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great ancestors in heaven.

 

[Carbon]

As I understand...

God's covenant with Abraham was to make him a father of many nations (Heb: Goyim = Gentiles). The fulfillment of that covenant is that believing Gentiles are adopted to Abraham. That makes them Israelites, albeit they are adopted at a point before the Law of Moses, and are thus not subject to it.

It's confusing to talk about 'saved Gentiles' because the saving makes them... not Gentiles anymore.

-Jarrod

Spiritual Israel. Abraham’s seed.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Spiritual Israel. Abraham’s seed.

Yeah, all the same, although 'Spiritual Israel' is a phrase I generally avoid.

Baptism is the adoption ceremony.

 

[fastfredy0]

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

But a majority of people don't agree that it is a fallacy.
*ducks and runs for cover*