All means all

[Manfred]

The works thing usually is related to the belief it is possible to lose salvation.

So not salvation at all.

Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Someone who chooses to believe in something, can also choose later not to believe.
It is your sovereignty that decides what you want to believe.

This of course is oxymoronic, as you cannot have complete conviction and assurance, having come "face to face" with revelation directly from God, and being born again, to later say you don't believe what you believe.

I put it to you that such a person NEVER believed in the first place. Tares amongst the wheat.

 

[Josheb]

No, do I need to also get that same approval from a Mormon? Or a Muslim? Or a JW?

If and when the precepts of sound exegesis and logic are employed a person's religious affiliation will not matter. Where such tools are employed on topics where conclusions are possible the exegesis and logic will lead to only one conclusion. At that point it become incumbent upon ALL to bow to that conclusion. This is not difficult to understand.

The problem, as has already been observed by others, is that very few people know the basics of exegesis, even fewer use them consistently, and submit their views to scripture properly rendered. This forum is filled with examples. This thread contains examples: the post that caused this digression is one of those examples and it is made worse by the open refusal to even attempt the effort. Very few acknowledge the logical errors present in their posts. A short list of logical fallacies can readily be found online, printed up, and kept on the desk when engaged in conversation for reference. A university degree in philosophy is not necessary to practice logic and sound reasoning. Anyone can do it. Everyone should do it. One of the chief reasons sectarian, denominational, and cult differences exist as because of the lack of exegesis and reason!

Or is just you and folks who believe as you do.

Fairly obtuse statement given I previously posted exegesis and logic are not relative. I am arguing for the position of exegesis and reason, scripture-based consensus building, and absolute truth and being opposed for doing so. Is that recognized?

No, do I need to also get that same approval from a Mormon? Or a Muslim? Or a JW?

Appeals to extremes (argumentum ad abusurdum).

Or is just you and folks who believe as you do.

You should probably know I don't take bait. I'm also fairly adept at applying the forum's rules both to my posts and those of others. Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.


Every single thread in this forum boils down to a single simple concept, at least among those who consider scripture authoritative and accurate to all it speaks. For that population the single fixed goal is to...

form a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture.

If that is not what you are doing or hope to accomplish here in this thread, then please be immediately and directly forthcoming. Just come right out and say it, "I have no interest in that standard." I'll know what to do with that information and will act immediately upon reading it. Otherwise, give it a try .


Neither the rules of sound exegesis, nor the rules of logic, are relative. They do not change from person to person, nor from hermeneutic to hermeneutic. God never reasons irrationally, and He does not inpsire or empower His people do so. The subject of this op is whether the "all" in the cited verses means all. The premise has been used as a direct criticism against Calvin and Calvinism, but proof, not merely evidence, has been provided irrefutably demonstrating Calvin taught the "all" in 1 Tim. 2:3-6 meant all and he considered it an insult to use the passage to selectively exclude and population of humanity. That is the conversation begun in this opening post.

You are invited to participate.

For my part, I ask that sound reason and exegesis be employed because it will lead to a singular conclusion that is fully and firmly couched in God's word .

 

[fastfredy0]

Can you show us scripture verses that portray different levels of righteousness and that those with a higher level of righteousness are the ones who inherit eternal life!

Premise 1: Only those "in Christ" have eternal life
Premise 2: 2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Premise 3: The righteousness of God is the highest righteousness
Conclusion: I have shown you a verse that shows that those who are the most righteous are the ones that inherit eternal life. (Granted, imputed righteousness)

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

So not salvation at all.

Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Someone who chooses to believe in something, can also choose later not to believe.
It is your sovereignty that decides what you want to believe.

This of course is oxymoronic, as you cannot have complete conviction and assurance, having come "face to face" with revelation directly from God, and being born again, to later say you don't believe what you believe.

I put it to you that such a person NEVER believed in the first place. Tares amongst the wheat.

Right, I know. If a person has actually "met" God I cannot conceive of how they could lose their faith. Especially when regeneration induces a person to want to read the Bible and delight in it.

 

[JIM]

The subject of this op is whether the "all" in the cited verses means all. The premise has been used as a direct criticism against Calvin and Calvinism, but proof, not merely evidence, has been provided irrefutably demonstrating Calvin taught the "all" in 1 Tim. 2:3-6 meant all and he considered it an insult to use the passage to selectively exclude and population of humanity. That is the conversation begun in this opening post.

It seems to me that a teaching such as that is in nearly total contradiction to the concepts within TULIP. Perhaps you could explain from a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture how it is not.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

If and when the precepts of sound exegesis and logic are employed a person's religious affiliation will not matter. Where such tools are employed on topics where conclusions are possible the exegesis and logic will lead to only one conclusion. At that point it become incumbent upon ALL to bow to that conclusion. This is not difficult to understand.

The problem, as has already been observed by others, is that very few people know the basics of exegesis, even fewer use them consistently, and submit their views to scripture properly rendered. This forum is filled with examples. This thread contains examples: the post that caused this digression is one of those examples and it is made worse by the open refusal to even attempt the effort. Very few acknowledge the logical errors present in their posts. A short list of logical fallacies can readily be found online, printed up, and kept on the desk when engaged in conversation for reference. A university degree in philosophy is not necessary to practice logic and sound reasoning. Anyone can do it. Everyone should do it. One of the chief reasons sectarian, denominational, and cult differences exist as because of the lack of exegesis and reason!

Fairly obtuse statement given I previously posted exegesis and logic are not relative. I am arguing for the position of exegesis and reason, scripture-based consensus building, and absolute truth and being opposed for doing so. Is that recognized?

Appeals to extremes (argumentum ad abusurdum).

You should probably know I don't take bait. I'm also fairly adept at applying the forum's rules both to my posts and those of others. Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.


Every single thread in this forum boils down to a single simple concept, at least among those who consider scripture authoritative and accurate to all it speaks. For that population the single fixed goal is to...

form a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture.

If that is not what you are doing or hope to accomplish here in this thread, then please be immediately and directly forthcoming. Just come right out and say it, "I have no interest in that standard." I'll know what to do with that information and will act immediately upon reading it. Otherwise, give it a try .


Neither the rules of sound exegesis, nor the rules of logic, are relative. They do not change from person to person, nor from hermeneutic to hermeneutic. God never reasons irrationally, and He does not inpsire or empower His people do so. The subject of this op is whether the "all" in the cited verses means all. The premise has been used as a direct criticism against Calvin and Calvinism, but proof, not merely evidence, has been provided irrefutably demonstrating Calvin taught the "all" in 1 Tim. 2:3-6 meant all and he considered it an insult to use the passage to selectively exclude and population of humanity. That is the conversation begun in this opening post.

You are invited to participate.

For my part, I ask that sound reason and exegesis be employed because it will lead to a singular conclusion that is fully and firmly couched in God's word .

There are other scriptures that speak of "the world" and we know it refers to fairly small geographical locations and not the entire planet. I should imagine something similar is happening with the usage of the word "All".

Isaiah 53 says the messiah will save MANY people. Many is not everybody either.

 

[Arial]

Have you counted all those perishing?

`After these things I Looked, and behold, a great multitude which NO ONE COULD NUMBER, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb......These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation and washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.` (Rev. 7: 9 & 14)

No I have not counted them. I do know however that Jesus tells us that wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many there are who go through it. And narrow is the gate that leads to the kingdom and few there be that find it.

 

[fastfredy0]

Isaiah 53 says the messiah will save MANY people. Many is not everybody either.

I am not sure that's correct. I could have 1000 read balls and say that many of the balls are red and that would be true. Granted, it would be a better description of the balls to say ALL THE BALLS ARE RED.
I've got to stop trying to think ... it's starting to hurt.

 

[David1701]

I am not sure that's correct. I could have 1000 read balls and say that many of the balls are red and that would be true.

No; that would be deceptive (or a grammatical error). Any normal person would assume, from your statement, that some of the balls are not red.

You could say that you have many red balls, and that would be true, without being deceptive; however, to say that many of the balls are red has a different implication. The difference is that, in saying that many of the balls are red, the many are being compared with the totality, implying that the totality is greater than the many; whereas, in saying that you have many red balls, the many are being compared with few (in other words the totality itself could be many, compared with few).

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

No; that would be deceptive (or a grammatical error). Any normal person would assume, from your statement, that some of the balls are not red.

You could say that you have many red balls, and that would be true, without being deceptive; however, to say that many of the balls are red has a different implication. The difference is that, in saying that many of the balls are red, the many are being compared with the totality, implying that the totality is greater than the many; whereas, in saying that you have many red balls, the many are being compared with few (in other words the totality itself could be many, compared with few).

That's like a tongue twister.

 

[fastfredy0]

No; that would be deceptive (or a grammatical error). Any normal person would assume, from your statement, that some of the balls are not red.

You could say that you have many red balls, and that would be true, without being deceptive; however, to say that many of the balls are red has a different implication. The difference is that, in saying that many of the balls are red, the many are being compared with the totality, implying that the totality is greater than the many; whereas, in saying that you have many red balls, the many are being compared with few (in other words the totality itself could be many, compared with few).

I like your reasoning. I don't have the acumen to know if your correct; but you've got me on your side.

What world problem should we work upon next.

 

[David1701]

I like your reasoning. I don't have the acumen to know if your correct; but you've got me on your side.

What world problem should we work upon next.

Nice sense of humour!

 

[David1701]

That's like a tongue twister.

I could try to make it simpler, although it's clear to me.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I could try to make it simpler, although it's clear to me.

It is simple. I was just pulling your leg. But perhaps if you speak out loud what you said on a repetitive loop you could get speech befuddled.

 

[Marilyn C]

No I have not counted them. I do know however that Jesus tells us that wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many there are who go through it. And narrow is the gate that leads to the kingdom and few there be that find it.

And who was the Lord talking to there? It certainly wasn`t the Body of Christ for the Lord hadn`t ascended to start building and maturing it.

 

[Marilyn C]

Premise 1: Only those "in Christ" have eternal life
Premise 2: 2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Premise 3: The righteousness of God is the highest righteousness
Conclusion: I have shown you a verse that shows that those who are the most righteous are the ones that inherit eternal life. (Granted, imputed righteousness)

So how did Abel, Enoch, Noah etc become `in Christ,` when there was no Body of Christ at that time?

 

[Arial]

And who was the Lord talking to there? It certainly wasn`t the Body of Christ for the Lord hadn`t ascended to start building and maturing it.

He was talking to the Jews and by extension anyone who thinks they can get in by some other way than Jesus who is the way. I don't know why you brought the body of Christ into it. Why would He be saying that to the body of Christ anyway. They are the ones that go through the narrow gate.

 

[fastfredy0]

So how did Abel, Enoch, Noah etc become `in Christ,` when there was no Body of Christ at that time?

Well, I guess one would have to define "body of Christ" first to address your query better. I assume you mean those going to heaven.

Before Christ's death people were also saved by faith. Faith, among other things, requires knowledge (something to be believed). There's debate even today as to what the content is and even more debate about what the salvific content was before Jesus.
Thus, to keep it simpler (or not as complicated) I spoke of people who died after Christ because we have more information about what must be believed including the 100% need for knowledge of Christ. Therefore, if you died in the last 2000 years and never heard of Christ you're in hell with possible exception being those that didn't reach the age of accountability. This information can be used to prove various doctrines like God does not love everyone where love is defined as favoring people to the extent that God does something to save them.

 

[Marilyn C]

He was talking to the Jews and by extension anyone who thinks they can get in by some other way than Jesus who is the way. I don't know why you brought the body of Christ into it. Why would He be saying that to the body of Christ anyway. They are the ones that go through the narrow gate.

So are you saying that the great multitude that no one can count are the FEW?

 

[Marilyn C]

Well, I guess one would have to define "body of Christ" first to address your query better. I assume you mean those going to heaven.

Before Christ's death people were also saved by faith. Faith, among other things, requires knowledge (something to be believed). There's debate even today as to what the content is and even more debate about what the salvific content was before Jesus.
Thus, to keep it simpler (or not as complicated) I spoke of people who died after Christ because we have more information about what must be believed including the 100% need for knowledge of Christ. Therefore, if you died in the last 2000 years and never heard of Christ you're in hell with possible exception being those that didn't reach the age of accountability. This information can be used to prove various doctrines like God does not love everyone where love is defined as favoring people to the extent that God does something to save them.

Why are those who never heard of Jesus, but lived right according to their God-given conscience, in the last 2000 years going to hell? Where does it say that?