preacher4truth
Well-known member
He was never a Calvinist.I suspect it was made up recently and concerns Leighton Flowers a former Calvinist turned provisionist
He was never a Calvinist.I suspect it was made up recently and concerns Leighton Flowers a former Calvinist turned provisionist
Ultimately it does. We do not however know who the elect are, so we pray for all men without distinction. Only those who were chosn in Him will be saved, Ephesians 1:4.Obviously all in authority does not mean all the elect in authority
Silliness, non sequitur, straw man nonsense. ^^^^Nor can anyone imagine all in authority are elect
That is your conclusion based upon what? Based upon straw, it's a baseless conclusion. That is what you brought to the table, absolute irrational nothingness.so the op is correct the Calvinist interpretation is hopelessly incoherent
Ultimately it does. We do not however know who the elect are, so we pray for all men without distinction. Only those who were chosn in Him will be saved, Ephesians 1:4.
fltom said:
Obviously all in authority does not mean all the elect in authority
fltom said:
Nor can anyone imagine all in authority are elect
preacher4truth
Silliness, non sequitur, straw man nonsense. ^^^^
That is your conclusion based upon what? Based upon straw, it's a baseless conclusion. That is what you brought to the table, absolute irrational nothingness.fltom said:
so the op is correct the Calvinist interpretation is hopelessly incoherent
He disputes youHe was never a Calvinist.
did you actually read?Why do you guys perpetuate the worthless straw-man that we allegedly teach "all men" means "only the elect"?
Please provide a LINKED QUOTE of any Calvinist making such an assertion.
did you actually read?
no one stated you believe that
it was stated you cannot believe that
The phrase all in aurthority refers to all without exception who are in authority
how do you make all in authority some in authorityWhere do you see "without exception" in the text?!
how do you make all in authority some in authority
You did not answerYou're trying to justify ADDING words to Scripture.
You're rationalizing, rather than simply letting Scripture speak.
Once again, where do you see the phrase, "without exception" in the passage?
And if you can't show it, just man up and admit it.
You did not answer
how do you make all in authority some in authority
All does not mean some no matter how badly your theology requires itSorry, but you're SHIFTING the burden of proof.
YOU claimed that "all men in authority" ACTUALLY means, "all men in authority without exception".
I asked you to show me where it says, "without exception" in the passage,
and YOU NEVER ANSWERED the question.
Your responded with a rationalization, and then falsely put the words, "some in authority" in my mouth, WHICH I NEVER SAID.
So once again, show us in the PASSAGE where you see the phrase, "without exception".
All does not mean some no matter how badly your theology requires it
I gave you a basic definitionI never said it did.
Now stop RUNNING AWAY from the question, and show us where you see the phrase, "without exception" in the passage.
The bottom line is that you ASSUME your theology out of whole cloth, while demanding we "prove" our theology to you, especially when we're not interested in converting you.
Double standards much?
This is why it's a waste of time interacting with you.
You want to shove your false theology down our throats, but refuse to prove it.
I gave you a basic definition
Basic meaning of All
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing:
Online dictionary
why did you run from it?
what does the whole quantity mean?
and if you did not say it refers to some in authority
all that is left is all in authority
LaughableSo you can't answer my question.
My point is made.
You're refuted.
Now continug running away.
All former Calvinists go through a 12 step program . ? Those still in it are in the denial stage . Mormons who come out of their false teachings also go through a similar process . The same with Muslims . EDITED BY MOD--DIVISIVEHe disputes you
do you believe civic was never a Calvinist as well?
12 step program ehAll former Calvinists go through a 12 step program . ? Those still in it are in the denial stage . Mormons who come out of their false teachings also go through a similar process . The same with Muslims . Once a person has been brainwashed it’s a long road to recovery .
He deludes you.He disputes you
No, he's an impostor who had sockpuppet accounts playing both camps at the same time, and he's playing you and others now. He's apostatized from Faith alone as well, so what do you think?do you believe civic was never a Calvinist as well?
We have a double negative hereHe deludes you.
No, he's an impostor who had sockpuppet accounts playing both camps at the same time, and he's playing you and others now. He's apostatized from Faith alone as well, so what do you think?
This is true, only those chosen (elected) in Christ before the foundation of the world will be saved, and none else. Ephesians 1:4; Romans 8:26ff &c.God desires "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:4)
The Calvinist replies, the "all men" in this verse means "the elect only."
No, it mentions all people as well.The reason? The context mentions specifically only certain types of men (namely kings and those who are in authority - vv. 1-2),
Well, your "therefore" is askew, because you skipped the "all people" part of the text, thus all that follows is amiss because yur foundational argument is amiss.so therefore this "all men" must be limited in scope.
You're not even making a case.The problem? This use of the context, if consistently followed, would do no favors for the Calvinist.
We don't argue they are in the way we exegete the text. This is non sequitur.For it is obviously not true that ALL kings are saved.
Exactly correct."But" replies the Calvinist, "the 'all men' in v. 4 doesn't refer to all kings and all in authority, but to the elect among those kings and those in authority."
It isn't, your argument is incoherent though.Say what? How is this not hopelessly incoherent?
It doesn't, it included all people as well.How can vv. 1-2 limit the scope of the "all men" to just kings and those in authority
You can think what you want to, but your thinking is amiss. Nothing in the text "requires" us to do what you're suggesting. Your imposing your idea onto the text.without requiring us to think that God wants all kings and those in authority (without exception) to be saved?
My brother, a "Thus" would follow if you had handled the text correctly, but you haven't.Thus
"All people." You missed it.it is not enough for the Calvinist to demonstrate that the "all men" is limited in scope to "kings and those in authority" (which is a tall order by itself).
Only those chosen in Christ will be saved.They also must somehow limit it further to the elect only out of all kings and those in authority.
2 Timothy 2:15.On what textual basis can they do this?