"All men"

T

TomFL

Guest
The irony is that the above perfectly describes your back and forth on here with others, hour upon hour, nearly every single day of the year.
Except what you failed to mention is the fact I present evidence. lots of evidence not just a child's refrain no you are wrong

While you and a number of your peers produce only bald denials

So it seems you are in denial of the true fact of the matter
 
T

TomFL

Guest
<Chuckle>
I see.....

So when you falsely accuse ME of "taking out of context", it's perfectly fine.
But when I (rightly) accuse YOU, it's suddenly "a child's refrain".

Whatever....


I've noticed over the years that many people accuse others of what they are personally guilty of, so when they themselves get (rightly) accused, they can make the same insulting response.

It's quite fascinating, actually...
For some reason you avoided the bulk of my previous reply

'm not ignoring any context.
Quite the contrary, YOU are.

This sounds like a child's refrain

No I am not but you are

Lets not forget your effort to do theology by pop music

Appearently you did or want to


Theo1689 said:
I'm not the one "eschewing scripture".
YOU are.

Oh Did you imagine everyone was kung fu fighting is scripture

trying to mkount an argument regarding scriptural content based on pop music is an absurd effort

And it does ignore context so my claim was true

Not only did you ignore the scriptures you ignore context as well

Remember how you failed to address John 12:47

remember how you failed to address the scriptural uses and the meaning of especially I took from scripture

Theo1689 said:
It's simply a relevant example of how terms are used.

Which of course ignores context of scripture and BAGD which was quoted

Including your failure to address

John 12:47 (KJV)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Its relationship to

John 3:17 (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

In the context

John 3:14-18 (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

and of course BAGD

b. of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love J 3:16, 17c; 6:33, 51; 12:47.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 446.

and your obvious mishandling of especially as shown by scripture

2 Timothy 4:13 (KJV)
13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

It simply does not eliminate that which is not especially noted

Were Timothy to understand especially in the faulty manner you proclaim he would have left the cloak and the books and only bought the parchments

but you simply ignore all that

and wanted to do theology based on a foreign context of pop music



Theo1689 said:
But if you prefer the Bible:

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Was "all the world" taxed?
Did the Chinese pay taxes to Caesar?
Did the Australian aborigines pay taxes to Caesar?

I mean, "all the world" means EVERYONE, right?

See above

Deal with the evidence you ran from last discussion

Evidence which is actually relevant to the scope of discussion

The meaning of world in soteriological and atonement passages

not some irrelevant context

again you were guilty of ignoring the evidence and the context of same
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes. What exactly does Rev. 5:9 have to do with this question?

Really?

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from
every tribe and language and people and nation,

We can agree, I hope, that the context is Christ's atonement,
"by your blood you ransomed people for God".


The word "every" above is the Greek word, "pas" ("all").
What does it modify?
It modifies "tribe" (a GROUP of people);
It modifies "language" (a GROUP of people);
It modifies "people" (a GROUP of people); from "laos", a "population"
It modifies "nation" (a GROUP of people);


Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed
people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,


Now, regarding the individuals, it says Christ ransomed "people" FROM (or "out of") all of th use people groups.

There is no "all" or "every" for the individual people. The "all" or "every" refers to the LARGE GROUPS of people, not "all individuals".

Christ ransomed some people from the Jews...
Christ ransomed some people from the Assyrians...
Christ ransomed some people from the Babylonians...
Christ ransomed some people from the Egyptians...
And so on...
And so on...
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Really?

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from
every tribe and language and people and nation,

We can agree, I hope, that the context is Christ's atonement,
"by your blood you ransomed people for God".


The word "every" above is the Greek word, "pas" ("all").
What does it modify?
It modifies "tribe" (a GROUP of people);
It modifies "language" (a GROUP of people);
It modifies "people" (a GROUP of people); from "laos", a "population"
It modifies "nation" (a GROUP of people);


Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed
people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,


Now, regarding the individuals, it says Christ ransomed "people" FROM (or "out of") all of th use people groups.

There is no "all" or "every" for the individual people. The "all" or "every" refers to the LARGE GROUPS of people, not "all individuals".

Christ ransomed some people from the Jews...
Christ ransomed some people from the Assyrians...
Christ ransomed some people from the Babylonians...
Christ ransomed some people from the Egyptians...
And so on...
And so on...
This simplye assumes all Christ died for have been redeemed

It confounds the extent and the application of the atonement

The atonement is provisional it does not benefit without faith in Christ

John 3:14-18 (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

This is the provision as the uplifted serpent did not benefit unless one looked upon it so Christ's atonement benefits only those who believe v15, 16, 18

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The extent of God's love is the world (that includes believers and unbelievers) It was to the world he gave his son not just believers

Those who believe shall be saved and able to proclaim the refrain of Revelation 5:9 those who do not believe will not



17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
For some reason you avoided the bulk of my previous reply

For some reason you seem to think the bulk of your writing is worthy of serious reply.
Sorry, but it's not.

Not to mention the fact that all you do is repeat your same old nonsense 10 million times, ad nauseam.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to things I've already refuted.

Remember how you failed to address John 12:47

No, I didn't "fail to address" it.
You simply don't like HOW I addressed it.

But just because you refuse to accept my answer, doesn't mean I didn't answer.
You see, this is simply another case of you repeating your same old garbage 10 million times.

b. of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love J 3:16, 17c; 6:33, 51; 12:47.

Again, I've responded to this time after time.
Just because don't like the truth, doesn't mean I didn't give it.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
For some reason you seem to think the bulk of your writing is worthy of serious reply.
Sorry, but it's not.

Not to mention the fact that all you do is repeat your same old nonsense 10 million times, ad nauseam.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to things I've already refuted.



No, I didn't "fail to address" it.
You simply don't like HOW I addressed it.

But just because you refuse to accept my answer, doesn't mean I didn't answer.
You see, this is simply another case of you repeating your same old garbage 10 million times.



Again, I've responded to this time after time.
Just because don't like the truth, doesn't mean I didn't give it.
Well I am not surprised that you still failed to address it

Sorry but you can't refute something you have never addressed

It is a total falsehood for you to claim you addressed John 12:47 or any of the scriptural examples I posted regarding especially

You had no answer and refused to provide one so by now claiming you answered you are impeaching your own credibility
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Theophilos

Active member
Really?

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from
every tribe and language and people and nation,

We can agree, I hope, that the context is Christ's atonement,
"by your blood you ransomed people for God".


The word "every" above is the Greek word, "pas" ("all").
What does it modify?
It modifies "tribe" (a GROUP of people);
It modifies "language" (a GROUP of people);
It modifies "people" (a GROUP of people); from "laos", a "population"
It modifies "nation" (a GROUP of people);


Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed
people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,


Now, regarding the individuals, it says Christ ransomed "people" FROM (or "out of") all of th use people groups.

There is no "all" or "every" for the individual people. The "all" or "every" refers to the LARGE GROUPS of people, not "all individuals".

Christ ransomed some people from the Jews...
Christ ransomed some people from the Assyrians...
Christ ransomed some people from the Babylonians...
Christ ransomed some people from the Egyptians...
And so on...
And so on...
Yes, logically everyone in the world would include people from every tribe and nation. Consider this verse:

For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. Romans 3:9 KJV

Does that mean that only Jews and Greeks sin?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Yes, logically everyone in the world would include people from every tribe and nation. Consider this verse:

For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. Romans 3:9 KJV

Does that mean that only Jews and Greeks sin?
Theo1689 has confounded atonement extended to atonement applied

The atonement is for all Christ as He died for all as the scripture shows in many places

Its benefit are dependent upon faith in Christ

When one has faith the benefits of the atonement are applied
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Theo1689 has confounded atonement extended to atonement applied

The atonement is for all Christ as He died for all as the scripture shows in many places

Its benefit are dependent upon faith in Christ

When one has faith the benefits of the atonement are applied

The way I see it is, is the atonement is accomplished in Christ as the first stage—it is done only in him.

The second state is when people transition to becoming "in" Christ, then by virtue of their location, the atonement is accessed.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Theo1689 has confounded atonement extended to atonement applied

The atonement is for all Christ as He died for all as the scripture shows in many places

Its benefit are dependent upon faith in Christ

When one has faith the benefits of the atonement are applied
What if you fall away from the faith?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
What if you fall away from the faith?
There are those who have a temporary faith The Arminian might say they lost their salvation

Calvin might say they had evanescent grace

Others might say they were probably never really regenerated

This is however not relevant to the topic at hand and and in my view an unprofitable discussion
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
There are those who have a temporary faith The Arminian might say they lost their salvation

Calvin might say they had evanescent grace

Others might say they were probably never really regenerated

This is however not relevant to the topic at hand and and in my view an unprofitable discussion
I asking you. Is your faulty version of the atonement is provisional then it seems eternal security would be also. If your "free" to come it seems you would be "free" to go. Right?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
The way I see it is, is the atonement is accomplished in Christ as the first stage—it is done only in him.

The second state is when people transition to becoming "in" Christ, then by virtue of their location, the atonement is accessed.
The bible in my view is pretty clear one is not in Christ until they believe and that Christ died for all
 
T

TomFL

Guest
I asking you. Is your faulty version of the atonement is provisional then it seems eternal security would be also. If your "free" to come it seems you would be "free" to go. Right?

And you would be wrong

Just as you are on the atonement

John 3:14-18 (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

both the provisionalism and the conditionality are seen in the above passage
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Theo1689 has confounded atonement extended to atonement applied

TomFL mistakenly thinks the atonement extended and the atonement applied are different.

The atonement is for all Christ as He died for all as the scripture shows in many places

And I have repeatedly shown where you have IGNORED THE CONTEXT of all those passages.

(So is this where you copy-and-paste all your refuted Scriptures for the ten millionth time, and I link to the refutation for the 10 millionth time?

The atonement is only for God's ELECT.
It is nonsensical for Christ to die for anyone He KNEW would never accept the gospel.


Btw, isn't it interesting that you think I can be wrong on many things...
And you think Seth can be wrong on many things...
And you think others can be wrong on many things....
But you think you are NEVER wrong?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The bible in my view is pretty clear one is not in Christ until they believe and that Christ died for all

Well, for starters, I think it's pretty silly for you to claim that the Bible is "pretty clear", when so many people disagree with you on so many things. When there is a great amount of disagreement, the only conclusion you can draw is that it isn't as "clear" as you would like to believe, otherwise everyone would "see" it, since it's so "clear".

You think it's "clear" that Christ died for all.
I think it's "clear" that Christ died only for the elect.

So in what way is it "clear"?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Well, for starters, I think it's pretty silly for you to claim that the Bible is "pretty clear", when so many people disagree with you on so many things. When there is a great amount of disagreement, the only conclusion you can draw is that it isn't as "clear" as you would like to believe, otherwise everyone would "see" it, since it's so "clear".

You think it's "clear" that Christ died for all.
I think it's "clear" that Christ died only for the elect.

So in what way is it "clear"?
There are many verses I can read and plainly understand as written

You have to explain away the apparent meaning

and when you have no answer just refuse to address them

John 12:47 is not going away

nor are biblical uses of the word especially

Nor BDAG for that matter
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
There are many verses I can read and plainly understand as written

And I can read them, too....
And whether you are accurately "understanding" them simply begs the question.

You have to explain away the apparent meaning

Not at all.
The "apparent meaning" is that Christ only died for the elect.
The only reason I have to "explain away" anything is because YOU have imposed a false understanding that I have to "explain away", since it's not what Scripture says or means.

and when you have no answer just refuse to address them

I've addressed them ALL.
I've linked to them, many times.
You simply ignore them, say, "Nuh-huh", and requote all your verses again.

John 12:47 is not going away

It doesn't need to "go away".
I'm no the one "running away" from Scripture.
YOU are.

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

"World" doesn't mean "every single individual in the world".
That is the meaning you're FALSELY trying to project onto the passage.
But the four words I bolded are NOT in the passage.

And even if it meant that, it would make Jesus a liar and a failure.
It also doesn't say Jesus came to "atone" for the world.
It says he came to "save" the world.
And every single individual isn't saved.

But look, here I am wasting my time again, responding to this, when you are simply going to pretend I never said anything, pretend I didn't address the verse, and then requote John 12:47 10 million more times.

It's funny when you can recognize when others are "playing a game", but you can't seem to recognize when YOU are.

Nor BDAG for that matter

Well, you've demonstrated that you don't even know how to use BDAG.
You and Seth need to stop pretending to deal with "the Greek", and misusing Greek resources you don't know how to use.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
TomFL mistakenly thinks the atonement extended and the atonement applied are different.

No Tom knows they are

The bible tells me Christ died for the world

but he only saves those in the world who will believe

Tom also knows you were unable to handle the discussion based on the term world

using john 12:47

John 3:16 and its context

and BDAG

Tom also knows you failed to deal with the biblical uses of the word especially

and cried harassment when your failure was noted
And I have repeatedly shown where you have IGNORED THE CONTEXT of all those passages.

LOL

You didn't even address some of them

Such as those mentioned above

so you did not show anything at all

You have made a claim you cannot back up
(So is this where you copy-and-paste all your refuted Scriptures for the ten millionth time, and I link to the refutation for the 10 millionth time?

See Theo you have to actually address something before you can even begin to claim a refutation

You never even got out of the gate

As such it is rather absurd of you to speak of refutation
 
Top