Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world

TomFL

Well-known member
My point is quoting any theologian on anything does not make what they say correct. I'm sure you would agree since the same theologians you are quoting would also be a hostile witness against you on another verse.

hope this helps !!!
It doesn't assure it is correct but it sure does lend weight to the position especially when the commentaries are from an opposing viewpoint from me

One that should be generally favorable towards his view

Four for four opposing his view is not nothing

I think it clearly shows who has the better argument
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Oh so you think your opinion rather than Calvins words should interpret Calvins meaning

No, I believe Calvin's words should be interpreted in a way consistent with his theology.

Do you really think that is a serious argument

Actually, yes.
I think it is rude and disrespectful to try to twist a person's words to make it contradictory to what he's already taught.

Especially as a numbver of Calvin quotes produced spoke of an unlimited atonemewnt

I would disagree.
But then, Calvin's theology is irrelevant.
Most of us here are "Sola Scriptura".

It says that "every sinner should consider the fact that he is not cut down in his sins".
So this is referring ONLY to saved sinners.

Sorry no not even close

You are wrong.
Sorry you don't like it.

You never heard of JFB ?

You didn't identify it by the authors.

Three famous Calvinist sources not just any sources but well known respected Calvinist sources plainly disagree with you

Not at all.
Calvin and Barnes can easily be interpreted in a way consistent with Calvinism.

And here is how everyone can see your bias.
You seem to plainly believe that I can read my theology into texts, either the Bible or of commentators. But you refuse to understand that you not only can, but repeatedly ARE projecting your own interpretations onto texts.

You seem incapable of distinguishing between what a text actually says, and what your interpretation of it is.

here is a fourth

Some will perish (verse 7), but that is not God’s desire. Any (τινας [tinas]). Rather than “some” (τινες [tines]) above. Accusative with the infinitive ἀπολεσθαι [apolesthai] (second aorist middle of ἀπολλυμι [apollumi]. God wishes “all” (παντας [pantas]) to come (χωρησαι [chōrēsai] first aorist active infinitive of χωρεω [chōreō], old verb, to make room). See Acts 17:30; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; Heb. 2:9 for God’s provision of grace for all who will repent.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 2 Pe 3:9.

And yet again, you IGNORE the part which refutes your view, and supports mine.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
TomFL said:
Oh so you think your opinion rather than Calvins words should interpret Calvins meaning

No, I believe Calvin's words should be interpreted in a way consistent with his theology.

You were given four verse previously where Calvin support an unlimited atonement

so his comments here are in line with the theology he expressed in those verses

TomFL said:
Do you really think that is a serious argument

Actually, yes.
I think it is rude and disrespectful to try to twist a person's words to make it contradictory to what he's already taught.

Indeed as you were given quotes previously where he taught unlimited atonement

so why are you being rude and disrespectful

Your doubts do not make for an argument

TomFL said:
Especially as a number of Calvin quotes produced spoke of an unlimited atonement

I would disagree.
But then, Calvin's theology is irrelevant.
Most of us here are "Sola Scriptura".

Well you had your chance to prove otherwise

Simply saying you disagree does not change the quotes



TomFL said:
It says that "every sinner should consider the fact that he is not cut down in his sins".
So this is referring ONLY to saved sinners.

Sorry no not even close

You are wrong.
Sorry you don't like it.

Nope you read the quote poorly see below

Did you leave the rest of it out ?

Seems like the part about being given opportunity for eternal life is missing

any idea about that ?





TomFL said:
You never heard of JFB ?

You didn't identify it by the authors.

TomFL said:
Three famous Calvinist sources not just any sources but well known respected Calvinist sources plainly disagree with you
Not at all.
Calvin and Barnes can easily be interpreted in a way consistent with Calvinism.

Well then why did you not do it



And here is how everyone can see your bias.
You seem to plainly believe that I can read my theology into texts, either the Bible or of commentators. But you refuse to understand that you not only can, but repeatedly ARE projecting your own interpretations onto texts.


And it appears you do

Were Calvin, Barnes and JFB reading my theology into ther text as well

They came to the same conclusion



You seem incapable of distinguishing between what a text actually says, and what your interpretation of it is.

Well lets see four Calvinist authors agree with what i saw in the text

none agreed with you

so who seems to be having a problem between distinguishing what the text sasys and the interpretation of it



TomFL said:
here is a fourth

Some will perish (verse 7), but that is not God’s desire. Any (τινας [tinas]). Rather than “some” (τινες [tines]) above. Accusative with the infinitive ἀπολεσθαι [apolesthai] (second aorist middle of ἀπολλυμι [apollumi]. God wishes “all” (παντας [pantas]) to come (χωρησαι [chōrēsai] first aorist active infinitive of χωρεω [chōreō], old verb, to make room). See Acts 17:30; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; Heb. 2:9 for God’s provision of grace for all who will repent.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 2 Pe 3:9.

And yet again, you IGNORE the part which refutes your view, and supports mine.

You have not identified any part of the text which supports your view

seems you are given to making unsupported claims
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
No, I believe Calvin's words should be interpreted in a way consistent with his theology.

You were given four verse previously where Calvin support an unlimited atonement

so his comments here are in line with the theology he expressed in those verses





Indeed as you were given quotes previously where he taught unlimited atonement

so why are you being rude and disrespectful

Your doubts do not make for an argument





Well you had your chance to prove otherwise

Simply saying you disagree does not change the quotes







Nope you read the quote poorly see below

Did you leave the rest of it out ?

Seems like the part about being given opportunity for eternal life is missing

any idea about that ?







You didn't identify it by the authors.




Well then why did you not do it






And it appears you do

Were Calvin, Barnes and JFB reading my theology into ther text as well

They came to the same conclusion





Well lets see four Calvinist authors agree with what i saw in the text

none agreed with you

so who seems to be having a problem between distinguishing what the text sasys and the interpretation of it







You have not identified any part of the text which supports your view

seems you are given to making unsupported claims
You're now arguing with yourself???? 😅😂🤣🤣😂😅😂🤣😅😅😂😆😁😄😃😀
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
No, I believe Calvin's words should be interpreted in a way consistent with his theology.

You were given four verse previously where Calvin support an unlimited atonement

No, I wasn't.
I was given four verses which you TWISTED to try to support unlimited atonement.

I don't believe that you have studied NEARLY enough of Calvin's writings to competently represent him. If you want to believe Calvin believed in unlimited atonement, you are free to do so, but I believe you are VERY wrong. But if that's the case, then you've just destroyed your argument of WHY you quoted Calvin in the first place. I can simply argue that he coloured his commentary according to (what you claim is) his theology.

I also don't believe you even CARE about responsibly and respectfully representing Calvin. I believe you have no qualms about misrepresenting anyone and everyone as long as it results in you trying to support and defend your false teachings.

And it appears you do

Were Calvin, Barnes and JFB reading my theology into ther text as well

Again, I can interpret Calvin and Barnes in a way consistent with my theology.
As for JFB, I simply reject their opinion on that particular entry.
They're not infallible, after all.

none agreed with you

Three of them agreed with me.

so who seems to be having a problem between distinguishing what the text sasys and the interpretation of it

That would be you.
(Thanks for asking, btw...)

You have not identified any part of the text which supports your view

Nor do I have to.
Whatever I say, you're simply going to deny it automatically.
So I'm not particularly inclined to waste my time.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
No, I wasn't.
I was given four verses which you TWISTED to try to support unlimited atonement.

I don't believe that you have studied NEARLY enough of Calvin's writings to competently represent him. If you want to believe Calvin believed in unlimited atonement, you are free to do so, but I believe you are VERY wrong. But if that's the case, then you've just destroyed your argument of WHY you quoted Calvin in the first place. I can simply argue that he coloured his commentary according to (what you claim is) his theology.

I also don't believe you even CARE about responsibly and respectfully representing Calvin. I believe you have no qualms about misrepresenting anyone and everyone as long as it results in you trying to support and defend your false teachings.



Again, I can interpret Calvin and Barnes in a way consistent with my theology.
As for JFB, I simply reject their opinion on that particular entry.
They're not infallible, after all.



Three of them agreed with me.



That would be you.
(Thanks for asking, btw...)



Nor do I have to.
Whatever I say, you're simply going to deny it automatically.
So I'm not particularly inclined to waste my time.

Typical Theo

Believes he can make statements which are supposed to make a truth claim without providing any supporting argument or scripture

I expect he will claim later to have addressed it

Well Theo

you have not shown you can make those verses fit into your theology

rather you failed to do so

so you offer nothing but unsupported claims
 
Top