Live Chat Discussion on Calvinism

TomFL

Well-known member
OK, I watched it again, or most of it. It is over two hours long. But my impression of it hasn't changed. He shouts and screams, and doesn't present a cogent argument. You don't win an argument by shouting. If you have a valid, logical, cogent, coherent, convincing argument to present, it wins by itself. You don't need to shout and scream to make it more convincing. You would only want to do that if you were not sure your argument by itself was convincing enough. James White at least have the added advantage of keeping his cool. But neither of them are being terribly convincing. Part of the problem is that the question is too vague. Romans chapter 9 is a big subject. Which aspect of Romans 9 are you discussing? Predestination? Unconditional Election? Faith vs. Works? Something else? That is not a right way to set up a debate. A better way would be to narrow the question down to something like, "Does the Bible teach predestination?" or "unconditional election?" or "limited atonement?" etc. Then there can follow a meaningful discussion.
Again I disagree with your claim. His hermenuetics left Dr. White with but one retort "that is not exegesis"
And the topic was clearly a determinist predestination reading of Romans 9 and Dr. White picked the topic. A passage long considered a Calvinist stronghold. In any Flowers was passionate not just loud. You need to look beyond that to the arguments themselves and see that his arguments clearly called such a reading into question. It is a question of substance over style.

BTW if you want to hear loud listen to his debate with Theodore Zachariades and Sonny Hernandez and see who the loud party is

In any case Dr. White is a seasoned debater so his calmness is not surprising. This was Leighton Flower's first public debate. I believe it should be judged based upon the substantive biblical arguments made and in my view Leighton Flower wins on that score
 
Last edited:

zerinus

Active member
BTW if you want to hear loud listen to his debate with Theodore Zachariades and Sonny Hernandez and see who the loud party is
No need to see who else is shouting louder. Whoever shouts loudest, loses most.
In any case Dr. White is a seasoned debater so his calmness is not surprising. This was Leighton Flower's first public debate. I believe it should be judged based upon the substantive biblical arguments made and in my view Leighton Flower wins on that score
That is possible, but his shouting distracted my attention from his arguments.
 

Synergy

New member
Did you have a text in mind ?

And would you consider John's use of the term world and the Lexical data as fulfilling such ?
The Greek words/phrases “πάντας”, “παντων”, “ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου” are critical for understanding whether or not Jesus’ atonement is opened up to everyone or just a select few in the following verses:

1 Tim 2:4 (πάντας), 2:6 (παντων).
1 John 2:2 (ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου).
John 12:32 (πάντας).
Acts 17:30 (πάντας).
2 Pet 3:9 (πάντας).
 

TomFL

Well-known member
The Greek words/phrases “πάντας”, “παντων”, “ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου” are critical for understanding whether or not Jesus’ atonement is opened up to everyone or just a select few in the following verses:

1 Tim 2:4 (πάντας), 2:6 (παντων).
1 John 2:2 (ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου).
John 12:32 (πάντας).
Acts 17:30 (πάντας).
2 Pet 3:9 (πάντας).
Whole world 1Jn 2:2 has been discussed many times as has John's use of the term world

Pantas all has been as well

Unfortunately much discussion has been lost in the switchover to the new forum
 

Synergy

New member
Whole world 1Jn 2:2 has been discussed many times as has John's use of the term world

Pantas all has been as well

Unfortunately much discussion has been lost in the switchover to the new forum
The word πάντας in either Koine or Modern Greek means everything/everybody, no exceptions. Problems arise when people lose their focus and start importing other words into the conversation. All I'm saying is that I hope that there is at least one debater that understands Greek.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
The word πάντας in either Koine or Modern Greek means everything/everybody, no exceptions. Problems arise when people lose their focus and start importing other words into the conversation. All I'm saying is that I hope that there is at least one debater that understands Greek.
In the old forum I posted an article addressing the term all people and the categories the word all fits into



Toward a Definition of "All People"

James M. Leonard
The question as to the meaning of "all people" is of critical importance as one
analyzes 1 Tim 2:1-7 in context of the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Unfortunately,
there is a tendency to confuse the various ranges of meaning for the term "all."
Otherwise good scholars tend to talk past each other on both sides of the debate.
I have attempted to remedy this problem by setting up ranges of meaning according to
usage. In this paper, definitions are listed in the first section, with one or two
examples. In the second section, all 34 occurrences of "all men" in the New
Testament (plural masculine form of πᾶς + ἄνθρωπος in any case, or the plural
masculine form of πᾶς in any case as a substantive) are categorized according to
definition. In the third section, eight disputed passages are listed separately with
minimal analysis. Finally, a summary statement is included.
Especially since this is a work in progress, any insights or oversights are welcome.
Section 1: Definitions (34 occurrences)
1. All (literally); without exception; bar none
a. Without contextual limits For example, all men die, all men have
sinned, all flesh is like grass.
b. With contextual limits
i. Explicit For example, All men in Jerusalem. One occurrence.
ii. Implicit For example, God's Spirit works his giftings in all
people (of the church).
2. All (not literally)
a. Generally, as constrained by obvious practical considerations; all
to the extent of possibilities. For example, showing kindness to all
people universally cannot be done since there are many people whom
you'll never meet. This category fits well with the five examples cited
by George Knight to otherwise mean "all kinds" (see here:
Basically, one can figure whether or not an "all" passage fits into
this category by qualifying "all" with the notion of possibility.
Examples: be nice to all people possible; and, you are our epistle
read by all men who could possibly read it (i.e., by those who come
into contact with the Corinthians).
b. As hyperbole for a relatively large number or percentage. For
example, Paul wishes all men were single like himself.
3. All kinds of (with Greek genitive plural noun)
a. All kinds of a given class, inclusive of every individual member of
the class without exception: all kinds of men, including every
single one of them. Examples of this definition are not found in
regard to "all men," but may be illustrated by such verses as Matt 4:23-
24: And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the
kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people. And the report
of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases
and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them.
b. All kinds of a given class, but not necessarily inclusive of every
individual member of the class without exception. For example,
love of money is the root of all (kinds of) evil, but not all of them;
thus, love of money is probably not at the root of most adulteries.
Or, the widow is not to be put on the list of widows unless she is
well known for doing all (kinds of) good deeds, such as such as
bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the
saints, helping those in trouble 1 Tim 5); thus, a widow was capable
of doing all kinds of good deeds, but incapable of doing all good
deeds without exception--she might not have been able to bring up
children, for example.
Section 2: Categorization of New Testament Texts
1. All (literally); without exception; bar none.
a. Without contextual limits (cf. texts which provides additional
emphasis, e.g., "all the men of the earth": Num 12:3; 3 Kgs 8:39 (= 1
Kgs 8:39); 1 Esd 3:18; Ezek 3:20)
John 2:24 αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας,
24 But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,
Acts 17:25 οὐδὲ ὑπὸ χειρῶν ἀνθρωπίνων θεραπεύεται προσδεόμενός τινος, αὐτὸς διδοὺς πᾶσι ζωὴν καὶ
πνοὴν καὶ τὰ πάντα·
25 neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life,
and breath, and all things;
Acts 20:26 διότι μαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ ὅτι καθαρός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος πάντων,
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Acts 21:28 κράζοντες, Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, βοηθεῖτε· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ
νόμου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχῇ διδάσκων, ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ
κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον.
28 crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people,
and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this
holy place.
Rom 5:12 ;ιὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ
θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον –Therefore, as
through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for
that all sinned:--
Rom 5:18 Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς
δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·
So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act
of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
Rom 11:32 συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ.
32 For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.
1 Cor 15:19 εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων
ἐσμέν. If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.
Heb 12:23 καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καὶ κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων, καὶ πνεύμασι
δικαίων τετελειωμένων,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge
of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
Again I disagree with your claim. His hermenuetics left Dr. White with but one retort "that is not exegesis"
And the topic was clearly a determinist predestination reading of Romans 9 and Dr. White picked the topic. A passage long considered a Calvinist stronghold. In any Flowers was passionate not just loud. You need to look beyond that to the arguments themselves and see that his arguments clearly called such a reading into question. It is a question of substance over style.

BTW if you want to hear loud listen to his debate with Theodore Zachariades and Sonny Hernandez and see who the loud party is

In any case Dr. White is a seasoned debater so his calmness is not surprising. This was Leighton Flower's first public debate. I believe it should be judged based upon the substantive biblical arguments made and in my view Leighton Flower wins on that score
I personally think that Matt's thread is being hi-jacked. Discussion here should be taken to the A/C board.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
Again I disagree with your claim. His hermenuetics left Dr. White with but one retort "that is not exegesis"
And the topic was clearly a determinist predestination reading of Romans 9 and Dr. White picked the topic. A passage long considered a Calvinist stronghold. In any Flowers was passionate not just loud. You need to look beyond that to the arguments themselves and see that his arguments clearly called such a reading into question. It is a question of substance over style.

BTW if you want to hear loud listen to his debate with Theodore Zachariades and Sonny Hernandez and see who the loud party is

In any case Dr. White is a seasoned debater so his calmness is not surprising. This was Leighton Flower's first public debate. I believe it should be judged based upon the substantive biblical arguments made and in my view Leighton Flower wins on that score
I personally think that Matt's thread is being hi-jacked. Discussion here should be taken to the A/C board.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
In the old forum I posted an article addressing the term all people and the categories the word all fits into



Toward a Definition of "All People"

James M. Leonard
The question as to the meaning of "all people" is of critical importance as one
analyzes 1 Tim 2:1-7 in context of the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Unfortunately,
there is a tendency to confuse the various ranges of meaning for the term "all."
Otherwise good scholars tend to talk past each other on both sides of the debate.
I have attempted to remedy this problem by setting up ranges of meaning according to
usage. In this paper, definitions are listed in the first section, with one or two
examples. In the second section, all 34 occurrences of "all men" in the New
Testament (plural masculine form of πᾶς + ἄνθρωπος in any case, or the plural
masculine form of πᾶς in any case as a substantive) are categorized according to
definition. In the third section, eight disputed passages are listed separately with
minimal analysis. Finally, a summary statement is included.
Especially since this is a work in progress, any insights or oversights are welcome.
Section 1: Definitions (34 occurrences)
1. All (literally); without exception; bar none
a. Without contextual limits For example, all men die, all men have
sinned, all flesh is like grass.
b. With contextual limits
i. Explicit For example, All men in Jerusalem. One occurrence.
ii. Implicit For example, God's Spirit works his giftings in all
people (of the church).
2. All (not literally)
a. Generally, as constrained by obvious practical considerations; all
to the extent of possibilities. For example, showing kindness to all
people universally cannot be done since there are many people whom
you'll never meet. This category fits well with the five examples cited
by George Knight to otherwise mean "all kinds" (see here:
Basically, one can figure whether or not an "all" passage fits into
this category by qualifying "all" with the notion of possibility.
Examples: be nice to all people possible; and, you are our epistle
read by all men who could possibly read it (i.e., by those who come
into contact with the Corinthians).
b. As hyperbole for a relatively large number or percentage. For
example, Paul wishes all men were single like himself.
3. All kinds of (with Greek genitive plural noun)
a. All kinds of a given class, inclusive of every individual member of
the class without exception: all kinds of men, including every
single one of them. Examples of this definition are not found in
regard to "all men," but may be illustrated by such verses as Matt 4:23-
24: And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the
kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people. And the report
of him went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases
and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them.
b. All kinds of a given class, but not necessarily inclusive of every
individual member of the class without exception. For example,
love of money is the root of all (kinds of) evil, but not all of them;
thus, love of money is probably not at the root of most adulteries.
Or, the widow is not to be put on the list of widows unless she is
well known for doing all (kinds of) good deeds, such as such as
bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the
saints, helping those in trouble 1 Tim 5); thus, a widow was capable
of doing all kinds of good deeds, but incapable of doing all good
deeds without exception--she might not have been able to bring up
children, for example.
Section 2: Categorization of New Testament Texts
1. All (literally); without exception; bar none.
a. Without contextual limits (cf. texts which provides additional
emphasis, e.g., "all the men of the earth": Num 12:3; 3 Kgs 8:39 (= 1
Kgs 8:39); 1 Esd 3:18; Ezek 3:20)
John 2:24 αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας,
24 But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,
Acts 17:25 οὐδὲ ὑπὸ χειρῶν ἀνθρωπίνων θεραπεύεται προσδεόμενός τινος, αὐτὸς διδοὺς πᾶσι ζωὴν καὶ
πνοὴν καὶ τὰ πάντα·
25 neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life,
and breath, and all things;
Acts 20:26 διότι μαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ ὅτι καθαρός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος πάντων,
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Acts 21:28 κράζοντες, Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, βοηθεῖτε· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ
νόμου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχῇ διδάσκων, ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ
κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον.
28 crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people,
and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this
holy place.
Rom 5:12 ;ιὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ
θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον –Therefore, as
through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for
that all sinned:--
Rom 5:18 Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι’ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς
δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·
So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act
of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
Rom 11:32 συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ.
32 For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.
1 Cor 15:19 εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων
ἐσμέν. If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.
Heb 12:23 καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καὶ κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων, καὶ πνεύμασι
δικαίων τετελειωμένων,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge
of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect
I personally think that Matt's thread is being hi-jacked. Discussion here should be taken to the A/C board.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
The word πάντας in either Koine or Modern Greek means everything/everybody, no exceptions. Problems arise when people lose their focus and start importing other words into the conversation. All I'm saying is that I hope that there is at least one debater that understands Greek.
I personally think that Matt's thread is being hi-jacked. Discussion here should be taken to the A/C board.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
Whole world 1Jn 2:2 has been discussed many times as has John's use of the term world

Pantas all has been as well

Unfortunately much discussion has been lost in the switchover to the new forum
I personally think that Matt's thread is being hi-jacked. Discussion here should be taken to the A/C board.
 

Beloved Daughter

Active member
The Greek words/phrases “πάντας”, “παντων”, “ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου” are critical for understanding whether or not Jesus’ atonement is opened up to everyone or just a select few in the following verses:

1 Tim 2:4 (πάντας), 2:6 (παντων).
1 John 2:2 (ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου).
John 12:32 (πάντας).
Acts 17:30 (πάντας).
2 Pet 3:9 (πάντας).
I personally think that Matt's thread is being hi-jacked. Discussion here should be taken to the A/C board.
 
Top