The "T" in TULIP - refuted in one verse.

Theo1689

Well-known member
And your proof is where ?

<Chuckle>

And YOUR proof that it IS allegedly "required" is where?

You see, that's the game you play....
You make all kinds of ridiculous claims, and you never offer proof for ANY of them.
But if anyone dares disagree, then you DEMAND that they give "proof".

You never have to "prove" YOUR false claims.
But you demand everyone else needs to "prove" theirs.
Double standards much?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
<Chuckle>

And YOUR proof that it IS allegedly "required" is where?

You see, that's the game you play....
You make all kinds of ridiculous claims, and you never offer proof for ANY of them.
But if anyone dares disagree, then you DEMAND that they give "proof".

You never have to "prove" YOUR false claims.
But you demand everyone else needs to "prove" theirs.
Double standards much?
Are you not able to read scripture and arguments presented ?

and not able to see your typical refusal to discuss anything ?

This seems to be the only type of discussion you participate in
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Are you not able to read scripture and arguments presented ?

and not able to see your typical refusal to discuss anything ?

This seems to be the only type of discussion you participate in

YOU are the one who made the FALSE claim that interpreting "all" to mean "elect" is "required to defend" Calvinist theology.

Nothing in the Bible supports your FALSE claim.
You have been unable to support your FALSE claim.
You simply (and constantly) try to shift the burden of proof, which is fallacious.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
YOU are the one who made the FALSE claim that interpreting "all" to mean "elect" is "required to defend" Calvinist theology.

Nothing in the Bible supports your FALSE claim.
You have been unable to support your FALSE claim.
You simply (and constantly) try to shift the burden of proof, which is fallacious.
You have not proved it false

and you cannot deny you cannot extend the scope of multiple "all" passage beyond the elect

and it still remains true you typically refuse to discuss evidence
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You have not proved it false

And you haven't proved it true.
Why do I allegedly have the burden of proof, but you NEVER do?
Double standards much?

and you cannot deny you cannot extend the scope of multiple "all" passage beyond the elect

I do my best to accurately interpret the text according to its CONTEXT.
But NOBODY has EVER said that "all" means "only the elect".
That is NOT how it works.

So you need to stop MISREPRESENTING us.

and it still remains true you typically refuse to discuss evidence

With you, yes.
And the reason for that is not because of any alleged "inability" to defend my beliefs.
So take the chip off your shoulder.
It's very ugly.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
And you haven't proved it true.
Why do I allegedly have the burden of proof, but you NEVER do?
Double standards much?



I do my best to accurately interpret the text according to its CONTEXT.
But NOBODY has EVER said that "all" means "only the elect".
That is NOT how it works.

So you need to stop MISREPRESENTING us.



With you, yes.
And the reason for that is not because of any alleged "inability" to defend my beliefs.
So take the chip off your shoulder.
It's very ugly.
Its rather funny my posts are filled with multiple arguments and scripture verses

yours with a refusal to discuss the issues

Take the chip off your own shoulder and try presenting a scriptural rebuttal for a change

instead of this bickering

and BTW no one ever stated you claimed all equals the elect it was stated that is what your theology requires

A different matter
 

TomFL

Well-known member
PROVE "that's what [my] theology requires".

I'm waiting....

The bible

Christ died for all

Your theology Christ died for the elect only

Both can only be true if the elect alone = all

Then of course there is one who constantly does claim all = all sheep or all elect

so whether you like it or not it has been stated
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
The bible

Christ died for all

Your theology Christ died for the elect only

Both can only be true if the elect alone = all

Then of course there is one who constantly does claim all sheep or all elect are meant

You are aware, I hope, that the text "Christ died for all" NEVER appears anywhere in the Bible? That's why you should always provide citations, to make sure you're quoting it accurately.

Perhaps you're referring to the following:

2Cor. 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.


As with Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, he is referring to a particular group, "us", and "we", and both epistles are referring to CHRISTIANS, not "everyone who has ever lived".

I have no need to redefine "all" to mean "elect", or "some".
"All" fits perfectly well as simply meaning, "all".

But when we use the term "all", there is a particular GROUP that we are including everyone IN THAT GROUP.

We can talk about "all Americans".
We can talk about "all Republicans".
We can talk about "all blind people".
We can talk about "all members of the MLB"
I can talk about "all my students".

When we see the word, "all", we have to figure out what GROUP the author is including "all" from that group. So "all" truly means "all", there is no need for Calvinists to redefine it as per your straw-man. It simply means EVERYONE in the particular group being spoken of.

In 2 Cor. 6, it is referring to all of the "we/us" group.
Which is all CHRISTIANS.
 
Last edited:

TomFL

Well-known member
You are aware, I hope, that the text "Christ died for all" NEVER appears anywhere in the Bible? That's why you should always provide citations, to make sure you're quoting it accurately.

Perhaps you're referring to the following:

2Cor. 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.


As with Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, he is referring to a particular group, "us", and "we", and both epistles are referring to CHRISTIANS, not "everyone who has ever lived".

I have no need to redefine "all" to mean "elect", or "some".
"All" fits perfectly well as simply meaning, "all".

But when we use the term "all", there is a particular GROUP that we are including everyone IN THAT GROUP.

We can talk about "all Americans".
We can talk about "all Republicans".
We can talk about "all blind people".
We can talk about "all members of the MLB"
I can talk about "all my students".

When we see the word, "all", we have to figure out what GROUP the author is including "all" from that group. So "all" truly means "all", there is no need for Calvinists to redefine it as per your straw-man. It simply means EVERYONE in the particular group being spoken of.

In 2 Cor. 6, it is referring to all of the "we/us" group.
Which is all CHRISTIANS.


First it does appear there is a verse which states Christ died for all

That was your first error

Your second error was in claiming no one say all = the elect or the sheep but there is one who does

now for your third error

2Cor. 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

For we read of those that live not all live

all died not all live

because Christ died for more than live He died for all not just us who live
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
First it does appear there is a verse which states Christ died for all

That was your first error

Your second error was in claiming no one say all = the elect or the sheep but there is one who does

now for your third error

2Cor. 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

For we read of those that live not all live

all died not all live

because Christ died for more than live He died for all not just us who live
He did die for all, all the Sheep or all the Body of Christ, thats elementary, and those all He died for shall live, because for them He abolished death !
 

TomFL

Well-known member
He did die for all, all the Sheep or all the Body of Christ, thats elementary, and those all He died for shall live, because for them He abolished death !
All does not mean sheep

All does not mean elect

all is greater than those that live

2 Cor. 5:14–15 —KJV
“For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
All does not mean sheep

All does not mean elect

all is greater than those that live

2 Cor. 5:14–15 —KJV
“For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”
Sure it does, who else did Christ die for ?
 

Theophilos

Member
That's talking about the Sheep. Them born of God . Only the born again are Gods offspring.

Man naturally does not seek after God Rom 3 11 they're dead in sin and dead to God
The context of the verse from Act 17 is that Paul is speaking to pagan Greeks in Athens. Are they the Sheep?

The next verses add further clarification. Everyone is the "offspring of God", all are called to repentance, and Christ's resurrection is assurance to all. "All" has to include the pagan Greeks hearing Paul's words.

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. Acts 17:29-31 NKJV
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
theop

The context of the verse from Act 17 is that Paul is speaking to pagan Greeks in Athens. Are they the Sheep?

Yes some of them were sheep, thats why some believed Acts 17:32-34

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

They were of Gods offspring !
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
theop
The next verses add further clarification. Everyone is the "offspring of God", all are called to repentance, and Christ's resurrection is assurance to all. "All" has to include the pagan Greeks hearing Paul's words.
No, everyone isnt born of God, the call to repentance, the command to repentance was unto the born again offspring of God, not only there but everywhere when God sends them the Gospel !
 
Top