Calvinism and the word "WHOSOEVER"

[Robert Pate]

Of course we can, and do. Can you quote any Calvinist who would hold to the idea that one could believe in Christ and perish???

Calvinist do not believe that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2. Which is the "L" in TULIP limited atonement.

Calvinist believe that only those that are elected or chosen by God from the foundation of the world can believe and have faith in Jesus. The Bible says otherwise. "Whosoever that shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I can understand why you and Sherman don't want me to post articles. You don't want to be exposed as the false teacher that you are.

I am quite certain the moderation team has no hidden agenda when it comes to Calvinism, Robert. :AMR:

The fact that you have enjoyed such a long leash when it comes to cluttering the site with hundreds of redundant threads speaks plainly to this. But as in all things, some moderation is going to be needed. You fail to grasp this and rein in your passions in favor of substantive discussion within the threads you pepper the site with almost daily. TOL is not your personal blogging platform. Sooner or later you will come to realize this or be made to do so.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

The same Greek word used in John 3:16 and Romans 10:13 is not defined as "everyone" and I do not find it so defined anywhere in the N.T.

Do you have a Strong's Concordance?

The word "whosoever" is word #G3956 it is the same Greek word in John 3:16 as it is in Romans 10:13. It means all, everyone, anyone in both the Greek language as well as the English language.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Calvinist do not believe that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2. Which is the "L" in TULIP limited atonement.

Apparently Calvinists actually take Scripture seriously on the teachings of exactly who Our Lord came to actually save (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9).

Your problem, Robert, is that you cannot find a single verse of Scripture that teaches what you claim Scripture teaches as relates to election unto salvation:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...redestinated&p=4851757&viewfull=1#post4851757

Your hypothetical universalism teaches that God gave Jesus Christ to save all men on condition they believe; but He has not elected all men to believe and be saved. This means that God gives Jesus Christ to all men but then takes Him away from some. Election comes in to exclude the application of the merits of Christ to a whole class of men. Christ's merits call for faith and justification but God says "No" to His dearly beloved Son. Your hypothetical universalism teaches that God is not well-pleased to save all men for whom Christ died. This is a distortion of the gospel of free grace.

The matter of the atonement is not a question concerning the value and sufficiency of Christ's death, whether it is not, in itself, sufficient for the salvation of all men. That is on both sides admitted. His death being of infinite value, would have been most amply sufficient for the redemption of all men, if God had seen fit to extend it to all. Hence the common distinction made, Christ died sufficiently for all, efficaciously for the elect, is perfectly true if understood of the worth of Christ's death, but not so accurate if understood of Our Lord's purpose and design in dying.'

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

I am quite certain the moderation team has no hidden agenda when it comes to Calvinism, Robert. :AMR:

The fact that you have enjoyed such a long leash when it comes to cluttering the site with hundreds of redundant threads speaks plainly to this. But as in all things, some moderation is going to be needed. You fail to grasp this and rein in your passions in favor of substantive discussion within the threads you pepper the site with almost daily. TOL is not your personal blogging platform. Sooner or later you will come to realize this or be made to do so.

AMR

My articles are biblical and are supported by numerous scriptures. Try reading what I post, you just might get saved.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You teach that sinners Christ died for are still lost!

Because they choose to remain lost, and not because Christ couldn't save them.

Yet you teach that sinners Christ shed His Blood for are still lost, unredeemed, and condemned !

They are not lost due Christ, they are lost due to their own choice to remain lost, unredeemed, and condemned.

You teach that those Christ died for are still lost, so you dont believe the blood of Christ saved them He died for, which is unbelief !1

They are lost because they want to be lost. Christ's blood CAN and WILL save them IF and ONLY IF they repent and believe.

 

[Lon]

They don't want God willing to save all. That makes them feel less special...kind of like the guy with the only Jag on the block whose neighbor shows up with a Jag.

Jesus loves some of the children
but not all the children of the world,
red and yellow, black and white,
if elect they're precious in His sight,
Jesus loves some of the children of the world.

(sorry, Ray)

Not true at all. Matthew 5:44 I believe John 3:16 completely and probably close to how you think of it too.

John 3:18 Acts 4:11 1 Corinthians 1:23,24 Psalm 118:22 1 Corinthians 3:11

 

[Lon]

I can understand why you and Sherman don't want me to post articles. You don't want to be exposed as the false teacher that you are.

:nono:

This many threads is unnecessary and redundant.

...so many redundant threads...

:readthis: Pay attention:

AMR

Redundancy

You aren't fooling anyone, Robert. :nono: You should lift up honesty above all things.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you have a Strong's Concordance?

Strong's work is a Concordance. It is not a lexicon which provides all the lexamemes in a given language. The meaning of a lexameme is that intended by the author using it. The simple glosses given in Strong's are not the intention of the Concordance. Using Strong's as a lexicon ignores lexical ambiguity, as in "Robert is looking for a match." Is Robert seeking a romantic partner or a light for a cigar? Strong's is no help here. Using Strong's ignores nuances of meaning as authors in Scripture will use the same word differently in different contexts, for example, James' and Paul's use of the word "faith".

Strongs sheds very little light on the meaning of a word in its context. Using Strong's to claim the meaning of a word in a specific context is X, is never a reliable claim.

And please do not then claim, that well, I have a tool that links Strongs to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon or Smith's Bible Dictionary for definitions. Both were published before 1895 and are considered obsolete by biblical scholars. Upgrade your tools to include BDAG, and then you may have a chance at arguing what the Greek really means in a particular context.

Even better, forget about appealing to the Greek to make your case. If one's doctrine revolves around a locus classicus of one or two verses, requiring Greek knowledge, something is amiss and God's providential care and preservation of His special revelation apparently requires a high priest caste of Greek and Hebrew scholars. Nonsense abounds.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

Strong's work is a Concordance. It is not a lexicon which provides all the lexamemes in a given language. The meaning of a lexameme is that intended by the author using it. The simple glosses given in Strong's are not the intention of the Concordance. Using Strong's as a lexicon ignores lexical ambiguity, as in "Robert is looking for a match." Is Robert seeking a romantic partner or a light for a cigar? Strong's is no help here. Using Strong's ignores nuances of meaning as authors in Scripture will use the same word differently in different contexts, for example, James' and Paul's use of the word "faith".

Strongs sheds very little light on the meaning of a word in its context. Using Strong's to claim the meaning of a word in a specific context is X, is never a reliable claim.

And please do not then claim, that well, I have a tool that links Strongs to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon or Smith's Bible Dictionary for definitions. Both were published before 1895 and are considered obsolete by biblical scholars. Upgrade your tools to include BDAG, and then you may have a chance at arguing what the Greek really means in a particular context.

Even better, forget about appealing to the Greek to make your case. If one's doctrine revolves around a locus classicus of one or two verses, requiring Greek knowledge, something is amiss and God's providential care and preservation of His special revelation apparently requires a high priest caste of Greek and Hebrew scholars. Nonsense abounds.

AMR

No surprise. Anything that exposes your phony Calvinist religion you attack.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Calvinist do not believe that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2. Which is the "L" in TULIP limited atonement.

Calvinist believe that only those that are elected or chosen by God from the foundation of the world can believe and have faith in Jesus. The Bible says otherwise. "Whosoever that shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13.

So? No response to the question of whether you can name anyone who would say that one can believe and be lost?

And yes, we hold to Limited Atonement. But still hold that all who believe will be saved.

It is whosoever believes will be saved. All who believe without exception. But only those who believe.

Yes we hold that only the elect can and will be saved; but that certainly is consistent with this verse.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So? No response to the question of whether you can name anyone who would say that one can believe and be lost?

And yes, we hold to Limited Atonement. But still hold that all who believe will be saved.

It is whosoever believes will be saved. All who believe without exception. But only those who believe.

Yes we hold that only the elect can and will be saved; but that certainly is consistent with this verse.

I think you and Robert are talking about different things, similar but different. Robert is making the point that salvation is an option to everyone. You're making the point that those who believe will be saved. BOTH are true, according to the Bible.

As far as I know, Robert and I believe the same thing (and Robert, please correct me if I'm wrong), that while only the ones who believe will be saved, it's because Christ has given them the ability to become sons of God, and he does that when they believe.

However, the reverse is true: while Christ died for the world, that the world through Him might be saved, those who do not believe in Him will not be saved; because they did not believe they were not given the ability to become sons of God.

Robert is saying, however, that the option is available to all men, hence why he emphasized "whosoever." That whosoever (in the world) should believe in Christ will have eternal life.

 

[musterion]

Not true at all. Matthew 5:44 I believe John 3:16 completely and probably close to how you think of it too.

John 3:18 Acts 4:11 1 Corinthians 1:23,24 Psalm 118:22 1 Corinthians 3:11

Then you disagree with them, not me?

 

[Lon]

Then you disagree with them, not me?

Well, you'll see they give me rep. I do believe in a limited atonement on this fact alone: World was of the living at the time. It may extend to all who ever lived by 'all' but it seems Pharaoh wasn't included, nor was Jezebel. In fact, it seems the OT folks needed to trust God, even back then, for salvation as well. Imho, when The Lord Jesus Christ died, He went to Paradise and explained only to the OT saints who trusted in Him, what the fruit of that faith was in Him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world.... I agree. Saved them? No, only those who "atoned" for are 'at one with God.'

In a nutshell, I think I am within Calvinism simply because I believe in an atonement that is limited to only those who come to Him, I think as do you.

Thus, God loving the word and them being atoned, are two different things to me. If you can show me a universal atonement rather than a cosmos love, I'm ready to read, hear, and listen, as well as change what I believe.

2 Peter 3:9 (I realize we Calvinists need to say these other things often and clearly and it is our fault that we don't) Sincerely -Lon

 

[Brother Ducky]

I think you and Robert are talking about different things, similar but different. Robert is making the point that salvation is an option to everyone. You're making the point that those who believe will be saved. BOTH are true, according to the Bible.

As far as I know, Robert and I believe the same thing (and Robert, please correct me if I'm wrong), that while only the ones who believe will be saved, it's because Christ has given them the ability to become sons of God, and he does that when they believe.

However, the reverse is true: while Christ died for the world, that the world through Him might be saved, those who do not believe in Him will not be saved; because they did not believe they were not given the ability to become sons of God.

Robert is saying, however, that the option is available to all men, hence why he emphasized "whosoever." That whosoever (in the world) should believe in Christ will have eternal life.

True enough. My point is that John 3:16 does not say what Pate wants it to say.

 

[Robert Pate]

True enough. My point is that John 3:16 does not say what Pate wants it to say.

John 3:16 says exactly what I want it to say.

"God loves the world".
"God gives his Son for the sins of the world".
"Whosoever that does nothing more than believe on him will be saved".
John 3:16 is one of the most important scriptures in the Bible. It teaches salvation by grace through faith.

 

[Robert Pate]

Well, you'll see they give me rep. I do believe in a limited atonement on this fact alone: World was of the living at the time. It may extend to all who ever lived by 'all' but it seems Pharaoh wasn't included, nor was Jezebel. In fact, it seems the OT folks needed to trust God, even back then, for salvation as well. Imho, when The Lord Jesus Christ died, He went to Paradise and explained only to the OT saints who trusted in Him, what the fruit of that faith was in Him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world.... I agree. Saved them? No, only those who "atoned" for are 'at one with God.'

In a nutshell, I think I am within Calvinism simply because I believe in an atonement that is limited to only those who come to Him, I think as do you.

Thus, God loving the word and them being atoned, are two different things to me. If you can show me a universal atonement rather than a cosmos love, I'm ready to read, hear, and listen, as well as change what I believe.

2 Peter 3:9 (I realize we Calvinists need to say these other things often and clearly and it is our fault that we don't) Sincerely -Lon

To believe in a limited atonement is to believe that Jesus is a failure and is not Lord.

One of the reasons that Jesus was welcomed back into heaven is because he victoriously defeated sin, death and the devil, Colossians 2:15.

 

[Sherman]

[MENTION=9508]Robert Pate[/MENTION] My sole issue with you is Redundancy. You dilute your argument when you start multiple threads on the same topic. You do not see AMR or Lon doing it. They start only a few threads and they keep them well maintained. That approach builds a much stronger argument.

 

[Lon]

To believe in a limited atonement is to believe that Jesus is a failure and is not Lord.

Actually, isn't it RATHER that you believe in an unlimited 'sacrifice' rather than atonement? Do you agree that ONLY those who are 'made right with God' (definition of Atonement) are "atoned" for??? It is important to discuss what applies to what. You realize this, because you have said repeatedly you are not a Universalist. As such, the limit HAS to be at least those who actually call upon the name of the Lord? Correct? (else all would be saved, regardless if they care or not). In some cases, there isn't much more to the conversation than just this, when talking with some of us Calvinists, on some of these conversations.

One of the reasons that Jesus was welcomed back into heaven is because he victoriously defeated sin, death and the devil, Colossians 2:15.

I don't understand As God, He has access alone. I suppose you are saying 'this too!' ??? :idunno: You'll have to help me out a bit more with your meaning. Thanks. -Lon

 

[Truster]

To believe in a limited atonement is to believe that Jesus is a failure and is not Lord.

One of the reasons that Jesus was welcomed back into heaven is because he victoriously defeated sin, death and the devil, Colossians 2:15.

Maybe you should change your name to Michael Servetus, Pate. The spirit of John Calvin, in dealing with his enemies, is manifesting on TOL. Maybe Ask Mr Religion means ask his permission before you oppose Calvin?

"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."​

As far as you twist the truth I wholeheartedly despise your doctrine. Equally so, I despise those that cry Calvin, Calvin when there is no peace. I wonder why the followers of Calvin are so blind as to ignore his erroneous doctrine of infant baptism. How many went to hell with that lie in their right hand I wonder?