tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

But if you are a Calvinist, what difference does it make? They are either elect or damned since the beginning of time, correct?

And Esau ended up being blessed. Not even bringing up that Jacob symbolized Israel and Esau Edom.

Always felt sorry for Esau.

---

This a very common caricature of Calvinism. Consider something for moment: if Calvinists believe what you just stated, why were/are so many well-known devoted missionaries Calvinist? William Carey, John Elliot, David Livingstone, Adoniram Johnson, Henry Martyn, Sam Zwemer, Robert Moffatt...many of them killed attempting to spread the gospel.

---

Does God love every human He created?

---

Do you believe unsaved people go to hell? If so, what difference does it make in the context of "God's love for them" what you or I believe are the ultimate means of them getting there? Is he not capable of just saving everyone? Why doesn't He? If your answer is that he doesn't save them because they don't believe of their volition, I assume you mean it is because ultimately God is preserving their libertarian free will in their choice to believe, because if he didn't do that, everyone would just be robots at the will of a totalitarian dictator? You're going to post all of that regardless of any passages I provide right? It always ends with "I just can't believe in a God that would...."

You picked some pieces out of 1 Tim 2 earlier. You said you love Spurgeon, a Calvinist, and he has a sermon on 1 Tim 2:4. I have listened in person to world-renowned greek scholars explain how the all of that passage is not in reference to every person on earth, yet I agree with Spurgeon's take on it. Perhaps his way of approaching it might give you some insight? Its long, but its a great sermon.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/spe/2-timothy-4.html

---

Have no idea where this came from. Who are unsaved people? And do you determine that?

Do you believe God loves every person?

dermdoc said:

---

https://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4514

---

did you read the whole thread? You know comparing a word's usage across five centuries does not have any bearing on its meaning in the context of the time it was written right?

In the 1700's, Queen Anne described st Paul's cathedral as "amusing, awful, and artificial." You know what she meant then versus what those words mean now?

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4514

---

did you read the whole thread? You know comparing a word's usage across five centuries does not have any bearing on its meaning in the context of the time it was written right?

In the 1700's, Queen Anne described st Paul's cathedral as "amusing, awful, and artificial." You know what she meant then versus what those words mean now?

---

Does God loves every person He created?

And I believe you said no Greek scholars agreed with the definition of kolasis vs timoria. Is Barclay considered a scholar?

dermdoc said:

---

And I believe you said no Greek scholars agreed with the definition of kolasis vs timoria. Is Barclay considered a scholar?

---

I'm aware of Barclay's book, but I haven't read it. I would imagine, like those that have read it, given that he is a universalist, that he has a highly significant bias in his goals in that word study.

Ok so one thing at a time here. Are you a universalist?

As an aside, BDAG is my first source for definitions - I looked because I was confused as to why you would ask about those words in Matt, and there arent any other definitions found for those words in the bible or concurrent greek literature from around the same time period.

oops meant to edit but accidentally quoted.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I believe you said no Greek scholars agreed with the definition of kolasis vs timoria. Is Barclay considered a scholar?

---

I'm aware of Barclay's book, but I haven't read it. I would imagine, like those that have read it, given that he is a universalist, that he has a highly significant bias in his goals in that word study.

Ok so one thing at a time here. Are you a universalist?

---

May I ask what your definition of a Christian universalist is? And do you think you have a bias?

And do you read Young's Literal Translation?

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I believe you said no Greek scholars agreed with the definition of kolasis vs timoria. Is Barclay considered a scholar?

---

I'm aware of Barclay's book, but I haven't read it. I would imagine, like those that have read it, given that he is a universalist, that he has a highly significant bias in his goals in that word study.

Ok so one thing at a time here. Are you a universalist?

---

May I ask what your definition of a Christian universalist is? And do you think you have a bias?

And do you read Young's Literal Translation?

---

A universalist believes in the salvation of every person on earth. It is largely a product of the "enlightenment" and liberal theology.

Of course I have bias; I earnestly attempt to garner everything I believe about God from the scriptures, and that alone is a form of bias, because not everyone believes that. No problem admitting that despite that attempt, I will naturally have biases in interpretation as well.

But all that aside, Doc, honestly, if you are a universalist you need to forget about Calvinism because no one will be able to stand in the same doctrinal space as you to discuss any of the foundational issues that undergird it - there will be enormous doctrinal conflicts that go far and beyond any Calvinism discussion.

I try to read straight from the NA28 but I'm no expert so I need supplementation fairly often. If I really struggle with a particular greek sentence construction, like the really long ones that people much smarter than me have appropriately split into multiple sentences, I'll just look at an NASB or ESV or the like.

I did a quick search to make sure Im not getting confused about the wrong person here. But yeah, Barclay is the universalist I was thinking of.

The journalist James Douglas suggested Barclay was also "reticent about the inspiration of Scripture, critical of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and given to views about the virgin birth and miracles which conservatives would find either heretical or imprecise."

Yikes. Just to be clear, I believe scripture is inspired and infallible.

The Banned said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

This popped up in one of my daily devotions today:

Quote of the Day
"A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds. A good deed is never lost; he who sows courtesy reaps friendship, and he who plants kindness gathers love."
St. Basil the Great

---

This doesn't really support either side of the debate. You are saved by faith alone, but if you truly have faith, you will do good deeds.

---

It goes back to what you and I discussed earlier. If we are tasked with responding to the spirit's prompting, then the good deeds are important, as it means if we don't do them, we have refused the prompting of the spirit. If we continue to refuse the prompting of the spirit for the rest of our days, one can reasonably conclude that salvation can be lost. That sort of "faith alone" looks very different than the one commonly used by evangelicals.

Now, if the Spirit overwhelms us so much that we essentially can't help but to do the good things, that opens up a much bigger can of worms, which I discussed with many others on here.

---

Got ya. I understand now. I'm with you mostly, but I'm not totally with you on the bold part. The truth is I don't know if that happens and neither do you. Reasonable conclusion is debatable. For me, it doesn't change my faith one way or the other so I don't worry about it too much.

tk111 said:

---

I did a quick search to make sure Im not getting confused about the wrong person here. But yeah, Barclay is the universalist I was thinking of.

The journalist James Douglas suggested Barclay was also "reticent about the inspiration of Scripture, critical of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and given to views about the virgin birth and miracles which conservatives would find either heretical or imprecise."

Yikes. Just to be clear, I believe scripture is inspired and infallible.

---

It is like if one believes in Christian Universalism that they lose all credibility. And it does not take away Barclay's ability as a Greek translator.

And since you believe Scripture is inspired and infallible, you must agree that Scripture clearly states God desires to save ALL men, correct?

And God is sovereign.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

This popped up in one of my daily devotions today:

Quote of the Day
"A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds. A good deed is never lost; he who sows courtesy reaps friendship, and he who plants kindness gathers love."
St. Basil the Great

---

This doesn't really support either side of the debate. You are saved by faith alone, but if you truly have faith, you will do good deeds.

---

It goes back to what you and I discussed earlier. If we are tasked with responding to the spirit's prompting, then the good deeds are important, as it means if we don't do them, we have refused the prompting of the spirit. If we continue to refuse the prompting of the spirit for the rest of our days, one can reasonably conclude that salvation can be lost. That sort of "faith alone" looks very different than the one commonly used by evangelicals.

Now, if the Spirit overwhelms us so much that we essentially can't help but to do the good things, that opens up a much bigger can of worms, which I discussed with many others on here.

---

Got ya. I understand now. I'm with you mostly, but I'm not totally with you on the bold part. The truth is I don't know if that happens and neither do you. Reasonable conclusion is debatable. For me, it doesn't change my faith one way or the other so I don't worry about it too much.

---

I agree. All I know is what my own personal experience is and when I tried to leave my faith the Holy Spirit kept after me. I believe once we are sealed with the Spirit we are saved forever. But it is a process of sanctification.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I believe you said no Greek scholars agreed with the definition of kolasis vs timoria. Is Barclay considered a scholar?

---

I'm aware of Barclay's book, but I haven't read it. I would imagine, like those that have read it, given that he is a universalist, that he has a highly significant bias in his goals in that word study.

Ok so one thing at a time here. Are you a universalist?

---

May I ask what your definition of a Christian universalist is? And do you think you have a bias?

And do you read Young's Literal Translation?

---

A universalist believes in the salvation of every person on earth. It is largely a product of the "enlightenment" and liberal theology.

Of course I have bias; I earnestly attempt to garner everything I believe about God from the scriptures, and that alone is a form of bias, because not everyone believes that. No problem admitting that despite that attempt, I will naturally have biases in interpretation as well.

But all that aside, Doc, honestly, if you are a universalist you need to forget about Calvinism because no one will be able to stand in the same doctrinal space as you to discuss any of the foundational issues that undergird it - there will be enormous doctrinal conflicts that go far and beyond any Calvinism discussion.

I try to read straight from the NA28 but I'm no expert so I need supplementation fairly often. If I really struggle with a particular greek sentence construction, like the really long ones that people much smarter than me have appropriately split into multiple sentences, I'll just look at an NASB or ESV or the like.

---

A Christian Universalist believes much more than that. It is a belief that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Basically the only difference is that punishment or hell, is not eternal. But there is punishment. It is not Unitarian Universalism where all roads lead to God.

Here is a good link explaining what Christian Universalism really is.

https://www.mercyonall.org/posts/7-myths-about-universalism

And I sincerely doubt you or anyone on here will take the time to read the link. Once the word universalism is used, a preconceived idea seems to appear and everything is ignored.

It is based on Scripture and was and has been adhered to by quite a few noted theologians, including saints.

Hey...so.. um said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Hey...so.. um said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

This popped up in one of my daily devotions today:

Quote of the Day
"A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds. A good deed is never lost; he who sows courtesy reaps friendship, and he who plants kindness gathers love."
St. Basil the Great

---

This doesn't really support either side of the debate. You are saved by faith alone, but if you truly have faith, you will do good deeds.

---

It goes back to what you and I discussed earlier. If we are tasked with responding to the spirit's prompting, then the good deeds are important, as it means if we don't do them, we have refused the prompting of the spirit. If we continue to refuse the prompting of the spirit for the rest of our days, one can reasonably conclude that salvation can be lost. That sort of "faith alone" looks very different than the one commonly used by evangelicals.

Now, if the Spirit overwhelms us so much that we essentially can't help but to do the good things, that opens up a much bigger can of worms, which I discussed with many others on here.

---

Got ya. I understand now. I'm with you mostly, but I'm not totally with you on the bold part. The truth is I don't know if that happens and neither do you. Reasonable conclusion is debatable. For me, it doesn't change my faith one way or the other so I don't worry about it too much.

---

Except that it's a primary driver of the Christian church being split

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I believe you said no Greek scholars agreed with the definition of kolasis vs timoria. Is Barclay considered a scholar?

---

I'm aware of Barclay's book, but I haven't read it. I would imagine, like those that have read it, given that he is a universalist, that he has a highly significant bias in his goals in that word study.

Ok so one thing at a time here. Are you a universalist?

---

May I ask what your definition of a Christian universalist is? And do you think you have a bias?

And do you read Young's Literal Translation?

---

A universalist believes in the salvation of every person on earth. It is largely a product of the "enlightenment" and liberal theology.

Of course I have bias; I earnestly attempt to garner everything I believe about God from the scriptures, and that alone is a form of bias, because not everyone believes that. No problem admitting that despite that attempt, I will naturally have biases in interpretation as well.

But all that aside, Doc, honestly, if you are a universalist you need to forget about Calvinism because no one will be able to stand in the same doctrinal space as you to discuss any of the foundational issues that undergird it - there will be enormous doctrinal conflicts that go far and beyond any Calvinism discussion.

I try to read straight from the NA28 but I'm no expert so I need supplementation fairly often. If I really struggle with a particular greek sentence construction, like the really long ones that people much smarter than me have appropriately split into multiple sentences, I'll just look at an NASB or ESV or the like.

---

A Christian Universalist believes much more than that. It is a belief that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Basically the only difference is that punishment or hell, is not eternal. But there is punishment. It is not Unitarian Universalism where all roads lead to God.

Here is a good link explaining what Christian Universalism really is.

https://www.mercyonall.org/posts/7-myths-about-universalism

And I sincerely doubt you or anyone on here will take the time to read the link. Once the word universalism is used, a preconceived idea seems to appear and everything is ignored.

It is based on Scripture and was and has been adhered to by quite a few noted theologians, including saints.

---

I quoted the standard definition, which is the crux of what you believe. It's not a dismissal "just because you said the word." I know Origen struggled with it. Calvinism is a description of the doctrines of grace (for which others might argue differently) based on a foundation of justification and propitiation that those (at least in the protestant space) who disagree with Calvinism would still hold to. Against a universalist system, there just wouldn't be a way to even start the discussion on the same footing.

Never assumed you were unitarian; that wouldn't make sense given your other comments. Yes I did read the article; there's nothing there I didn't expect to see. I'd be more interested in reading his rebuttals of the passages presented (by many of the folks he mentioned in his article) that refute his claims...like Matt 7:23, 10:28 (and 32-33!), John 3:18, 3:36, etc? There's usually a lot of gymnastics involved, or misguided attempts to claim mistranslation (have you given the Jehovah's witnesses and mormons the same due on their claims?) like in the case of Matt 25:46.

The hang-up for all flavors of universalist are the same; they impose a human conception of love as having a requirement of universality to be "perfect."

They see all of God's actions as motivated by 'holy love'. Everything God does is holy, completely just, and completely loving. So whatever hell is about it must be compatible not simply with divine justice but also with divine love. Which means that it must, in some way, have the good of those in hell as part of its rationale.
Universalists feel that one potential danger in traditional theologies of hell is that while they make much of God justice and anger they appear to be incompatible with his love and, as a result, they divide up the unity of God's nature.

1 Tim 2:4 has to be taken in light of the whole of scripture, not on its own. I read what you provided, will you not read Spurgeon's sermon I gave you, who you said you loved? He takes a very non-controversial approach.

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

I did a quick search to make sure Im not getting confused about the wrong person here. But yeah, Barclay is the universalist I was thinking of.

The journalist James Douglas suggested Barclay was also "reticent about the inspiration of Scripture, critical of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and given to views about the virgin birth and miracles which conservatives would find either heretical or imprecise."

Yikes. Just to be clear, I believe scripture is inspired and infallible.

---

It is like if one believes in Christian Universalism that they lose all credibility. And it does not take away Barclay's ability as a Greek translator.

And since you believe Scripture is inspired and infallible, you must agree that Scripture clearly states God desires to save ALL men, correct?

And God is sovereign.

---

No, his conclusions were rebutted predominantly on the basis of breaking a major fallacy in language study where ancient meanings are incorrectly ascribed to the semantic range of a contemporary meaning. His research didn't lead him to universalism, it was the opposite. He was trying to squeeze lemon juice out of an apple to fit his system.

Yes 1 Tim 2:4 is true. There is a lot more said in the scriptures.

God is sovereign indeed.

One main issue I have with the thought process of Calvinism (I have several biblical issues as well) is how his view of God logically makes God the efficient cause of sin. Example:

1. I can do zero good things until God regenerates me.
2. God overwhelms my will in order to regenerate me
3. I still do bad things after regeneration was overwhelming placed on me

Conclusion: Gods monergistic regeneration was designed in a way that overwhelmed my will enough to save me but also limited enough to keep me sinful.

This is a big issue for me. Our wills were so bent we couldn't do anything good until He overcame our will. But He intentionally overcame us only to the degree in which we can still sin. He could have overwhelmed us more than He did, but He didn't. If He couldn't, then He isn't the sovereign God Calvin claims Him to be. So how is this not God actively wanting us to remain sinful? If God is the sole actor, then any outcomes, good or bad, are results of His actions. We don't get to have permissive will here and be logically consistent.

Contrasted with synergism where God asks us to follow Him and to join our will to His. This allows for His permissive will, because any failure on our part was not a result of limited action on God's part

One of the facets of Augustine's theodicy is the idea that God allowing evil reveals that its ultimate existence is in fact good, otherwise he wouldn't allow it to occur. Without the sin in the world, you wouldn't be able to make heads and tails of what is good or bad.

Now where do our evil inclinations come from? Ultimately is an unknowable question. But the understanding that Augustine provides is that God's is immutable, however his creation was not created to be immutable.

I choose to not necessarily seek out these unknowable things in pursuit of only wisdom that is only privy to God himself and him alone. I trust in his plan and goodness and seek to be someone who can be used to advance his kingdom.

Quote:

---

Counterpoint: all of the warnings against hell are made to Christians. The NT scriptures are silent about those outside the Church, the people you call "unreached".

Not sure what the implication you're trying to make here is.

---

The implication being - we should not take things written to Christians and extend them too broadly. The scriptures have things to say about those outside. As far as I know it never says they are all damned to hell period end of discussion.

Quote:

---

Yes - we've all earned those wages but those in Christ have their debt paid.

---

Well, everyone will be resurrected at the last judgment. So in a very real way, everyone has had their debt to sin paid, as far as death is concerned.

Quote:

---

So what is you conclusion from this?

---

Well first, Romans is not a theological treatise about what happens to people outside the church or the mechanistic innerworkings of salvation. The "All" in Romans 3 is not "each and every individual" but "all people" in the sense of - both Jews and non-Jews. You can tell because that passage and the ones before it and after it over and over again say that. He's talking first to Jews, then to non-Jews. Romans 3 is about faithfulness to Jesus being the only avenue of salvation, as a direct objection to being Jewish / following the Torah being what saves you. (Longer discussion about that point here). That doesn't contradict at all that we will be judged by what we have done.

My conclusion is that because St Paul isn't contradicting himself from one sentence to the next, we can safely believe that people who don't know God who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. He explicitly says that non-Jews who do not have knowledge of God can be excused by their thoughts at the judgment. Therefore we absolutely cannot say that those who die in ignorance automatically go to hell. Not only is it not scriptural, it's way out of our lane.

Quote:

---

Completely agree with the first sentence, but His justice is perfectly just and his mercy is perfectly merciful; the two are not in conflict but they are not one in the same thing. Rom 9:13

---

Same objection as above... this isn't what Romans 9 is about. St Paul talks about the assurances that God gives us, that we have victory as long as we are faithful because nothing can separate us from God's love. Immediately aft er that he starts talking about Israel, which is answering the posed question - if He is doing all of this, why have unfaithful Jews? Why Pharaoh? Why do they get blessings at all?

This comes back to justice and mercy. Pharaoh received mercy for a long time. Pharaohs heart was hardened as a matter of justice. Both are true. God set right the evil pharaoh had done - culminating in the last plague, which was done BECAUSE of Pharaohs murder of the Israelite children. The idea of justice in the OT is everything in its correct place, everything as it should be. Not just punitive (opposed to mercy) but restorative justice - an aspect of mercy. Again, His mercy is just and His justice is merciful. Was the Passover mercy or justice? Yes. And if we understand that we can understand that the cross is both. The ruler of the world is judged on the cross, but the cross - paralleling and fulfilling Passover - is the Great Mercy.

Vessels of wrath and mercy and the potter is a parallel to Jeremiah, and is talking about nations - Judah and Edom - not people.

And even then, look at all the quotes just after that portion. He isn't addressing here the elect in some abstract way, but coming right back to the major point of the whole letter - the understanding how Jews and Gentiles relate together in the divine plan of God for salvation of all mankind. In the end, the answer to "why have faithless tribes?" or "why have evil god-kings like Pharaoh?" is "to save the whole world, all mankind."

Does God give justice to all? You will say yes. Does He show mercy to all? The answer is unequivocally yes to this as well. He Has mercy on whom He will have mercy - and His perfect judgment and justice is to take away the sins of the whole world. All will be saved from death. Salvation from death is universal and final. forgiveness of sins is offered to all, and the victory over sin is absolute and complete. But not all will be saved at the judgment, because not all will be faithful.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

One of the facets of Augustine's theodicy is the idea that God allowing evil reveals that its ultimate existence is in fact good, otherwise he wouldn't allow it to occur. Without the sin in the world, you wouldn't be able to make heads and tails of what is good or bad.

Now where do our evil inclinations come from? Ultimately is an unknowable question. But the understanding that Augustine provides is that God's is immutable, however his creation was not created to be immutable.

I choose to not necessarily seek out these unknowable things in pursuit of only wisdom that is only privy to God himself and him alone. I trust in his plan and goodness and seek to be someone who can be used to advance his kingdom.

---

I agree that we can't fully know God. No different than how he relented on trying to fully grasp the trinity. I'm good with that.

But I'm going to need to check on your first paragraph. God allowing evil reveals that the existence of evil is a good? Or that its existence is the evidence we are allowed to choose freely, and that choice is good? I've never heard or read where Augustine says the existence of evil in and of itself must be a good. I'd like to know where you pulled that from

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the same word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life. That is the foundation verse of infernalists.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna (the word hell was invented by the KJV translators and does not appear on more literal translations like Young's Literal Translation. And of course, Jesus never would have used that word as it did not exist when he spoke). And Jesus said God COULD destroy (not eternally torture) your body and soul in
Gehenna, not that He would. So at the worst, this supports annihilationism, not ECT Gehenna.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

The Banned said:

---

One main issue I have with the thought process of Calvinism (I have several biblical issues as well) is how his view of God logically makes God the efficient cause of sin. Example:

1. I can do zero good things until God regenerates me.
2. God overwhelms my will in order to regenerate me
3. I still do bad things after regeneration was overwhelming placed on me

Conclusion: Gods monergistic regeneration was designed in a way that overwhelmed my will enough to save me but also limited enough to keep me sinful.

This is a big issue for me. Our wills were so bent we couldn't do anything good until He overcame our will. But He intentionally overcame us only to the degree in which we can still sin. He could have overwhelmed us more than He did, but He didn't. If He couldn't, then He isn't the sovereign God Calvin claims Him to be. So how is this not God actively wanting us to remain sinful? If God is the sole actor, then any outcomes, good or bad, are results of His actions. We don't get to have permissive will here and be logically consistent.

Contrasted with synergism where God asks us to follow Him and to join our will to His. This allows for His permissive will, because any failure on our part was not a result of limited action on God's part

---

1. Just to be clear - the Calvinist conception of this statement is that all of our actions are tainted by sin. This is not hard to imagine given the sermon on the mount; even our thoughts are judged and they stray quite easily (but that's just a surface example). This can get warped into thinking that all the actions of unbelievers are as evil as they could be, and likewise that we do not have any free will. But it is simply a tandem belief to the doctrine that no one can attain salvation by their own works.

I'll stick some Westminster Confession in here if that hopefully clarifies for me.

[9.1 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.]

2. God transforms the hearts of the elect, making it possible for them to respond to the gospel. This statement tends to get warped into an idea that God drags his elect kicking and screaming into salvation. Looking at it from a perspective that falls along these lines is generally a big part of why you have your question, even though you didn't describe it to that degree.

[10.1 All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.]

3. Yes. Simul justus et peccator. He changes us such that we are no longer slaves to sin. Paul talks about this in Rom 6:20-22 and 7:14-15. We still have the fallen bodies we were born with and are susceptible to sin until they are transformed as well (Phil 3:20-21). I believe that for God to forgo sanctification and just prevent an individual completely from sinning ever again would have to be concurrent with us never getting sick again, or ever being subject to the other effects of sin on us. That is not part of His plan in this stage of redemptive history. God does not eliminate the effects of the fall when he changes our hearts - that will only be done in the last days. That is no way a reflection of his inability to do so. What He does for His glory is His prerogative.

I will double check my notes, it is a little blurry of when it was Augustine's words versus some of the commentary I used. It likely was added commentary.

Do you believe God loves everyone? Or just the "elect"?

And from my readings, Augustine was about the only church father who even suggested double predestination. And then of course, Calvin went all in.

Why did the theology of election and predestination change so radically after centuries? Is Calvin, and to a lesser extent some other Reformers, the mouth of God?

Or is like he and Augustine the only ones whose translations matter. In fact, I bet there are more church fathers who believed in Universal Reconciliation, or apokatastasis, than double predestination.

To me it is weird and almost cult like.

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

---

I thought the Gospel was only for the "elect"? What good does it do for the preordained damned to ECT?

And we can go back and forth with Scriptures all day long supporting our beliefs. You can make the Bible say whatever you want (note all the different theologies, translations, and denominations.

All depends on which lens you are reading it through. If you are a Reformed infernalist, the Scriptures that support that view are the most important. Same way with every other theology.

dermdoc said:

---

To me it is weird and almost cult like.

---

If anything, the focus on oral tradition passed down by sinful men over millennia would be more susceptible to a cult like following. In addition to the idea there is a man at the head position who can make infallible edicts. Not the commitment to scripture, available to everyone, as the sole authority. Men will surely interpret scripture incorrectly from time to time, reformers included, but the intent is for scripture to be the foundation. The reformers didn't use oral traditions passed down to guide any of their doctrine. And they surely don't have an infallible leader, although this board thinks Calvin was that man.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great sermon by Spurgeon but the link you gave me was for 2 Timothy 4 not 1 Timothy.

And I read all your linked Scripture and the only problem one is, of course, Matthew 25:46. Where the word anionioa is used for Kolasis and life.

Jesus said to fear God because he could throw you into Gehenna. Never said God would.

Barclay is not the only Greek scholar to interpret kolasis as rehab rather than punitive punishment.

Why wasn't timoria used?

And I agree you have to take 1Timothy 2:4 in context.

But there is also 2 Peter 3:9, Luke 2:10, John 12:32, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 4:10 and more of you like.

---

Ah crap. Sorry Doc. This is the one.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/#flipbook/



2 Peter 3:9 (how about 10-18??)

Luke 2:10 - Yep, the gospel is for all people...

John 12:32...yes "all" again, meaning same as above. How about verses 44-50?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - verse 23? verses 1-2?

1 Tim 4:10...part of a discussion that leads to...v 16?

---

Great sermon. Not very Calvinistic at all as he keeps talking about what we have to do. Believe, have faith, seek Christ etc.

The only difference I have with Spurgeon is eternal ECT hell. I believe in hell, but only for a duration to refine us.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

To me it is weird and almost cult like.

---

If anything, the focus on oral tradition passed down by sinful men over millennia would be more susceptible to a cult like following. In addition to the idea there is a man at the head position who can make infallible edicts. Not the commitment to scripture, available to everyone, as the sole authority. Men will surely interpret scripture incorrectly from time to time, reformers included, but the intent is for scripture to be the foundation. The reformers didn't use oral traditions passed down to guide any of their doctrine. And they surely don't have an infallible leader, although this board thinks Calvin was that man.

---

Well, it is called Calvinism. What are we supposed to think? And he completely changed theology/soteriogy as concerns election/predestination.

And as I stated above, it depends on which lens you read the Bible with. Reformed lens uses Scripture that supports their position. Others use Scripture that support theirs.

The simple Gospel is fine with me. And I believe the monergists, for the most part, preach the same Gospel synergists do.

And I believe the Scripture says all that call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. So we are all good.

I believe the only time the Pope is considered to be infallible is when he speaks under the auspices of ex cathedra which I believe has only happened once or twice in the last century.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

To me it is weird and almost cult like.

---

If anything, the focus on oral tradition passed down by sinful men over millennia would be more susceptible to a cult like following. In addition to the idea there is a man at the head position who can make infallible edicts. Not the commitment to scripture, available to everyone, as the sole authority. Men will surely interpret scripture incorrectly from time to time, reformers included, but the intent is for scripture to be the foundation. The reformers didn't use oral traditions passed down to guide any of their doctrine. And they surely don't have an infallible leader, although this board thinks Calvin was that man.

---

Is it a focus on oral tradition, or is it a focus on THE tradition, part of which is the Bible? Again, it wasn't written at Jesus' request. It never claims to be, nor does it claim to be the sole authority. What you're using is an extra-biblical tradition (whether oral or written really doesn't matter) to come to a view on what you think the Bible's role is.

We're all using extra-biblical traditions. Every single one of us. Both Luther and Calvin appealed to the church fathers precisely because their view on the tradition is needed to make their point

ETA: want to know why we don't have a denomination call Augustianism popping up all those years ago? Because he didn't make a claim that he had the answers and everyone needed to follow. He remained in the church. Calvinism on the other hand….

How very Calvinistic of you

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Counterpoint: all of the warnings against hell are made to Christians. The NT scriptures are silent about those outside the Church, the people you call "unreached".

Not sure what the implication you're trying to make here is.

---

The implication being - we should not take things written to Christians and extend them too broadly. The scriptures have things to say about those outside. As far as I know it never says they are all damned to hell period end of discussion.

This is a strange take. The letter is addressed to Christians but that does not mean the general truths on mankind he expounds on are unique to Christians and non-existent to others.

Quote:

---

Yes - we've all earned those wages but those in Christ have their debt paid.

---

Well, everyone will be resurrected at the last judgment. So in a very real way, everyone has had their debt to sin paid, as far as death is concerned.

Everyone will be resurrected, but after that you are incorrect. The death referred to in light of "the debt to sin" is more than the earthly physical one. John 5:25-29; they will resurrected for judgement by the Son, and that will not end well for everyone.

Quote:

---

So what is you conclusion from this?

---

Well first, Romans is not a theological treatise about what happens to people outside the church or the mechanistic innerworkings of salvation.

Correct; it had a specific purpose; why would this negate the theological applications that can be gleaned from Paul's explanations?

The "All" in Romans 3 is not "each and every individual" but "all people" in the sense of - both Jews and non-Jews. You can tell because that passage and the ones before it and after it over and over again say that. He's talking first to Jews, then to non-Jews.

Well yes, I know, and likely one of the over-arching purposes of the letter was unity between Jews and gentiles in the roman church, but that doesn't take away from a fact that Paul is using to make his points on the nature of their faith and relationship to the law - that all people, Jews and non-Jews alike, fall short of the standard; it is the expansion of the reality of their condition following what you quoted from Romans 2.

Romans 3 is about faithfulness to Jesus being the only avenue of salvation, as a direct objection to being Jewish / following the Torah being what saves you. (Longer discussion about that point here). That doesn't contradict at all that we will be judged by what we have done.

My conclusion is that because St Paul isn't contradicting himself from one sentence to the next, we can safely believe that people who don't know God who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. He explicitly says that non-Jews who do not have knowledge of God can be excused by their thoughts at the judgment.

I don't believe any of it is contradictory either...Paul is building up an argument, and you stopped short of the point in 3:21-31. He does not say in 2:13-16 that non-Jews will be "excused from the judgement;" it is the complete opposite; they will be subject to judgement because they know what is right in their consciences, and will be judged by how they adhere to what they know to be right and wrong - Rom 3 explains that neither they (who are not excused because they were given a conscience) and the Jews (who were given the law) are ultimately able to do what is right in God's eyes to his standard.

Therefore we absolutely cannot say that those who die in ignorance automatically go to hell. Not only is it not scriptural, it's way out of our lane.

Quote:

---

Completely agree with the first sentence, but His justice is perfectly just and his mercy is perfectly merciful; the two are not in conflict but they are not one in the same thing. Rom 9:13

---

Same objection as above... this isn't what Romans 9 is about. St Paul talks about the assurances that God gives us, that we have victory as long as we are faithful because nothing can separate us from God's love. Immediately aft er that he starts talking about Israel, which is answering the posed question - if He is doing all of this, why have unfaithful Jews? Why Pharaoh? Why do they get blessings at all?

Because they were created to serve a purpose for His glory. That is the whole point of the potter argument.

This comes back to justice and mercy. Pharaoh received mercy for a long time. Pharaohs heart was hardened as a matter of justice.

That's not what it says: (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, in order to demonstrate my power in you, and in order that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."

Both are true. God set right the evil pharaoh had done - culminating in the last plague, which was done BECAUSE of Pharaohs murder of the Israelite children.

Never does it say this was a punishment for that. You have read that into the text. Every plague was an opportunity for Pharoah to repent at release the Israelites.

The idea of justice in the OT is everything in its correct place, everything as it should be. Not just punitive (opposed to mercy) but restorative justice - an aspect of mercy. Again, His mercy is just and His justice is merciful. Was the Passover mercy or justice? Yes. And if we understand that we can understand that the cross is both. The ruler of the world is judged on the cross, but the cross - paralleling and fulfilling Passover - is the Great Mercy.

The passover included mercy for God's people by passing over them and their households, and judgement on Egypt for their failure to repent. You are conflating the two again. Was it merciful for the Egyptian children to be killed? No, but it was judgement. How about the Canaanites? Israel was commanded to enter the land, destroy or drive out every single one of them, and some cities were devoted by God's decree to complete obliteration of every single man, woman, and child (and not as retribution for their offenses against Israel). Their death was still just because of their sins against God as pagans. Certainly not merciful.

The cross does exhibit both justice and mercy because God's justice had to be served, but by sending His son to die in order to serve it was the ultimate mercy. The lambs of the passover died in the place of the Israelites passed over. There were no lambs that died in the place of the Egyptian first-borns; that's where you can see your conflation of mercy and justice break down.

Vessels of wrath and mercy and the potter is a parallel to Jeremiah, and is talking about nations - Judah and Edom - not people.

I think you're missing the application again, while fixating on the illustrations Paul is using (Judah and Edom, correct, but their story begins with the explicit choosing of one individual over the other and then the nations that came from them) and the primary goal of what Paul is talking about (which you are correct) while ignoring its implications.

And even then, look at all the quotes just after that portion. He isn't addressing here the elect in some abstract way, but coming right back to the major point of the whole letter - the understanding how Jews and Gentiles relate together in the divine plan of God for salvation of all mankind. In the end, the answer to "why have faithless tribes?" or "why have evil god-kings like Pharaoh?" is "to save the whole world, all mankind."

Does God give justice to all? You will say yes. Does He show mercy to all? The answer is unequivocally yes to this as well. He Has mercy on whom He will have mercy - and His perfect judgment and justice is to take away the sins of the whole world. All will be saved from death. Salvation from death is universal and final. forgiveness of sins is offered to all, and the victory over sin is absolute and complete. But not all will be saved at the judgment, because not all will be faithful.

I think your conflation of mercy and justice is ultimately the issue here and why I don't agree with these conclusions.

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

To me it is weird and almost cult like.

---

If anything, the focus on oral tradition passed down by sinful men over millennia would be more susceptible to a cult like following. In addition to the idea there is a man at the head position who can make infallible edicts. Not the commitment to scripture, available to everyone, as the sole authority. Men will surely interpret scripture incorrectly from time to time, reformers included, but the intent is for scripture to be the foundation. The reformers didn't use oral traditions passed down to guide any of their doctrine. And they surely don't have an infallible leader, although this board thinks Calvin was that man.

---

Is it a focus on oral tradition, or is it a focus on THE tradition, part of which is the Bible? Again, it wasn't written at Jesus' request. It never claims to be, nor does it claim to be the sole authority. What you're using is an extra-biblical tradition (whether oral or written really doesn't matter) to come to a view on what you think the Bible's role is.

We're all using extra-biblical traditions. Every single one of us. Both Luther and Calvin appealed to the church fathers precisely because their view on the tradition is needed to make their point

---

Exactly. How did the early Christians do anything without Bibles? No Sola Scriptura?

And knew nothing about election or predestination?

Quote:

---

This is a strange take. The letter is addressed to Christians but that does not mean the general truths on mankind he expounds on are unique to Christians and non-existent to others.

---

I didn't say they were. But if I say all apples will either be cider or pie, it does not necessarily follow that all fruits will be juiced. The important thing is we do have explicit statements about what all people will be judged by. We should start there.

Quote:

---

Everyone will be resurrected, but after that you are incorrect. The death referred to in light of "the debt to sin" is more than the earthly physical one. John 5:25-29; they will resurrected for judgement by the Son, and that will not end well for everyone.

---

Talking past each other here, dont think we really disagree.

Quote:

---

Correct; it had a specific purpose; why would this negate the theological applications that can be gleaned from Paul's explanations?

---

It doesn't. But it also means that - much like the church fathers - we need to be careful taking them and applying them in ways they are not intended. Polemics are different than pastoral letters. St Paul is not always consistent (depending on who his co-authors are too!) in how he describes things, so getting too caught up in one sentence of one letter can lead you into all sorts of opposite errors.

Quote:

---

Paul is building up an argument

---

I think we differ on what his argument is. His argument is not that "nobody can do what is right in God's eyes to his standard." That actually contradicts what he writes that to people who persist in doing good God will give eternal life. If his argument was what you say, he would have to follow that with "but that won't be anyone".

I think his argument is instead that there is only one way to be pleasing to God, and it isn't being Jewish - it is faithfulness to Jesus. Abraham's faithfulness is the example - before and after circumcision. This does not contradict that to those who persist in doing good God will give eternal life, because persistence in doing good is the stuff faithfulness is made of. In other words, the judgment is about faithfulness, because the judgment is about what you have done. They're the same thing.

Quote:

---

Because they were created to serve a purpose for His glory. That is the whole point of the potter argument.

---

It's always a good assumption that St Paul uses scripture correctly. The "potter argument" is a direct reference to Jeremiah.

Quote:

---

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, "Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

---

What were the good things God intended for Egypt? You don't know.

Quote:

---

That's not what it says

The passover included mercy for God's people by passing over them and their households, and judgement on Egypt for their failure to repent. You are conflating the two again. Was it merciful for the Egyptian children to be killed? No, but it was judgement. How about the Canaanites? Israel was commanded to enter the land, destroy or drive out every single one of them, and some cities were devoted by God's decree to complete obliteration of every single man, woman, and child (and not as retribution for their offenses against Israel). Their death was still just because of their sins against God as pagans. Certainly not merciful.

---

It is what it says, moreover it is what happened. Pharaoh himself was a firstborn, was he not? God showed mercy to him. God showed mercy to him the entire time he tolerated his evil; he showed mercy to him by permitting him to be in authority in the first place.

He also says in Exodus to Moses that He wanted to reveal Himself not only to Israel but also to the Egyptians and to the whole world.

Justice and mercy meet, and that mercy resulted in Egyptians being saved and becoming part of Israel in the Exodus. Some of the Egyptian people went with them, a mixed multitude went out of Egypt. The gods of Egypt are judged (Pharaoh being one of them) - not the people - they are shown to be powerless, empty. The outcome is that people all over the world are saved. This is the basic story of the scriptures. God shows mercy and longsuffering, evil is judged, the world is saved.

And again, destruction of the Canaanites comes after mercy. Their cup of iniquity was filled - the delay is mercy. The same as Sodom and Gomorrah. Actually its the same as the gospel St Paul preaches - God has shown mercy for your ignorance, but the time of ignorance is over. God's character is never partial, He never changes. His Mercy and Justice are not ever contradictory or in conflict. This does not make them the same, but it does make them in perfect harmony. He does not show Justice to some, and Mercy to others. The scriptures never say this! In fact Jesus says the opposite -- to love your enemies in order to be like God, because he blesses the righteous and the unrighteous alike.

The Psalms are replete with appeals for justice as well, which are equated with mercy. This framework you use focuses on juridical justice, as opposed restorative or ontological justice. Punitive justice does not imply mercy - restorative justice absolutely does, to the party who was wronged! The righteous long for the justice of God, because to them it is mercy.

Quote:

---

The cross does exhibit both justice and mercy because God's justice had to be served, but by sending His son to die in order to serve it was the ultimate mercy. The lambs of the passover died in the place of the Israelites passed over. There were no lambs that died in the place of the Egyptian first-borns; that's where you can see your conflation of mercy and justice break down.

---

This is not how the Passover works. It doesn't make sense. It wasn't one lamb per firstborn. It wasn't even strictly one lamb per family, if you had a small family, you could share a lamb with another family. It also doesn't say second borns or people without kids are excused. That is not how it worked, and that is similarly not how the Cross worked. Eating the Passover was about obedience and faithfulness to identify yourself as an Israelite. It never says the lamb dies in their place, it says that the blood is a sign for them, and will cause them to be passed over. In other words, faithfulness expressed through obedience saves. Participating the Passover was opting in, and trusting God.

Christ Jesus was a sacrifice - a pure gift, pleasing to God. His purity cleansed the world of sin in the exact same way that the pure goat's blood cleansed the temple (notably NOT the goat that had the sins put on it). And His purity could not be overcome by sin, the same way that when the woman with the issue of blood touched Him she became clean rather than Him becoming unclean. And salvation works the same way - opting in to faithfulness to God.