If God Loved everyone !

[Free]

The term "whosoever" (??? ? ????????) in John 3:16 cannot be interpreted as anyone in all history in all times. If one looks into the greek term behind the "whosoever" one will see it is the word "pas, pasa, pan." This word is normally translated all or every. When it precedes a participle it can be translated "whoever." However, it modifies the participle that preceeds it. In John 3:16 it speaks of all the believing ones. It does not speak of this hypothetical group of possible people. The term "whosoever" is definite and speaks of only the believers.

So, what you're saying is, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," literally says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that [if] the believers believe in him, [they] shall not perish but have eternal life."

If "whosoever" refers to believers only, the verse actually says nothing at all since the believers, by definition, already believe. It makes the giving of Jesus pointless.

 

[RND]

The term "whosoever" (??? ? ????????) in John 3:16 cannot be interpreted as anyone in all history in all times. If one looks into the greek term behind the "whosoever" one will see it is the word "pas, pasa, pan." This word is normally translated all or every. When it precedes a participle it can be translated "whoever." However, it modifies the participle that preceeds it. In John 3:16 it speaks of all the believing ones. It does not speak of this hypothetical group of possible people. The term "whosoever" is definite and speaks of only the believers.

So, what you're saying is, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," literally says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that [if] the believers believe in him, [they] shall not perish but have eternal life."

If "whosoever" refers to believers only, the verse actually says nothing at all since the believers, by definition, already believe. It makes the giving of Jesus pointless.

That's an excellent point Free and I for one am glad you addressed it.

This is what happens when people try to change the rather simple meaning into something that fits with their rather warped philosophy. If Jesus died only for 'believers' then we were all condemned at one time and thus all 'unbelievers' at some point. So what made us 'believers' all of a sudden?

 

[mondar]

The term "whosoever" (??? ? ????????) in John 3:16 cannot be interpreted as anyone in all history in all times.

Sure it can. You mean to say Christ didn't die for everyone? That God really is a respecter of persons?

Lets look at the term "respecter of persons." It seems to me you are saying that God must give all men everywhere an equal chance at salvation or he is a respecter of persons. In your view God cannot show favor to anyone.

In my view men do not have an equal chance. But each one chosen did not merit the grace, neither did he earn the grace. It is totally unearned, or merited. There is nothing in any man for God to "respect." In your view, since at least some men make a good decision to accept the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, that man at least did some small thing by which he should earn Gods "respect" or "favor."

Let me say that I think our positions are both very close. I firmly agree with you when you say that faith is a gift from God. By this I understand you to imply that man needs Gods drawing before he can come to faith. I hope I did not misunderstand.

If one looks into the greek term behind the "whosoever" one will see it is the word "pas, pasa, pan." This word is normally translated all or every. When it precedes a participle it can be translated "whoever." However, it modifies the participle that preceeds it. In John 3:16 it speaks of all the believing ones. It does not speak of this hypothetical group of possible people. The term "whosoever" is definite and speaks of only the believers.

All means all right? Verse 16 makes no clarification or distinction. Verses 17 and 18 do.

Of course I am speaking of the semantic range of the greek words. Then it would be overly simplistic and even incorrect to simply assert that "all means all." Actually the greek word is not all inclusive of all humanity.
* When Caesar ordered "all the world to be taxed," how much taxes did the Chineese pay? When the scripture says "all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem;" (Mard 1:5) does this mean that every man, woman, and child in Judea came to the Jordan to be Baptisted by John?

The blood Christ shed on Calvary is available for anyone who is willing to accept it.

Now actually I agree with this statement. The blood of Christ is available to anyone who is willing to accept it, but no one is willing.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Any other position taken is not of the Bible and is false doctrine and quite frankly Satanic in origin and I think the mods here should seriously consider censuring you.

More Ad hominids? Name calling?

God is no respecter of persons. Whether one is a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a womanizer, a drunk, a drug user, or what have you it is the "goodness of God" that leads any one to repentance. We can't even claim our own faith as being ours - that too is a gift from God because "all" men have been given a measure of faith to believe in God (Romans 12:3).

Agreed.

Then that means "whosoever."

Well, I guess I did not read this closely enough when I agreed. I see now that you say that "all men" are given a measure of faith. Can you defend that proposition scripturally? Where in the bible is any measure of faith given to "all men?"
*** I think this issue is the bottom line. Is a measure of faith given to "all men?" So since this seems so critical, then you should not skip over this part.

Your "exclusiveness" doctrine is not of the Bible and is, quite frankly, inspired by Satan.

I know this is not directed at me, but I do want to point out that it is an ad-hominid.

No it's not an "ad-hominem" attack in anyway. Anyone that purports to assume that God has not offered salvation to all who would accept the blood of Christ is indeed teaching doctrine that can only come straight from Satan.

The bottom line is that the blood Christ shed on Calvary is available for every sinner on the face of the earth which includes you and me. [/quote]
So then the shedding of the blood of Christ for someone is insufficient for their salvation? If Christ died for all men in all times everywhere, then Christs blood is insufficient for salvation because not everyone is saved (unless you are a universalist). I notice how you say that Christs shed blood is "available" Christ died merely to provide a hypothetical possibility that maybe someone might receive the message and get saved. I would suggest that you are limited the power of Christs blood to save far far more then any Calvinist. While I limit the extent of the cross work of Christ to the elect, you limit the ability of the blood of Christ to save anyone. For you, Christ made no propitiation, but merely provided the possibility of propitiation.

Christ died for anyone that would seek Him and be drawn to Him.

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;



(snip of material mostly written by me previously)

I think anyone that preaches any type of exclusivity on this forum should be banned quite frankly. It is completely and wholly unscriptural and from the Devil himself.

Psa 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him.

I notice how some can enjoy the company of Jehovah Witnesses, Budddists, Muslims, and speak with grace but if it is a Calvinist ... this absolute passion comes out that Calvinists are of the devil.

Concerning "exclusivity" --- Calvinist are not exclusive at all. It is we who see all men as rebel sinners shaking our angry fists in Gods face. The total depravity of the sin nature is an equal opportunity. Calvinists know that we are no better then Hitler, Stalin, or the most condemned of all men. I think this is the difference. You see mankind as not a category of of defiant rebels, but as a neutral group of people where some are not as rebellious as others. Some will choose to obey the command to believe, and others will not. While I see man as all sinful and incapable of faith. God enables some to faith and not others based not upon something in us, but in Gods good pleasure. With you, you think the less rebellious men are just good enough to accept Gods grace. I see men as dead in trespasses and sin, you see man as sick in sin, but not so dead that they cannot reach out to God.

 

[mondar]

So, what you're saying is, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," literally says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that [if] the believers believe in him, [they] shall not perish but have eternal life."

If "whosoever" refers to believers only, the verse actually says nothing at all since the believers, by definition, already believe. It makes the giving of Jesus pointless.

You have correctly represented my view that the "whosoever" relates to the "believes on him." It is not two different groups, but speaks of the same group.

I know that all major translations use the term "whosoever" to translate "pas." The only one I ever found that does not translate the word "pas" as "whosoever" is wycliff.
16 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.
*** Notice that Wycliff uses the phrase "each man that believeth." If you look the word pas up, its primary meaning is "all" or "every." A lesser definition is "whosoever." The term "whosoever" can be used when a participle is present, but cannot be taken in an indefinite or relative sense even with the participle. The indefinite or relative sense is grammaticly impossible in any context and that is the way it is commonly used as a proof text.

 

[RND]

Lets look at the term "respecter of persons." It seems to me you are saying that God must give all men everywhere an equal chance at salvation or he is a respecter of persons. In your view God cannot show favor to anyone.

Proof that God does not favor anyone regarding salvation is the fact that Jesus Christ died for anyone that would accept His death as proof of God's reconcilation with man.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God desires all come to repentance. God is not a respecter of persons because He has offered salvation through the blood of Christ to anyone who wants it.

In my view men do not have an equal chance. But each one chosen did not merit the grace, neither did he earn the grace. It is totally unearned, or merited. There is nothing in any man for God to "respect." In your view, since at least some men make a good decision to accept the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, that man at least did some small thing by which he should earn Gods "respect" or "favor."

Not at all. We don't earn "brownie points" because we accept the truth of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice.

Let me say that I think our positions are both very close. I firmly agree with you when you say that faith is a gift from God. By this I understand you to imply that man needs Gods drawing before he can come to faith. I hope I did not misunderstand.

You did not. We have no claim to even our own faith that too is a gift from God.

Of course I am speaking of the semantic range of the greek words. Then it would be overly simplistic and even incorrect to simply assert that "all means all." Actually the greek word is not all inclusive of all humanity.

Are you willing to discuss in context?

* When Caesar ordered "all the world to be taxed," how much taxes did the Chineese pay?

Not a thing. However were the Chinese part of the Hebrews known world?

When the scripture says "all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem;" (Mard 1:5) does this mean that every man, woman, and child in Judea came to the Jordan to be Baptisted by John?

Nope. It means all that "would" be baptized were.

Now actually I agree with this statement. The blood of Christ is available to anyone who is willing to accept it, but no one is willing.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

There are plenty who have been willing, and there have been plenty to accept it. You are doing the same thing here regarding your "all doen't mean all" argument.

More Ad hominids? Name calling?

Nope. Saying that the blood of Christ was not for everyone on earth willing to accept it is indeed from Satan.

Well, I guess I did not read this closely enough when I agreed. I see now that you say that "all men" are given a measure of faith. Can you defend that proposition scripturally? Where in the bible is any measure of faith given to "all men?"

Yes and I already included the verse.

*** I think this issue is the bottom line. Is a measure of faith given to "all men?" So since this seems so critical, then you should not skip over this part.

Didn't skip over anything.

So then the shedding of the blood of Christ for someone is insufficient for their salvation?

Huh? Where did I even remotely hint at this?

If Christ died for all men in all times everywhere, then Christs blood is insufficient for salvation because not everyone is saved (unless you are a universalist).

Christ blood is sufficient for everyone that "wants" to be saved. For those who choose not to be saved it is still sufficient.

2Cr 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

I notice how you say that Christs shed blood is "available" Christ died merely to provide a hypothetical possibility that maybe someone might receive the message and get saved.

No hypotheticals involved.

I would suggest that you are limited the power of Christs blood to save far far more then any Calvinist. While I limit the extent of the cross work of Christ to the elect, you limit the ability of the blood of Christ to save anyone. For you, Christ made no propitiation, but merely provided the possibility of propitiation.

I think I have been quite clear in my remarks. Christ's blood was freely shed and free available of all who desire His shed blood and His promise of salvation. All means all. I never said anything remotely construable that Christ's blood was not sufficient for salvation.

Christ died for anyone that would seek Him and be drawn to Him.

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Again, you are arguing the same argument that you said I was doing before! Besides, you may want to use this verse in proper context - Paul was making a comparison between the Hebrews of old and the new converts to Christ including himself! This is why Paul,was quoting from the Psalms.

I notice how some can enjoy the company of Jehovah Witnesses, Budddists, Muslims, and speak with grace but if it is a Calvinist ... this absolute passion comes out that Calvinists are of the devil.

I said nothing about predestination but if you want me to I will. I think I was quite clear in my remarks.

Concerning "exclusivity" --- Calvinist are not exclusive at all.

I never brought up Calavnism. You did. Guilty conscience? Remember guilt is Satan's tool.

It is we who see all men as rebel sinners shaking our angry fists in Gods face. The total depravity of the sin nature is an equal opportunity. Calvinists know that we are no better then Hitler, Stalin, or the most condemned of all men. I think this is the difference. You see mankind as not a category of of defiant rebels, but as a neutral group of people where some are not as rebellious as others.

You are making assumptions to my comments that I never made.

All are sinners and all fall woefully short. And yet most are victims in the war between Christ and Satan.

Some will choose to obey the command to believe, and others will not.

There is an offer to believe, not a commandment. A commandment can only be heeded by one "willing" to obey.

While I see man as all sinful and incapable of faith.

Well, you are free to believe that but my Bible says that all men are given a measure of faith to believe.

God enables some to faith and not others based not upon something in us, but in Gods good pleasure.

Then it isn't a free choice. Does God do this for someone that wants nothing to do with Him? Does God save those that want to part of heaven? Will there be folks in heaven that wanted nothing to do with it?

With you, you think the less rebellious men are just good enough to accept Gods grace.

That has nothing to do with it frankly. Even the "best" sinner is still a sinner and unworthy to be in the presence of God without Jesus' righteouness.

I see men as dead in trespasses and sin,

So does God.

you see man as sick in sin,

Aren't we all? Weren't we all at one point?

but not so dead that they cannot reach out to God.

Well considering that God gives faith to believe to all men and that it is His goodness that leads to repentance I would say the thing we need to do is believe on Him who God sent.

 

[RND]

So, what you're saying is, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," literally says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that [if] the believers believe in him, [they] shall not perish but have eternal life."

If "whosoever" refers to believers only, the verse actually says nothing at all since the believers, by definition, already believe. It makes the giving of Jesus pointless.

You have correctly represented my view that the "whosoever" relates to the "believes on him." It is not two different groups, but speaks of the same group.

What? The scripture doesn't say that. Free's point simply says that your position makes no sense.

 

[savedbygrace57]

All those verses refer to all the church, the elect of God..

Those verses do not say "elect", they say "all". The bible says "for God so loved the world", not "for God so loved the elect"

The verses dont say all does not mean all of the elect, because it does..For God so loved the church world..not everyone in the world..

ps 5:

5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

 

[savedbygrace57]

All that is good you posted, but nevertheless, God does not Love all men, some He hates and created them as vessels of wrath..and some, whom He loved, created as vessels of mercy..

You have a completely warped understanding of the word of God.

God indeed loves all men because He gave His son to all that would believe on Him should not perish but have eternal life. "Whosoever" includes "all" sinners. God is no respecter of persons. Whether one is a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a womanizer, a drunk, a drug user, or what have you it is the "goodness of God" that leads any one to repentance. We can't even claim our own faith as being ours - that too is a gift from God because "all" men have been given a measure of faith to believe in God (Romans 12:3). Your "exclusiveness" doctrine is not of the Bible and is, quite frankly, inspired by Satan.

Christ died for anyone that would seek Him and be drawn to Him.

You sound like a perfect candidate for the four questions!

God Loves all His elect, the church, but not everyone in the world ps 5:

5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

 

[RND]

God Loves all His elect, the church, but not everyone in the world

He loves everyone and desires everyone to come to repentance.

ps 5:

5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

It's extremely dangerous to build a doctrine on one verse.

 

[RND]

savedbygrace57

Why do you consider yourself saved by grace but you fail to extend that mercy to others?

Question: What if I told you your youngest child was murdered - would you want mercy or justice for the murderer?

 

[mondar]

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God desires all come to repentance. God is not a respecter of persons because He has offered salvation through the blood of Christ to anyone who wants it.

Lets look at some of the vocabulary in this verse.
***** "us-ward" (or "you-ward"----There is a minor textual variant in that verse.)
This is a word that includes the audience in the Churches that are reading the epistle. It would be natural for all of them to be believers. So then, God is longsuffering toward believers and is not willing that any of them should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Now if we view this verse as referring to all people everywhere in all times. Then again, how would we read this verse? God wills that all men be saved but he just is not powerful enough to get the job done? He wanted all men saved, but he will be eternally on the parapets of hell crying over those he failed to save. No, the word "us-ward" or "you-ward" is clearly referring to Peter''s believing audience.

 

[glorydaz]

John Calvin didn't teach that God loves only the elect.
Just thought I'd set the record straight.

On “Whosoeverâ€
Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. . . . And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. (From Commentary on the Gospel According to John)

http://www.ligonier.org/publishing_teac ... quotes.php

 

[mondar]

In my view men do not have an equal chance. But each one chosen did not merit the grace, neither did he earn the grace. It is totally unearned, or merited. There is nothing in any man for God to "respect." In your view, since at least some men make a good decision to accept the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, that man at least did some small thing by which he should earn Gods "respect" or "favor."

Not at all. We don't earn "brownie points" because we accept the truth of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice.

Again, your statement here does not reflect what the scriptures teach. In light of the verse to follow can you explain how faith is not pleasing to God?

Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.

Of course since the gift of faith is part of the atonement, and is the gift of God, we please God with a gift that he gave to us.

 

[RND]

Lets look at some of the vocabulary in this verse.
***** "us-ward" (or "you-ward"----There is a minor textual variant in that verse.)

Includes readers of every generation. Whoever reads this and is drawn closer to Christ becomes an "us ward."

This is a word that includes the audience in the Churches that are reading the epistle. It would be natural for all of them to be believers. So then, God is longsuffering toward believers and is not willing that any of them should perish but that all should come to repentance.

That's an assumption that cannot be proven. Are you suggesting that everyone that has ever read this verse was a believer? You mean no "seekers" have ever read this and been converted?

Now if we view this verse as referring to all people everywhere in all times.

Which we should.

Then again, how would we read this verse? God wills that all men be saved but he just is not powerful enough to get the job done?

God is not looking for robots. He doesn't operate that way. God is looking for people to love him back, from a grateful heart. If you forced your wife to kiss you would she be doing it willingly without coercion?

He wanted all men saved,

Correct. He gave the avenue for that salvation - the Man, Jesus Christ.

but he will be eternally on the parapets of hell crying over those he failed to save.

This is only true if you believe Satan's lie about the character of God. Eternally burning hell is an adopted pagan myth used to first sell indulgences to the unlearned.

No, the word "us-ward" or "you-ward" is clearly referring to Peter''s believing audience.

And any seeker that is curious enough to "taste and see."

 

[mondar]

[quote:1drqo260]Of course I am speaking of the semantic range of the greek words. Then it would be overly simplistic and even incorrect to simply assert that "all means all." Actually the greek word is not all inclusive of all humanity.

Are you willing to discuss in context?[/quote:1drqo260]
I am always willing to discuss context. In fact that is the point I am making when I say "it is incorrect to assert that 'all means all." ' I am suggesting that the meaning of pas pasa pan is based in the context.

[quote:1drqo260]* When Caesar ordered "all the world to be taxed," how much taxes did the Chineese pay?

Not a thing. However were the Chinese part of the Hebrews known world?
[/quote:1drqo260] Exactly! So then in this case, the word "all" does not mean every person living on planet earth!

[quote:1drqo260]When the scripture says "all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem;" (Mard 1:5) does this mean that every man, woman, and child in Judea came to the Jordan to be Baptisted by John?

Nope. It means all that "would" be baptized were.
[/quote:1drqo260]

The word "would" is not in the context, neither is it implied. But that is not the point, the point is that the word "all" does not always include every living soul.

 

[mondar]

[quote:31yvat9h]Now actually I agree with this statement. The blood of Christ is available to anyone who is willing to accept it, but no one is willing.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

There are plenty who have been willing, and there have been plenty to accept it. You are doing the same thing here regarding your "all doen't mean all" argument.
[/quote:31yvat9h]

Are you saying that men can "will" to accept God and yet not "seek after God." Please explain your understanding of the verse. What does it mean that no one "seeketh after God?"

 

[mondar]

More Ad hominids? Name calling?

Nope. Saying that the blood of Christ was not for everyone on earth willing to accept it is indeed from Satan.

Well, I guess I did not read this closely enough when I agreed. I see now that you say that "all men" are given a measure of faith. Can you defend that proposition scripturally? Where in the bible is any measure of faith given to "all men?"

Yes and I already included the verse.

Name the verse.

 

[mondar]

[quote:48t5m4o1]So then the shedding of the blood of Christ for someone is insufficient for their salvation?

Huh? Where did I even remotely hint at this? [/quote:48t5m4o1]
Its an obvious fact that if Christ died for all men, and some go to hell anyway, then his death was insufficient to save them.

[quote:48t5m4o1]If Christ died for all men in all times everywhere, then Christs blood is insufficient for salvation because not everyone is saved (unless you are a universalist).

Christ blood is sufficient for everyone that "wants" to be saved. For those who choose not to be saved it is still sufficient. [/quote:48t5m4o1]

Since John 6:44 says "No man comes to me," I can point to your idea of men wanting Christ as unbiblical.

2Cr 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Paul here is talking about the "thorn in the flesh" in this context, not his salvation.

[quote:48t5m4o1]I notice how you say that Christs shed blood is "available" Christ died merely to provide a hypothetical possibility that maybe someone might receive the message and get saved.

No hypotheticals involved.[/quote:48t5m4o1]
Your the one that said Christ shed blood is merely "available." Of course in your weakened view of the crosswork of Christ, and your inflated view of the self-righteousness of man to seek God, it does make the crosswork of Christ only a possible salvation that we activate by our faith.

[quote:48t5m4o1] I would suggest that you are limited the power of Christs blood to save far far more then any Calvinist. While I limit the extent of the cross work of Christ to the elect, you limit the ability of the blood of Christ to save anyone. For you, Christ made no propitiation, but merely provided the possibility of propitiation.

I think I have been quite clear in my remarks. Christ's blood was freely shed and free available of all who desire His shed blood and His promise of salvation. All means all. I never said anything remotely construable that Christ's blood was not sufficient for salvation. [/quote:48t5m4o1]
Everytime you say that Christ's blood is merely available, it shows your weakened view of the crosswork of Christ. in one breath you will say it is merely "available" then you say that it is "sufficient" for salvation. You do not recognize the inconsistency in your own statements. If we have to do something to activate the cross work of Christ, then that crosswork is not totally sufficient for salvation. We must add to it our own righteous decision of accepting Christ. Of course I would object that any such suggestion of human merit is incorrect.

[quote:48t5m4o1]

Christ died for anyone that would seek Him and be drawn to Him.

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Again, you are arguing the same argument that you said I was doing before! Besides, you may want to use this verse in proper context - Paul was making a comparison between the Hebrews of old and the new converts to Christ including himself! This is why Paul,was quoting from the Psalms.[/quote:48t5m4o1]
What are you suggesting here... Is there any chance you would be consistent through this context? Would you also say verse 10 "There is none righteous, no not one" is speaking of only the Hebrews and not Paul and his converts? Then in verse 23 when it says "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" you would see this as only referring to Hebrews or Jews and not Paul and his converts?

 

[glorydaz]

If God doesn't love the whole world, why all the calls for repentance?
Why does Jesus tell us to pray for our enemies?
Why are we always saying, "hate the sin, but love the sinner"?
Why all the offers of mercy? It's the sin God hates...not the sinner.

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

God is the very essence of love, He takes no pleasure when men perish in their sins.

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Why did Jesus love this unrepentant sinner?

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

 

[mondar]

[quote:1yqpjdpv]It is we who see all men as rebel sinners shaking our angry fists in Gods face. The total depravity of the sin nature is an equal opportunity. Calvinists know that we are no better then Hitler, Stalin, or the most condemned of all men. I think this is the difference. You see mankind as not a category of of defiant rebels, but as a neutral group of people where some are not as rebellious as others.

You are making assumptions to my comments that I never made.

All are sinners and all fall woefully short. And yet most are victims in the war between Christ and Satan.[/quote:1yqpjdpv]
Sheesh, you begin by saying I made assumptions and then make a statement that "most are victims in the war between Christ and Satan."

I am talking to someone taking his theology from Frank Peretti novels and not the scripture.

you see man as sick in sin,

Aren't we all? Weren't we all at one point?

but not so dead that they cannot reach out to God.

Well considering that God gives faith to believe to all men and that it is His goodness that leads to repentance I would say the thing we need to do is believe on Him who God sent.[/quote]
I did not put the reference in I was alluding to. It was Ephesians 2:1 of course. No man was ever "sick in sin." Such a statement would be very close to the Pelagian heresy. We were all "dead in sins and tresspasses." Of course the term "dead" in Ephesians 2 speaks of the unregenerate (and Romans 5 and those in Adam).

RND, you will go on and on, making all effort to win some debate. As for me, I think this is the end of the line. I see no profit in continuing any conversation here. It is not leading to any edification and I should have seen the worthlessness of the conversation long ago.