And the sad thing about this is in one of the latest polls 1 in 3 "Christians" say that Jesus sinned. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=324
Steve this is off topic, I printed and read parts of your Holodeck Heaven article to my mother and she loves it, as what you stated in that article is it truly possible for singles who died to get married in the new earth.
The reason your argument fails is that when it is said "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory" God Himself (and God alone) is clear exempted from the statement, because obviously God can't fall short of His own glory. Hence, Jesus, being God cannot be included in the statement "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory." This is nothing but a classic example of Calvinists denying that Jesus is God.
This is nothing but a classic example of Calvinists denying that Jesus is God.
A "classic" example? Can you name any Calvinists who have ever denied that Jesus is God? You make it sound like it's a time-honored custom of ours, and I'm just not convinced.
“The reason your argument fails is that when it is said ‘All have sinned and fall short of God's glory’ God Himself (and God alone) is clear exempted from the statement, because obviously God can't fall short of His own glory. Hence, Jesus, being God cannot be included in the statement ‘All have sinned and fall short of God's glory.’ This is nothing but a classic example of Calvinists denying that Jesus is God.”
Well, Beowulf, I’m shocked by how you rationalistic Arminian types twist Scripture to your own destruction. You disregard the plain meaning of the word “all” by acting as if it only means just “some” instead of “all.” I’m just taking words in their natural, normal sense. But that’s what happens to people like you, who begin with your theological axioms, and try to impose that grid on the plain sense of Scripture.
BTW, it’s quite possible for someone to fall short of his own standard. Happens all the time.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
Clearly the context leaves out the author of salvation (um that would be Jesus, just an FYI).”
Another rationalistic Arminian who refuses to admit that all means all. He would have us believe the context of a passage modifies the force of a universal quantifier. All too typical of how Arminian types violate the plain sense of Scripture to conform the Bible to their aprioristic theology.
Yeah Steve, like no Arminian knows that all can be context dependent. However, the context when Jesus or others speak of the call of salvation is ALL humanity. Check your concordance...all does mean all of whatever is being spoken about.
"Yeah Steve, like no Arminian knows that all can be context dependent. However, the context when Jesus or others speak of the call of salvation is ALL humanity."
Has the offer of the gospel been presented to all humanity? When and where did that occur, exactly?
"Check your concordance...all does mean all of whatever is being spoken about."
“Steve, everyone who hears the gospel and responds to the previnient grace of God.__But is the ‘Water of Life’ the book of Revelation? Uh, I don't interpret it that way.”
You cited a gospel invitation which is recorded in the Book of Revelation. The only way to know that invitation is to know the book containing that offer.
Indeed, that's why the Book of Revelation was to be read aloud (1:3). So the audience could hear and heed the message.
A wedding invitation which is addressed to you, but never mailed, isn’t much of an invitation.
In order to respond to the invitation, the listener must be in a position to hear it in the first place.
So, has every human being heard the gospel?
It isn’t enough for a “universal” offer to be phrased in universal terms. Unless it is universally *made*, it isn’t actually offered to everyone.
If a “universal” offer were locked away in safe, would it be a universal offer?
So, once again, are the terms of the gospel presented to every human being?
And the sad thing about this is in one of the latest polls 1 in 3 "Christians" say that Jesus sinned. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=324
ReplyDeleteSo they would have no trouble with this syllogism
Steve this is off topic, I printed and read parts of your Holodeck Heaven article to my mother and she loves it, as what you stated in that article is it truly possible for singles who died to get married in the new earth.
ReplyDeleteBut why stop at Jesus? Why not also continuing with Mary, me, and O.J.? :-\ Hmmm?
ReplyDeleteThe reason your argument fails is that when it is said "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory" God Himself (and God alone) is clear exempted from the statement, because obviously God can't fall short of His own glory. Hence, Jesus, being God cannot be included in the statement "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory." This is nothing but a classic example of Calvinists denying that Jesus is God.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing but a classic example of Calvinists denying that Jesus is God.
ReplyDeleteA "classic" example? Can you name any Calvinists who have ever denied that Jesus is God? You make it sound like it's a time-honored custom of ours, and I'm just not convinced.
Clearly the context leaves out the author of salvation (um that would be Jesus, just an FYI).
ReplyDeleteBEOWULF2K8 SAID:
ReplyDelete“The reason your argument fails is that when it is said ‘All have sinned and fall short of God's glory’ God Himself (and God alone) is clear exempted from the statement, because obviously God can't fall short of His own glory. Hence, Jesus, being God cannot be included in the statement ‘All have sinned and fall short of God's glory.’ This is nothing but a classic example of Calvinists denying that Jesus is God.”
Well, Beowulf, I’m shocked by how you rationalistic Arminian types twist Scripture to your own destruction. You disregard the plain meaning of the word “all” by acting as if it only means just “some” instead of “all.” I’m just taking words in their natural, normal sense. But that’s what happens to people like you, who begin with your theological axioms, and try to impose that grid on the plain sense of Scripture.
BTW, it’s quite possible for someone to fall short of his own standard. Happens all the time.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
Clearly the context leaves out the author of salvation (um that would be Jesus, just an FYI).”
Another rationalistic Arminian who refuses to admit that all means all. He would have us believe the context of a passage modifies the force of a universal quantifier. All too typical of how Arminian types violate the plain sense of Scripture to conform the Bible to their aprioristic theology.
Yeah Steve, like no Arminian knows that all can be context dependent. However, the context when Jesus or others speak of the call of salvation is ALL humanity. Check your concordance...all does mean all of whatever is being spoken about.
ReplyDeleteBOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Yeah Steve, like no Arminian knows that all can be context dependent. However, the context when Jesus or others speak of the call of salvation is ALL humanity."
Has the offer of the gospel been presented to all humanity? When and where did that occur, exactly?
"Check your concordance...all does mean all of whatever is being spoken about."
Like all the elect.
Who are the elect? Those who believe.
ReplyDeleteOh and Revelation 22:17 for one.
ReplyDeleteBOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Oh and Revelation 22:17 for one."
I see. So every human being has heard or read Rev 22:17. That's a very impressive claim. Seems a might implausible, though.
Steve, everyone who hears the gospel and responds to the previnient grace of God.
ReplyDeleteBut is the "Water of Life" the book of Revelation? Uh, I don't interpret it that way.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve, everyone who hears the gospel and responds to the previnient grace of God.__But is the ‘Water of Life’ the book of Revelation? Uh, I don't interpret it that way.”
You cited a gospel invitation which is recorded in the Book of Revelation. The only way to know that invitation is to know the book containing that offer.
Indeed, that's why the Book of Revelation was to be read aloud (1:3). So the audience could hear and heed the message.
A wedding invitation which is addressed to you, but never mailed, isn’t much of an invitation.
In order to respond to the invitation, the listener must be in a position to hear it in the first place.
So, has every human being heard the gospel?
It isn’t enough for a “universal” offer to be phrased in universal terms. Unless it is universally *made*, it isn’t actually offered to everyone.
If a “universal” offer were locked away in safe, would it be a universal offer?
So, once again, are the terms of the gospel presented to every human being?