"However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."
"Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads..."
"The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'"
Unlike most Calvinists, Mr. Hossack STARTS in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Certainly if you choose to ignore the context of the verse the first part means little, but seeing as the author's foundational premise for that section is that there is no sovereign election I think the first part of the verse has considerable bearing.
The rest of the article appears to be of the same consistency...sludge.
Amazing!
Calvin himself thought the 'all' men meant all men as does Cunstance!
This is from the Calvinist Lightner,
The question is " is it scripturally and logically sound always to retrict every usage of the words 'all' 'whosoever' and 'world, when they occur in the salvation context? This is precisly what the limited redemptionist always does and must do. There may not be a single exception if the limited viewpoint is to stand. The basis for this restriction rests upon the fact that in some instances, which are unrelated to the work of Christ on the Cross, the words are thus restricted. But is this a valid reason for always restricting them in salvation passages? We say no, and we say it emphatically...(Robert P. Lightner, The Death that Christ Died, p.69)