[connectthedots]

Our disagreement is with Spurgeon on his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4.Let's be honest about this, ctd.

Our disagreement? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Do you pretend to speak for others?

Are you claiming that 1 Tim 2:14 has no meaning when it comes to the matter of unconditional election; or don't you know that predestination encompasses both Total Depravity and Unconditional Election?

If you can't figure this out, you you have no business on these threads.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Our disagreement? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Do you pretend to speak for others?"

I don't need to "pretend". Can you find any of the swarm that agree that 1 Timothy 2:4 is a declarative statement concerning all men without exception?

Oh, and btw, thanks for editing my quote without noting your edit. < /sarcasm >

"Are you claiming that 1 Tim 2:14 has no meaning when it comes to the matter of unconditional election..."

1 Timothy 2:4 is not directly concerned with Unconditional Election or Total Depravity. Either way of reading 1 Timothy 2:4 ("all without exception" or "all manner of") can be done without negating Unconditional Election or Total Depravity -as T.U.L.I.P. believing Spurgeon has shown us.

In other words, even though Spurgeon's interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 differs from other Calvinists, he still is in total agreement with us on:

• Total Depravity
  
• Unconditional Election
  
• Limited Atonement
  
• Irresistable Grace
  
• Perseverence of the Saints

"...or don't you know that predestination encompasses both Total Depravity and Unconditional Election?"

Predestination also encompases "Limited Atonement", "Irresistable Grace" and "Perseverence of the Saints".

1 Timothy 2:4 is not used to attack "Total Depravity" or "Unconditional Election" as much as it is used to attack "Limited Atonement".

While Spurgeon holds that the "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4 includes "all men without exception", he still unabashadly holds to "Limited Atonement".

"If you can't figure this out, you you have no business on these threads."

• You have steadfastly refused to define "hyper-Calvinism" in your own words despite repeated calls for you to do so
  
• You have steadfastly refused to post the Proof regarding your contention that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist" despite repeated calls for you to do so
  
• You have ignored your own pledge to refrain from participating on Calvinism threads despite repeated reminders of your pledge
  
• You have failed to deliver your promised "Saturday Night Special" attack on Calvinism despite repeated calls for you to present it
  
• You have consistently run away from discussions while in the middle of those discussions

Yet you have the ~GALL~ to suggest ~I~ have no business on these threads?

LOL! That's pretty funny!

Jean