It is true that at times “all men” is some kind of a shorthand for “great many” or “nearly all”. But the context of 1 Timothy 2:4 does not allow for such lax interpretation: the word “all” is repeated several times, the people Timothy might be disinclined to pray, such as the kings (none, at the time, Christian) are specially mentioned, Christ is explained to be one mediator whereas if several groups existed, those who God wills to be saved and those who He doesn’t, then an explanation would be needed who mediates for the reprobates, and why in fact the righteous need any mediation.
So no, the plain word of the Bible contradicts Calvin as on any other Calvinist distinctive.
To make a pot “into dishonor” is not the same as breaking it. Sin is what breaks the proverbial pot. “Into dishonor” simply means what we all know, that not all men have a lofty disposition and God makes them all, prince and pauper, saint and scoundrel. Again it is a stretch beyond what the parable bears to invent calvinism out of it.
I forgot to mention the other silly prooftext, 1 Peter 2:8. That is simply not there textually: observe the crafty use of quotation marks suggesting a meaning not in the plain text.
“So no, the plain word of the Bible contradicts Calvin as on any other Calvinist distinctive.”
Leave it to the Catholic to argue by assertion and think he’s accomplished anything. Why should we regard your posts, when you stand against Augustine? What makes the interpretation “lax”? You don’t even explain yourself, but still fill the thread with useless posts, even after you, by your silence, concede Romans 9 to us.
I’ll also add that if you hold to this doctrine, you not only contradict the scriptures that are clear that only some receive to believe, and not all, but you also deny God’s omnipotence, as Augustine detailed.
“I forgot to mention the other silly prooftext, 1 Peter 2:8. That is simply not there textually: observe the crafty use of quotation marks suggesting a meaning not in the plain text.”
I’m not seeing any quotation marks.
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
“are specially mentioned, Christ is explained to be one mediator whereas if several groups existed, those who God wills to be saved and those who He doesn’t, then an explanation would be needed who mediates for the reprobates, and why in fact the righteous need any mediation.”
I forgot to reply to this since I didn’t think it was a serious argument, but I noticed it again and thought I better say something.
My response is: What ARE you even talking about? Who the heck is mediating their damnation? Why is a mediator required to mediate their damnation?
AGAIN, I responded too soon, and didn’t notice this section, since I dismissed it as silly at first, and so completely forgot about it after I responded to your first section. But I have to remember I ought to reply to it, even when it is silly:
“To make a pot “into dishonor” is not the same as breaking it. Sin is what breaks the proverbial pot. “Into dishonor” simply means what we all know, that not all men have a lofty disposition and God makes them all, prince and pauper, saint and scoundrel.”
None of this is founded on anything in those verses. You do not even use the verse at all to come to any of these conclusions. In fact, read the verse that even leads into it:
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
How is it that Paul replies to this objection with: “Nay, but, O Man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto Him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?” And immediately begins his discourse on the vessels of wrath doomed to destruction, if, in fact, the question from Paul’s hypothetical opponent is based on a false premise? Why didn’t Paul say, “Nay, but, O man, God didn’t predestinate anyone to salvation or anyone to destruction!”
What your “interpretation” tells me is that you probably didn’t even bother to read the chapter in question, but are literally going off of what I am showing you in these posts.
You need to really actually read the verses, and not just make these random assertions that are self-evidently false. Same thing in reply to your silly comment about them not being “destroyed,” when, obviously, if they are created for dishonor, and a little later, are called vessels of wrath, obviously God intends to destroy them. If that is not enough proof, then neither is there any proof that the “vessels of mercy” actually are intended for mercy. And therefore are salvation is entirely in question.