Do babies go to Heaven?

[George W. Bush]

I hate to disagree with Calvin here ...BUT Adam was not deceived..He sinned.. I go with the Jews on this..Calvin actually punted on it.

I beg to differ. I posted only a few small scraps of what Calvin wrote. He wrote pages on these verses, in a great depth. I suggest you read all of it before reaching such a conclusion.

You have yet to prove that Adam was actually present, particularly when the verse is read in the context of surrounding verses. I think Calvin's gentle and learned explanation is the best informed.

[RnMomof7]

So you agree with him that if he was not there during the temptation it was before she ate it? Do you agree that Adam was not deceived?

[RnMomof7]

The greek..with an observation by Spurgeon

pas {pas}
TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 5:886,795 including all the forms of declension
Part of Speech
adj
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) individually

a) each, every,** any,** all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

**a) some of all types**
++++
... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...
C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

[CCWoody]

Do you think that your "god" will be weeping and crying even as he is splattering the blood of those whom he loves and died to redeem on his garments?

Or is your "god" some kind of MPD who will love them one moment and hate them the next?

[George W. Bush]

Neither Calvin nor I denied that Adam sinned. Far from it. We're disputing whether the Bible states that Adam was present during the conversation between Eve and the serpent.

Perhaps you just didn't like Calvin's little extraneous opinion: "Moreover the craftiness of Satan betrays itself in this, that he does not directly assail the man, but approaches him, as through a mine, in the person of his wife. This insidious method of attack is more than sufficiently known to us at the present day, and I wish we might learn prudently to guard ourselves against it."

Regardless of that statement (which amused me, a single man), you should go read all of Calvin's remarks on the subject. I like it better than the way he stated it in the Institutes. Somehow, a little more palatable, a little less formally theological. Calvin draws a more human and a fuller picture in his Commentary.

[George W. Bush]

So you agree with him that if he was not there during the temptation it was before she ate it? Do you agree that Adam was not deceived?

I think Calvin offers a likely explanation that comports to the usage of the Hebrew words in their context. Calvin was not teaching this as some absolute doctrine. He was laying out the circumstances, the reading, the words, and the context to discover the fullest meaning that could be derived.

Were Adam and Eve deceived? In a manner of speaking. But they were never deceived in that they knew God's commandment not to eat of the tree. In that, they sinned. And it was Adam's sin which caused our fall, not Eve's. So the way in which Lucifer used the serpent as an intermediary to deceive Eve who then was his intermediary to cause Adam to choose to sin by disobeying God's commandment is not the most material fact here.

It does seem a little strange to read the preceding verses which only talk about a conversation between Eve and the serpent or the woman and the serpent and then finally find the reference to 'she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.' and then to say that Adam was clearly present the whole time when it is not at all clear that he was.

And Eve did eat first as the scripture plainly indicates. And then it mentions her giving to her husband and then he ate.

I still don't think it can be supported that Adam stood by while Eve talked to the serpent and then they both ate at the same moment. Such an interpretation strains the text.

[WriteOn]

Thanks.

[WriteOn]

I forgot some:

Tit 2:11

I'm going to include kosmos in here, too, since we're playing "greek" and kosmos can be and is used frequently as a universal intending all men, as well:

Jn 1:9
Jn 1:29
Jn 3:16-17
Jn 4:42
Jn 6:51
Jn 8:12
Jn 9:5
Jn 11:9
Jn 12:47
Mat 26:13
Mar 16:15
(tired of typing, go find the rest)

Again, my contention is these verses support the universalist interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4. The nature of the Gospel, the intent of it is that it is for all men and that salvation is held out to all men, not just the elect. And I contend that 1 Tim 2:4 is correctly interpreted "all men" because of the supporting texts. That even if you accept "all sorts of men" in the light of these other universal intended texts, it becomes logically eqiuvalent to "all men."

That is why every major religion and bible translation interprets "pas" when referring to men as "all men."


(And Woody quit telling me who my God is, we have the same God, as xzins has pointed out, more politely than I, even if we disagree on this doctrine...)

[George W. Bush]

Thank you. Very insightful.

Actually, I was somewhat belaboring the obvious: Paul's lifelong battle to make all converts understand that in Christ, all are one, no rich/poor, pharisee/publican, Jew/Gentile, or Pauline/Petrine etc.

How he must have tired of having to teach it over and over. And the second he turned his back on a new church, they went right back to it and he had to correct them.

The early Christians were very obstinate in this. Paul had his hands full squelching this to the end of his days, I think. As I said, I'm belaboring the obvious here but when we read the Pauline epistles, it's so easy to forget how different those times were from anything we know today. And yet, they were similar. In those same teachings that Paul gave, we find the imperative to evangelize all the world, that no man is beyond God's grace. It is an eternal message that served the church then and today. In practicing what Paul taught, it might be observed that the laity of the churches has often done far better than have the professional clergy. Paul always wrote for us ordinary believers and emphasizes our own responsibility, not those of any temporal leadership. It's a wonderful quality in his writings.

[RnMomof7]

Again, my contention is these verses support the universalist interpretation

So then you believe that all men are saved?

[Jerry_M]

Ephesians 1:10?

Ephesians 1:10?

(As soon as I saw this I realized that I didn't have to look at the rest of your "universal" list, due to the fact that if you think that Ephesians 1:10 supports you then you are definately "wired all wrong".)

[CCWoody]

Ephesians 1:10?

Ephesians 1:10?

Well, that's what the man said. Of course, this is a verse which they always ignore:

... we... being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His will,...

Woody.

[Seven_0]

"Seven you are staring with a false premesis and building on that"

My premise here is that the Cross could not be avoided. It was part of the original plan in which the choice was already made. Christ had many chances to bypass the Cross: (Matt 26:54) "But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"

When satan fell, he lost something of his ability to choose, otherwise he could repent and change everything. Adam also could no longer choose to have fellowship God. A slave to sin can not choose to be free. The work here was incumbent on God.

"Adam stood next to Eve and watched the interaction between Eve and the serpent."

I had not thought of this before. I could be persuaded, but I think your argument needs help. The Genesis account of the fall is really a parable and Christ , as is so often the case, is the main character.("...they are they that testify of me"). Quite often in scripture, we know enough about the real thing, (Christ), to fill in some of the blanks in the symbol(Adam). In this case, God was gone from the scene, he came looking for them later. I doubt whether Adam or Eve would have eaten the fruit had God been there, just as I doubt that Eve would have been deceived had Adam been there. This is not a powerful arguement, but the little details have a way adding up. There is so much going on here but, I must get back to work. I enjoy your posts.

[RnMomof7]

Well as you have read throug GWB and I have disagreed

The jews consider that it is a truth that they stood together..But even if Calvin is correct and he cam shortly after the temptation but before she bite it produces a similar outcome..He could have restrained her (we do know they ate at the same time because they both saw good and evil at the same time) So Adam had failed at his dominion over the earth one way or another

We agree that the cross was the plan before the foundation of the earth..and as your post says Jesus understood that if fulfilled the OT prophecy..

If you notice Eve misquoted God..now she was not present when God told Adam..so either Adam relayed it wrong or she misunderstood the command..

I enjoy your posts also

[George W. Bush]

When satan fell, he lost something of his ability to choose, otherwise he could repent and change everything. Adam also could no longer choose to have fellowship God. A slave to sin can not choose to be free. The work here was incumbent on God.

I don't believe we can say that Lucifer or the fallen angels ever have had or ever will have an opportunity to repent. After all, they were present at creation and knew God directly. They are utterly without excuse in rejecting the authority of God. And Satan is the worst in that his rebellion led him to corrupt another of God's creations, man. But man did not cause the fall of any angel. Therefore, the fallen angels are far more guilty than man on every count.

[George W. Bush]

The jews consider that it is a truth that they stood together.

That alone is not convincing. The Jews also deny that Christ has come and they still await the Messiah.

[the_doc]

I'm afraid that you made a fool out of yourself in your #1433. (Of course, I helped you in that with my #1437.)

I proved--beyond any doubt whatsoever--that you are not honest in your reading of the "alls" of the English language translations of the New Testament.

(I was even embarrassed for your sake when I trampled on you in #1437. This is why I sought to soften the whole presentation with humor.)

***

Now, you are compounding the problem of your amazingly stubborn foolishness.

You clearly didn't get the point. The point is, the truth is, the Greek-speaking authors of the New Testament DIDN'T use the universals in the simplistic way we ordinarily do. So, your list is a JOKE. (And I'm afraid the joke is on you, WriteOn.)

In other words, your list does not make your case. Heck, when we put your list alongside the tight, unanswerable argument I presented in #1437, your list supports my position. And my position is that the verses in your list are presenting the free offer of the gospel.

The free offer of the gospel is VERY precious to me. But I am not so stupid as to overlook the obvious Scriptural fact that God, not man, is utterly sovereign in all matters of salvation and reprobation. I am not so stupid as to try to use the free offer texts to disprove the doctrine of predestination--which is EMPHATICALLY taught in the Bible.

In short, I have noticed that the Bible teaches both the free offer and the fact of absolute predestination.

And, my goodness, WriteOn, this is precisely what I have been showing you in the lexical significance of the Greek word pas (see below).

***

In the New Testament usage, pas is an oddly vague word. It turns out that the New Testament authors did not care about the universal idea in quite the same way we do. They didn't have two different words for "all without exception" and "all kinds." They had the word pas. It was a word which did double-duty.

English speakers sometimes have an inordinately difficult time appreciating this. (Alas, you happen to be one of the worst I have seen.) The problem, as it turns out, is that our thinking tends to shape our linguistics but also that our linguistics tends to shape our thinking. And the very fact that the New Testament authors had a single word pas for "all" (a simplistic universal) and "all kinds" (a distributive universal) is a warning that you are going to have a more difficult time getting into their groove of thinking.

To underscore the difficulty, I would remind you that the godly KJV translators didn't translate the pas correctly in 1 Timothy 6:10. They didn't translate it as a distributive universal even when they HAD to do so. (I urge you to read my #1401 again, WriteOn. You manifestly didn't get it.)

Thus, there really is a naturally and supernaturally weird problem associated with the translation of the word pas in the New Testament. That being the case, I am not in the least bit surprised that the exercise of understanding the free offer verses takes more scholarly and spiritual effort than a carnal guy like you is willing to put forth. In fact, your pride will cause you to do nothing more than to continue to screw up in your stubborn posts.

My point, of course, is that you have never given a proper answer to ANY of our arguments. You have repeatedly offered nothing more than abysmally bad arguments. You have offered nonsense as though it were wisdom. And you are still doing so. To illustrate this, I would point out that my #1437 demolished your silly arguments, including your arrogant tauntings--and you are now coming back with more posts which merely illustrate that you still don't get the point. You are still refusing to face the fact that you are neither a very good exegete nor a very good theologian.

By the way, I knew all along that your apology in #1433 wasn't real. Your apologies have never been real. You just have a bad conscience, and you have thus far refused the immediate cure--which is that of real repentance. And now, rather than apologize for real, you are coming back with more of your exegetically confused junk.

Of course, your list is not junk. The "junk" quality consists in the fact that you adduce the verses in your list as proofs that the Calvinists are wrong! The problem is, you are just reading your defective theology into verses which are more wonderfully inspired than you have noticed.

Allow me to illustrate this by quoting the very first verse which you have presented: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)

Now, as I have repeatedly warned you, the Greek-speaking authors of the New Testament used their word pas in a way which we English speakers would consider to be aggravatingly ambiguous. They depended on often rather subtle features of context to shade the meaning in the desired direction (e.g., "all kinds" versus "all without exception). In some cases, we cannot easily tell which meaning they intended. (Of course, the KJV translators' blunder in 1 Timothy 6:10 is just a ludicrous case which reminds us as to how much trouble they were having with the peculiar word pas.)

What all of this is saying is that the word pas, simplistically translated as "all" in 1 Timothy 4:10 is not a word which will support your doctrinal argument--no matter how many such verses you can find. It's because verses like 1 Timothy 4:10 do not contradict the doctrine of predestination any more than 1 Timothy 2:4 does (which is the point I proved in #1401 as I crushed your earlier argument).

More to the exegetical point which I am now making, it's because 1 Timothy 4:10 is merely presenting the free offer of the gospel. That makes it a Calvinistic verse, WriteOn (grin).

And just because you Arminians want to read the pas of 1 Timothy 4:10 as "all without exception" doesn't mean that you have any textual warrant for doing so. As far as I can tell, the idea being presented in 1 Timothy 4:10 is not clearly any different than the New Testament verse which tells us that there is no other Name given under Heaven by Which we must be saved.

In other words, 1 Timothy 4:10 is a free offer verse. Paul was not trying to tell us that Jesus is trying to save everyone without exception. You can't get that from the pas. For that matter, the idea of Saviour doesn't even allow it--since the verse can be read as declaring that there is no other Saviour for any man on earth. BUT--and this is astonishingly important in the overall argument--the final part of the verse contains a rhetorically cute reminder that the only people who are saved are believers. The word "specially" is our clue that the first clause is suggesting only the offer of salvation, not about an accomplishment of salvation.

Furthermore, the question of who these folks will prove to be is a question of predestinarian theology which the text doesn't even address. (The predestinarian material is in verses like Acts 13:48, of course.)

My point is that 1 Timothy 4:10 does not contradict my argument for 1 Timothy 2:4. In fact, none of the verses in your list do. (Come to think of it, I believe John Owen addressed every single one of them in his devastating refutation of Arminianism. You ought to read his treatise. His Greek was astonishingly good. And like Spurgeon said, when we take the fight back to the Greek text, we always win the fight.)

***

By the way, I have more bad news for you concerning your "kosmos list" in your #1468. It turns out the Greek-speaking authors who had an oddly vague way of using the universal word pas were actually following a mindset which was not interested in being precise with the universal idea. And this also shows up in their usage of the word kosmos!

As I said earlier, their linguistics reflected their disinterest, sometimes even their refusal to be very precise. It turns out that they used the word kosmos in about eight or ten different ways in the New Testament. Sometimes the context suggests that they were using it to refer to everyone on earth. But this is RARELY the case. The word kosmos was the idea of a system in the minds of the Greeks--not necessarily the set idea of "all members in the set."

What this means is that the word kosmos is often used to establish the free offer of the gospel. But it can never be read as telling us that God has willed to save every member of the kosmos.

Heck, even John 3:16f tells you that, in case you haven't noticed!

***

To conclude, I would point out that the Greek universals are used more carefully in the New Testament than you have realized. It is difficult for English-speaking minds to notice this, especially when those minds are so carnally deranged as to try to pit the free offer against the doctrine of predestination. The "all" idea and the "world" idea in the New Testament are quite universal enough in their rhetorical flavor for English speakers to grasp that the free offer verses are presenting an indiscriminate offer. But it is an offer which only the elect will ever accept.

And THAT is an important truth which you have never accepted.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Did God want, or perhaps need an help meet?

You're not serious.
Are you?

You are?? Okay, you are. (sigh)

Okay, if you hadn't already, go look up the definition of "aseity" and try to compose for me a post on how violation of the Aseity principle would overthrow the entire doctrine of Deity.

Maybe, you'll manage to correct your own mistake. If not, I'll offer my suggestions. But, you can have a go at it first; just attempt the exercise I suggest.

Best, OP

[fortheDeclaration]

The Calvinist Spurgeon agreed that 1Tim.2:4 meant all men without exclusion.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not.

You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that.

The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth.

I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth."

Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place.

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

But I can't read ancient Hebrew. Maybe you should ask OPie or doc how they read it. I'd be curious.

Er... get out your Interlinear Bible, and bingo -- you can read Hebrew very nearly as well as I. Then, hang out with an Israeli veteran of the Six Day War for a couple years and you'll probably have picked up entirely as much Hebrew as have I (that is, not much).

However, my Greek is a "whole lot" better, really (/friendly sarcasm). Get out your Interlinear Bible, take a year of (virtually unrelated, other than they're both inflectional/declensive in structure) latin, and grab yourself a kid brother with several years of very plain-vanilla New Testament Greek (not exactly post-doctoral) to correct any of your *obvious* mistakes, and presto -- you read Greek as well as I, also.

(grin)