Robert Sungenis vs. James White (Opening Statement: Predestination Debate)

[CBALLEN]

Rms 8

7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.Meaning,no unsaved man could ever believe and turn to Christ unless God first regenerates him unto belief.Man has a terrible problem with pride and they hate the thought of God being free to choose His own flock.Jn 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.Acts 13:48....and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

[CBALLEN]

God couldn't have chosen everyone to believe or everyone would believe and we know they don't.We have 2 perspectives in the Bible.One perspective is from man's point of view,where man is commanded to repent and believe and all who do are then saved.Then once they're saved they see God's perspective,how He has chosen all who will believe,by His own wise council alone.Even Arminians must believe that God knows all things and in His omniscience ,He knew perfectly He was creating some for Hell.

[Aletheia828]

Do you have the full debate?

[RomansGalatians]

"All men" means only men, not women and children. Women and children burn in Hell, but men go to Heaven.

That is the clear meaning of the text. We have no need to consult learned commentaries. All we need do is consult Joe on the street. "Duh, yeah, men's are like dudes, ya know, not dames and brats."

That is how a true biblical scholar interprets the text.

[TridentinumZealot]

@RomansGalatians You're joking, right?

[RomansGalatians]

@TridentinumZealot No, man (and by that I mean adult male only, so if you're a under 18 or a woman, ignore everything else I say), we should interpret however it strikes us in first impression.

People who know the original Greek think they're so smart. Commentaries like Zodhiates, Thayers and Strongs are all put here by God to tempt us. I know what "man" means, and I don't need no Greek-freak to tell me how he thinks it was used in the olden days. This is America, learn to speak the language.

[TridentinumZealot]

@RomansGalatians When you abandon common sense, I just don't know what to say...

[RomansGalatians]

@TridentinumZealot Learn to speak American.

[Florin123k]

John 6:44 pretty much sums it all up.

[greglee20]

@Florin123k sums what up?

[hlpsg]

Hi, thanks for putting this up. Do you have the full debate online? Thanks.

[ReDiserio]

@Hello1689 "your intellect vs. your religionist view other than making you "freer", u know its a false doctrine, Out of ALL THE MEN living and dead, your view says what percentage are "saved" as you say? using your common sense (and yes step away from your highly invested need to be right, not the Truth, for you to be right- the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which you must accept the tradition of being its the Word of God, for you cannot read that in your Bible, its tradition you rely on there :)

[greglee20]

@Hello1689 God Bless. I enjoyed our discussion as well. It can be argued that Rm 5:1-5 is not simply speaking of people who have already come to faith, BUT is a statement of fact about what Christ accomplished for humanity, and how God's people are now identified. Humanity now stands justified by faith instead of by works of the law. V2 all humanity can now access this new reality by faith. The EO sees this very differently. A whole lot more could be said, but I will leave it at that. Blessings

[greglee20]

@Hello1689 I don't view this as arguing.You believe that "the death" that spead to "all men" in verse 12 refers only the the elect? You believe that the condemnation that came to "all men" in verse 18 is only the elect? You also believe that "the many" that were made sinners refers only the the elect? The Eastern Orthodox church has no problem viewing these passages as universal since we believe Christ accomplished Salvation for all people past tense. It's up to the individual to enter into it.

[ElasticGiraffe]

Robert Sungenis is a nut on other issues, but he's right on here. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Arminians all enthusiastically affirm the doctrine of unlimited atonement. It takes an arrogant believer to deny historic Christian soteriology and label it "man-centered." God can and does retain his sovereignty over salvation in these theological traditions; Calvinism does not have a monopoly on grace.

[greglee20]

@Hello1689 How Paul pleases all men is defined by the context of his argument is ch 8-10. The word is defined by the surrounding context. How do you interpret what Paul is saying here? Your understanding of THE MANY to refer to "men from every nation" is off as well. It refers to all individuals. Check out Romans 5:12-19. See how Paul interchanges THE MANY and All MEN to be referring every individual. It is clear in Romans 5 that THE MANY and ALL MEN is every individual.)

[greglee20]

@Hello1689 This really isn't gymnastics. The definition of pleased is in the context. Go and read chapters 8-10 again to understand what Paul is talking about in regards to pleasing all men. This is the conclusion of a 2 chapter argument. You interpret "all men" to men "the elect", I interpret it to mean every individual. "The Many" is defined in verse 32 "give no offiense, either to the Jews, Greeks, or the church of God." This phrase goes beyond "elect" since the church is part of the group.

[greglee20]

@Hello1689 Yes I am serious. Paul is not using pleased to mean satisfy or make happy. You are not understanding his use. Pleased is defined by "not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many". This is what Paul means by pleasing all men. Every person St. Paul came in contact with his aim was to Please (not seeking his own profit but the profit of others). The definition of please is right in the context. You can please all men in this way without them actually liking you.

[greglee20]

@Hello1689 The way St Paul pleases all men is by "not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many". So in this way Paul did please the men who stone them because he was not seeking his own profit but theirs.

[greglee20]

@Hello1689 I am not pristinefaith, but I though I might answer your question. "The many" is just a hebraic way of saying all people. The many are all men. Just a different way of saying the same thing.

[NewPuritan07]

The entire point of 1 Timothy 1:1-7 is that God is the God of all kinds of men. That is the obvious and face-value meaning of the text. Why else would Paul be saying what he says? Was he battling Calvinists?! Paul is showing that we should not seek evil for those in high positions. God is the God of all men. Then he concludes that he is the teacher of the Gentiles, topping it off with an attack against ethnocentrism. No one has to force that meaning, it is clear when you read the context

[kharnvelzyghur]

Robert - this man reminds me of David Berkowitz. The placement and angle of the eyes, and the distance between them. With a glance, his demeanor screams of someone who is completely out of touch with reality. Next thing you know you'll hear him eating babies cause god told him to.

[ThePristineFaith]

@Hello1689 Jews, Greeks, and the assembly of God, sums up all men in Paul's mind. Again, Gentiles (nations in Greek), and Israel sums up all people. Paul is definitely not talking about a select few from among the nations, or of Israel.

[ThePristineFaith]

@Hello1689 He speaks for more than Just Roman Catholics on this topic. In either text you quoted, the author certainly did not mean ALL KINDS OF MEN/PEOPLE. Sure, "all men" can be limited in some contexts, but not every context imposes limits.