Any statement in Scripture, for example, that suggests that God is one of many, that God is not omniscient, or that God is not good is under- stood by the Homilies to be untrue (Hom. 2.40–41).18 he restrictive approach to Scripture taken by the Homilies is especially necessitated by the threat of certain opponents (as represented by the igure. Downloads Entire Book (PDF) Text Settings. Related Content previous next “Four Triple Combination Translations Completed, Now Available,” Liahona, Dec. Four Triple Combination Translations Completed. Armenian Bible (ԱՍՏՈՒԱԾԱՇՈՒՆՉ) has got all chapter of Old Testament and New Testament. The Armenian Bible is due to Saint Mesrob's early 5th century translation. The first monument of Armenian literature is the version of the Holy Scriptures. Isaac, says Moses of Chorene, made a translation of the Bible from the Syriac text about 411. Armenia officially adopted Christianity early in the 4th century, traditionally in 301 AD. But it took another hundred years before the problem of rendering the Bible into the Armenian language was taken up. Armenian chroniclers maintain that the lack of the holy scripture in the local language was an obstacle to missionary work. This paper was given at the same 2004 Ann Arbor congress where "a Progress Report" was given. It surveys the traditions about the origins of the translation and traces attempts at editions of it. Well footnoted, the footnotes provide a.
- Selections From The Armenian Book Of Adamrejected Scriptures Verse
- Selections From The Armenian Book Of Adamrejected Scriptures Study
- Selections From The Armenian Book Of Adamrejected Scriptures Written
Against Heresies, or On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis (Ancient Greek : Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως), sometimes referred to by its Latin title Adversus Haereses, is a work of Christian theology written in Greek about the year 180 by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon in France).
In it, Irenaeus identifies and describes several schools of Gnosticism, as well as other schools of Christian thought, and contrasts their beliefs with his conception of orthodox Christianity.
Until the discovery of the Library of Nag Hammadi in 1945, Against Heresies was the best surviving contemporary description of Gnosticism. Today, the treatise remains historically important as one of the first unambiguous attestations of the canonical gospel texts and some of the Pauline epistles. Irenaeus cites from most of the New Testamentcanon, as well as the noncanonical works 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas; however, he makes no references to Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John or Jude – four of the shortest epistles.
Only fragments of the original text in ancient Greek remain today, but many complete copies in Latin, the dates of writing of which remain unknown (third or fifth century), still survive. Books IV and V exist in their entirety in a literal version in Armenian.
Against Heresies can be dated to sometime between 174 and 189 AD, as the list of the Bishops of Rome includes Eleutherius, but not his successor Victor. The earliest manuscript fragment of Against Heresies, P. Oxy. 405, dates to around 200 AD.
Irenaeus' primary goal in writing Against Heresies was to attack cults that fell away from orthodox Christianity mainly the Gnostics and Marcionites. In particular, he sought to disprove what he saw as incorrect interpretations of scripture on the part of Gnostics such as Valentinus. Irenaeus sought to present 'what was understood as an authentic form of century-old Christian tradition against various forms of Gnosticism.'
As bishop, Irenaeus felt compelled to keep a close eye on the Valentinians and to safeguard the church from them. In order to fulfill this duty, Irenaeus became well informed of Gnostic doctrines and traditions. His studies of Gnosticism eventually led to the compilation of this treatise.
Irenaeus argued that his conception of orthodox Christianity was passed down to him from the apostles who knew Jesus personally, while the Gnostics and Marcionites were distorting this apostolic tradition.
While the Gnostics offered salvation through secret knowledge available only to a few, Irenaeus contended that the true doctrines of the Christian faith are the same taught by bishops in different areas.
While many of the Gnostics viewed the material world as flawed and from which believers sought to escape to an eternal realm of spirit, Irenaeus saw creation as good and ultimately destined for glorification. As Mark Jeffrey Olson points out, 1 Corinthians 15:50 is quoted more than any other verse from the letters of Paul in Against Heresies:
I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Both Irenaeus and the Valentinians use this verse to argue for their own understandings of the resurrection of the dead. The Valentinians believed that resurrection was a purely spiritual phenomenon, while Irenaeus insisted that Christians would be raised from the dead in fleshly bodies. According to Irenaeus, this verse was used by the Gnostics to argue that 'the handiwork of God is not saved.'
Irenaeus also polemicized against Marcion of Sinope, who preached that the creator God of the Hebrew Bible and the Father of Jesus Christ were two different gods. Irenaeus argues that the same god who sent Jesus to the Earth also led man through history by way of the Jewish law and prophets.
- Book 1: I. Valentinus, II. the Propator, III. the misuse of the Bible, IV. the mother Achamoth, V. the Demiurge, VI. The threefold man, VII. against the incarnation, VIII. the Valentinians misuse of the Bible, IX. refutation by Irenaeus, X. the unity of the church, XI. Valentinus' disciples and others. XII. Ptolemy (gnostic) and Colorbasus. XIII. Marcus (Marcosian). XIV. letters and syllables. XV. Sige on the twenty-four elements. XVI. the Marcosians. XVII. Marcosians. XVIII. Misuse of passages from Genesis. XIX. misuse of Bible XX. apocryphal scriptures, XXI. the heretics on redemption, XXII. deviations from the truth. XXIII. Simon Magus and Menander. XXIV. Saturninus and Basilides. XXV. Carpocrates. XXVI. Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitans. XXVII. Cerdo and Marcion. XXVIII. Tatian, the Encratites. XXIX. Borborians. XXX. Ophites and Sethians. XXXI. Cainites and conclusion of Book I.
- Book 2: A rebuttal of the Gnostic systems employing philosophical arguments primarily rather than employing Scripture.
- Book 3: Rebuttal based on apostolic succession and tradition passed down of the faith; defense of the incarnation of Jesus; defense of the virgin birth.
- Book 4: Demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament.
- Book 5: A defense of the physical resurrection and eternal judgement.
- ^Also called On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called e.g. Peter Drilling Premodern faith in a postmodern culture 2006 p73 'But eventually The Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called (the actual title of what is commonly known as Against Heresies) expanded from two volumes to five.'
- ^Robert Lee Williams Bishop lists 2005 p123 'Irenaeus recorded the bishops of the Roman church in the third of his five books entitled Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called' (Greek: Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, lit. 'Elenchus and Overturning of the Pseudonymous Knowledge'), commonly called Against Heresies (Latin: Adversus haereses, Greek: Κατὰ αἱρέσεων).
- ^ The final phrase 'of knowledge falsely so-called' (Greek: tes pseudonymou gnoseosgenitive case; or nominative casepseudonymos gnosis).'Greek Word Study Tool irregular nom f. sg'. perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^Unger, Dominic J., Dillon, John J., St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the heresies, Vol.1, p.3, 1992 'the final phrase of the title 'knowledge falsely so-called' is found in 1 Timothy 6:20”.
- ^Due to its reference to Eleutherus as the current bishop of Rome, the work is usually dated c. 180. Schaff, Philip (2001) [c. 1885] 'Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies', Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, Against Heresies, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
- ^Only fragments of the original Greek text exist, but a complete copy exists in a wooden Latin translation, made shortly after its publication in Greek, and Books IV and V are also present in a literal Armenian translation.Poncelet, Albert (1910). 'St. Irenaeus'. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York City: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 4 March 2009.
- ^Davis, Glenn (2008). 'Irenaeus of Lyons'. The Development of the Canon of the New Testament. Retrieved 4 March 2009.
- ^ abcRichardson, C. (1995). Early Christian Fathers. Touchstone. p. 343. ISBN9780684829517. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^Egypt Exploration Fund (1903). Grenfell, Bernard P.; Hunt, Arthur S. (eds.). The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 3. Oxford. p. 10.
405 consists of seven fragments written in a small neat uncial hand, which is not later than the first half of the third century, and might be as old as the later part of the second.
- ^Heide, G. (2012). Timeless Truth in the Hands of History: A Short History of System in Theology. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 15. ISBN9781630877989. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^'Donovan, Mary Ann. 'Irenaeus of Lyons (review)', Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.4 (1998) 674-675'. muse.jhu.edu. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^Great Christian Thinkers: From the Early Church Through the Middle Ages. Fortress Press. 2011. p. 12. ISBN9780800698515. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^Steenberg, M.C. (2009). Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 21. ISBN9780567600479. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^Anderson, W.P. A Journey Through Christian Theology: With Texts from the First to the Twenty-first Century. Fortress Press. p. 18. ISBN9781451420326. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^Vallée, Gérard (1981). A study in anti-Gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 9. ISBN0-919812-14-7. OCLC8975860.
- ^Kotsko, A. (2010). The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 71. ISBN9780567204325. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^McFarland, I.A. (2009). Creation and Humanity: The Sources of Christian Theology. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN9780664231354. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
- ^Irenaeus (2001) [c. 180] 'Showing how that passage of the apostle which the heretics pervert, should be understood; viz., 'Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God.', in Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter IX, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
- Against Heresies – full text at New Advent
- Against Heresies – full text at Christian Classics Ethereal Library
- Adversus Haereses – full text in Latin (and Greek where it exists)
- Against Heresies public domain audiobook at LibriVox
By James M. Rochford
We have already explained the case for Calvinism (see “Calvinism versus Arminianism”). Here we will give the biblical case for the Arminian view.
The History of Arminianism
Arminianism is named after Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), a Dutch theologian who strongly objected to the Reformed system—especially limited atonement. His position was published posthumously in the Remonstrance of 1610. However, it would be anachronistic to believe that Arminius was the first to hold this view. Jack Cottrell writes that Arminianism “was the consensus belief in Christendom prior to Augustine (A.D. 354–430).”
Theologians who hold to Arminianism
Modern Arminian theologians would include Jack Cottrell, Craig Keener, Roger Olson, Ben Witherington III, F. Leroy Forlines, Robert Picirilli, Leighton Flowers, David Allen, Thomas C. Oden, Gordon C. Olson, Grant Osborne, Thomas McCall, and Scot McKnight (to name a few).
Is Calvinism unfair?
Some Arminians charge that Calvinism is “unfair.” However, this should not be the starting point for Arminian theology. God is free to dispense grace to whomever he wants. If God chose to save only one person, sending the rest to hell, this wouldn’t be fair; it would be merciful. We agree with Calvinist R.C. Sproul who writes,
Is there any reason that a righteous God ought to be loving toward a creature who hates him and rebels constantly against his divine authority and holiness?
We agree with the consistency of Calvinism on this point: God is under no obligation to dispense grace. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be grace! As soon as we begin to ask for “fairness,” we are really pulling the rug out from under ourselves. If we want fairness, all of us would be judged for our sins! Therefore, Arminianism begins with a different biblical starting point: God’s character.
1. God desires all people to be saved
Arminianism points out that God desires all people to have a relationship with him—not just some. Peter writes, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). Paul writes, “[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Jesus said that he would “draw all men to [Himself]” (Jn. 12:32), and the Holy Spirit would “convict the world”—not just the elect (Jn. 16:8). In the OT, God makes it clear that he doesn’t desire people to be judged (Ezek. 18:23; Jer. 48:31; Isa. 28:21). However, under the Calvinist view, God would desire to judge some sinful people, and he does not desire all people to be saved.
2. God allows humans to resist his will
Calvinism places God’s will as the primary attribute of God in their system—anything that speaks against this is thought to take away from God’s glory and nature. However, Scripture clearly states that God permits people to oppose his will. The NT uses two different words for God’s will in the NT: boulē and thelō.
1. Boulē (pronounced boo-LAY)
In the gospel according to Luke, we read, “The Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose (Greek boulē) for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John” (Lk. 7:30; c.f. Acts 7:51). This is the same word used for God’s will in Ephesians 1:11 (“predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will (Greek boulē).” Here, Luke explains that the Pharisees were capable of rejecting God’s will for them.
Likewise, in 2 Peter 3:9, a derivative of boulē is used (boulomai), when Peter writes of God not “wishing for any to perish.” Since some ultimately do go to hell, this must mean that God’s will (boulē) is not fulfilled.
2. Thelō (pronounced THAY-low)
We see the same theme in the life of Jesus. Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Lk. 19:41). Matthew records that Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted (thelō) to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling (thelō)” (Mt. 23:37). Here, Jesus (God) wanted to do something, but this was rejected by the religious leaders. Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus said, “[The King] sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling (thelō) to come” (Mt. 22:3).
Elsewhere, Jesus prayed that God’s “will” would be done on Earth, as it is in heaven (Mt. 6:10). This word (thelēma) is in the same word group as thelō. If God’s will cannot be resisted (as Calvinism claims), there would be no reason to pray this. Moreover, Jesus claimed that we are permitted to line up our will with God’s (or choose not to). He said, “If anyone is willing (Greek thelō) to do His will (Greek thelō), he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself” (Jn. 7:17). These passages all imply that God allows us to resist and reject his will.
Freewill in the OT
In the OT, God enabled the freewill of the people to choose him (Josh. Fake gmail account creator login. 24:15; Isa. 50:2; Jer. 1:6; 2:13-14; 7:13; 13:10; 26:2-3; Ex. 3:11; 4:1-13; Hos. 11:1-9; Ps. 78:10; 81:11-13; Jer. 32:33). Consider several examples:
(Isa. 65:12) “I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight and chose that in which I did not delight.”
(Prov. 1:24) “I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention.”
(Jer. 18:8) “If that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.”
(Ps. 81:11-14) “My people did not listen to My voice, and Israel did not obey Me. 12 So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices. 13Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!14 I would quickly subdue their enemies and turn My hand against their adversaries.”
(Jer. 7:23-26) “This is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.25 Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them. 26Yet they did not listen to Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did more evil than their fathers” (Jer. 7:23-26). The larger context shows that God gave them a choice to obey and be forgiven, but they refused to do so (Jer. 7:1-22).
(Hos. 11:1-2 NIV) “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2 But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.”
3. Freewill is taught throughout the Bible
The Bible teaches freewill from one end to the other. It contains a number of broad, sweeping teachings that support the traditional concept of libertarian freewill. Even Reformed authors like D.A. Carson acknowledge these clear and perspicuous teachings of Scripture:
(1) God calls on people to obey, choose, and believe in him (Jn. 15:10; Josh. 24:15; Jn. 3:18). These calls would be nonsense, if we are not free moral agents.
(2) The very fact that we can sin implies freedom of the will, unless we are claiming that God is the agent of sin.
(3) God judges us (1 Cor. 3:10-15; Rev. 20:11-15). Humans are rewarded and punished according to their actions. Judgment only makes sense, if we are free to choose and culpable for our choices.
(4) God tests his people, which implies our ability to pass or fail (Gen. 22:1; Jas. 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 1 Cor. 10:13).
(5) Prayers are not scripted; they are free expressions of the heart (see the Psalms for good examples of this).
(6) God pleads with sinners to repent, which would only make sense in light of free moral decision (Ezek. 18:23-32; 33:11).
(7) God desires all men to believe in him (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Jn. 12:32). Consider this. An omnipotent being “desires” something that clearly is not happening. Something must be stopping God from doing what he wants to do. Freewill is the most likely solution to this problem (Lk. 7:30; Acts 7:51; Mt. 23:3, 37; Mt. 6:10; Jn. 7:17).
(8) God himself is a free moral agent, who is not determined (Rev. 4:11). Therefore, even the determinist will admit that it is not necessary for all decision to be determined. Jesus was not determined; instead, he submitted his will to the Father’s will (Lk. 22:42).
One final passage should be considered in this regard: Matthew 19:24. Jesus says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” What exactly could this verse mean from a Calvinist perspective? Arminian scholar Roger Olson comments, “What sense does this verse make in light of irresistible grace? Is Jesus saying it is harder for God to save a rich man than a poor one? How could that be? If everyone, without exception, only gets into the kingdom of God by God’s work alone without any required cooperation on his or her part, then Jesus’ saying makes no sense at all.”
Hermeneutical Principles for Disputed Passages
There are a number of passages that Arminians need to address in this discussion. We respond to these in detail below. However, before jumping to these passages, consider these four hermeneutical principles that should be considered.
PRINCIPLE #1: The “Me” or “We” principle.
In our modern individualistic culture, we usually read the Bible as referring to me, rather than to we. Often, passages on chosenness or election are referring to the entire church, rather than individual believers (Eph. 1:4). When reading difficult passages, ask yourself if it is referring to the church being saved, rather than a specific individual.
PRINCIPLE #2: The “chosen for heaven” or “chosen for ministry” principle.
Often God chooses us for the purpose of ministry, rather than for the purpose of salvation (Gal. 1:15; Jn. 15:16). Calvinists read all passages on choosing to refer to “going to heaven,” rather than “going to work.” Therefore, as you read difficult passages, ask yourself if the passage is describing how a person was chosen for a purpose in ministry, or if they were chosen to go to heaven.
PRINCIPLE #3: The “all believers” or “those believers” principle.
Sometimes, difficult passages refer to the original audience, rather than to modern believers. Therefore, in interpreting difficult passages, ask yourself if this passage is referring to all believers throughout human history, or if it is referring to those specific believers at the time. This is especially important when reading promises made to the twelve disciples or to Paul.
PRINCIPLE #4: Predestination and election are both based on God’s foreknowledge principle.
God predestines the people that he knew would make the freewill decision to come to faith. Romans 8:29 reads, “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…” Notice that God’s foreknowledge precedes who is predestined. Likewise, Peter writes that believers “are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2). Therefore, both predestination and election are based on God’s foreknowledge of what humans would freely do.
Exodus 4:21 How could God harden Pharaoh’s heart?
1 Samuel 18:10, Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil?
Matthew 11:27 Does this support Calvinism?
John 1:13 Does this passage support Calvinism?
John 6:44-45 Will Christ only draw some people and not others?
John 13:18 Doesn’t this passage imply fatalism for Judas?
Acts 13:48 Were some “appointed” for eternal life?
Romans 8:29-30 Is this passage teaching predestination for believers?
Romans 9: An Arminian Interpretation This is a verse-by-verse commentary on Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective.
Romans 9:13 Are some predestined for heaven before birth?
Romans 9:17-19 Will God harden hearts so that they can’t receive Christ?
Romans 9:22-23 Does God create some people only to damn them?
Romans 12:3 Does God give us our faith—or do we produce faith?
Galatians 1:15 Paul was set apart before birth?
Ephesians 1:4 Are some chosen for heaven and others for hell?
Ephesians 1:5 Are some predestined for heaven and others for hell?
Ephesians 2:1, 5 Does this verse support the Calvinist doctrine of total inability?
Ephesians 2:8-9 Is faith a gift of God?
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 A deluding influence?
1 Timothy 2:4 Is a Calvinist view of this passage plausible?
2 Timothy 2:25 Does God cause or force repentance?
1 Peter 1:2 Are some chosen for heaven and others for hell?
Selections From The Armenian Book Of Adamrejected Scriptures Verse
1 Peter 2:8 Are some appointed for hell?
2 Peter 2:1 Do false teachers lose their salvation?
2 Peter 3:9 Does this passage invalidate limited atonement?
1 John 2:2 Does this passage support unlimited atonement?
Jude 4 Condemned beforehand?
 Cottrell, Jack, Clark H. Pinnock, Robert L. Reymond, Thomas B. Talbott, Bruce A. Ware, and Chad Brand. Perspectives on Election: Five Views. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2006. 70.
 Sproul, R. C. Chosen by God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1986. 21.
 Calvinists respond by saying that God is waiting for all of his elect to come to repentance. There are elect people in the future, who have not yet come to Christ, and God is waiting for them to come to him. If Christ came back sooner, these elect wouldn’t come to Christ yet. In other words, Christ is waiting to return to save all of his elect. Regarding 2 Peter 3:9, Sproul says that the “anyone” refers to the “elect.” That doesn’t work in light of 1 Timothy 2:4 though. Sproul, Chosen by God, p.195. Cited in Olson, Roger E. Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. 118.
 Regarding these key Arminian passages, Calvinist preacher and theologian John Piper appeals to the fact that this is a mystery. He writes, “God’s emotional life is complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend… Therefore we should not stumble over the fact that God does and does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.” Piper, John. The Pleasures of God: Meditating on God’s Delight in Being God. Portland, Or.: Multnomah, 1991. 336-337. However, I don’t believe that this explanation is cogent. Appealing to mystery makes your position unfalsifiable—even in the presence of contrary evidence. While it is sometimes appropriate to appeal to mystery when an answer is unknown, it is inappropriate to appeal to mystery in the face of contrary evidence to one’s own position.
 Calvinists usually respond by saying that these passages do not mean all people (i.e. the entire population), but all kinds of people (i.e. all ethnicities and all classes). Calvin writes, “By this Paul surely means only that God has not closed the way unto salvation to any order of men; rather, he has so poured out his mercy that he would have none without it.” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.24.16.) Likewise, Boettner writes, “Verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4, it seems, are best understood not to refer to men individually but as teaching the general truth that God is benevolent and that He does not delight in the sufferings and death of His creatures.” Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 295. Cited in Olson, Roger E. Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. 116.
 Calvinists argue that Jesus was trying to reach the “children” of Jerusalem, but the religious leaders were unwilling to allow this.
Selections From The Armenian Book Of Adamrejected Scriptures Study
 This list is similar to Carson’s list. See D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 18-22.
Selections From The Armenian Book Of Adamrejected Scriptures Written
 Olson, Roger E. Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. 165.