Salvation and Unreached Tribes

[christundivided]

You still haven't managed to get the basics right yet. Once you understand the basics, we can start discussing the nuances.

Slow down there big boy. I've been debating Calvinists for more than 20 years. I  know TULIP and PILUT. Sorry if  you don't understand what you believe.

Then stop making dumb statements about total depravity.

[quote author=christundivided]

Chuck Finney was a Presbyterian minister.

You're making a common mistake. A mistake that novices to Systematic Theology make. Just because Finney was a Presbyterian.... .doesn't mean he was a Calvinist. Just because Calvin is considered to be the father of the Presbyterian church.... doesn't mean everyone claiming to be Presbyterian believe like he believed.

He was an ordained Presbyterian minister. One of the requirements for ordination is a stated belief in the Westminster Confession. Would you rather I cite the CoF or the BCO to show why you are mistaken?

[quote author=christundivided]Much in the same manner that just because Spurgeon was Baptist doesn't mean he wasn't a Calvinist. Maybe you've heard of Reformed Baptist before?[/quote]

Yes....it's actually the historical Baptist view. What's your point?

[quote author=christundivided]Finney's words speak for themselves and the fact that he was criticized by OTHER CALVINIST for his beliefs on man's role in regeneration says otherwise. Just because you keep repeating it... doesn't make it so.[/quote]

He was criticized by people because they disagreed with him? What's your point?

Better yet...I provided original sources showing where Finney adhered to (at least one of) the petals of TULIP. I can provide citations for the other four. Provide original sources showing where he didn't. (In case you are curious, that would mean stuff he wrote.)

[quote author=christundivided]

I think the will of man is a vital aspect of regeneration (yet you label me a Calvinist). Very few people who grant God the initiative in regeneration say that man has no input. The question isn't really one about who contributes but the order in which said contribution happens. As I stated previously: God initiates, man responds.

Spoken like a true Calvinist who really doesn't like to be called one. [/quote]

Or a Thomist...or a Lutheran...or an Augustinist....or a....

[quote author=christundivided]How about using your memory???? Like having actually STUDIED it before. I KNEW Finney wasn't considered a Calvinist by many people. [/quote]

That last sentence isn't relevant to the argument. It's also not the claim you originally made. Yet again, the goalposts are "adjusted".

[quote author=christundivided]Since you are so informed and we can't agree on Finney, provide someone else. How about Calvin himself? Have at it.[/quote]

Not interested. You said "no one". I provided an example. Another example won't make you any less wrong than you were already.
[/quote]

Hi Vic. I grow weary of discussing this with you! Your elementary understanding of the history of Theology bores me! Finney even admitted he didn't understand the confession when he accepted it. Even so, American Presbyterian ministers had long been allowed in without a strict adherence to the confession. The American branch even amended the confession.

Just provide one more! Maybe Calvin or Augustine themselves. Get a close to the source as possible.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Just provide one more! Maybe Calvin or Augustine themselves. Get a close to the source as possible.

My favorite is Luther, but the closest to the source is the Bible. 

Proverbs 16:4 NKJV
The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Hi Vic. I grow weary of discussing this with you! Your elementary understanding of the history of Theology bores me![/quote]

This does appear to be the normal response when you start ignoring the flaws in your argument.

[quote author=christundivided]Finney even admitted he didn't understand the confession when he accepted it. Even so, American Presbyterian ministers had long been allowed in without a strict adherence to the confession. The American branch even amended the confession. [/quote]

One cannot be ordained in the Presbyterian Church when one, in fact, rejects Reformed soteriology.

[quote author=christundivided]Just provide one more! Maybe Calvin or Augustine themselves. Get a close to the source as possible.[/quote]

Here, therefore, boundless goodness is displayed, but not so as to bring all to salvation, since a heavier judgment awaits the reprobate for rejecting the evidence of his love. God also, to display his own glory, withholds from them the effectual agency of his Spirit. - Institutes, III, XXIV, II

There will be no ambiguity in it, if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear

 

[christundivided]

Just provide one more! Maybe Calvin or Augustine themselves. Get a close to the source as possible.

My favorite is Luther, but the closest to the source is the Bible. 

Proverbs 16:4 NKJV
The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

You know that's not accurate translation.

(RV)  The LORD hath made every thing for its own end: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

(ESV)  The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

 

[christundivided]

Now are you going to attempt to tell me that Calvin didn't mean people can consider the gospel that Calvin explicitly states they reject? If you continue to read this chapter, you will find out that Calvin is explaining exactly what I said earlier: Calvinists (and others) would say that Calvary is something that only the Elect can accept, not something that only the Elect can consider.

You're on the wrong side of history when it comes to Finney, Read his autobiography. The very fact you're still trying to say that Finney is a Calvinist, tells a lot about you.

I didn't see the word "consider" in his statement nor did I see the definition "consider" expressed in what you posted from Calvin. Maybe you can try again, or maybe you can highlight something that actually represents "consider". When you actually "consider" something, You entertain the validity of said thing. To entertain something as possibly being valid is in direct contradiction with what Calvinist teach about ....

1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Calvinists make everything to do about Calvary to be "spirtual" or a "thing of God". They SAY... that a natural man can not receive ANY actual knowledge from such things. They are nothing more than "FOOLISH" babbling".

That word "know" used in 1 Cor 2:14 means that a man can not even "percieve" or can not even be "aware" for such things. Now, I am not the one saying this. I agree that "Know" means this. Yet, I believe Calvary to be a natural event that man can actually understand. Its were the heavenly became the earthly.

 

[rsc2a]

Now are you going to attempt to tell me that Calvin didn't mean people can consider the gospel that Calvin explicitly states they reject? If you continue to read this chapter, you will find out that Calvin is explaining exactly what I said earlier: Calvinists (and others) would say that Calvary is something that only the Elect can accept, not something that only the Elect can consider.

You're on the wrong side of history when it comes to Finney, Read his autobiography. The very fact you're still trying to say that Finney is a Calvinist, tells a lot about you.

I'm sure it does.  :

[quote author=christundivided]I didn't see the word "consider" in his statement nor did I see the definition "consider" expressed in what you posted from Calvin. Maybe you can try again, or maybe you can highlight something that actually represents "consider". When you actually "consider" something, You entertain the validity of said thing. To entertain something as possibly being valid is in direct contradiction with what Calvinist teach about ....

....Calvinists make everything to do about Calvary to be "spirtual" or a "thing of God". They SAY... that a natural man can not receive ANY actual knowledge from such things. They are nothing more than "FOOLISH" babbling". [/quote]

Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. - Institutes, III, XXIV, VIII

Seriously - it was right there in my last post. Instead, you appear to be dancing around what is plain instead of admitting where you were wrong.

[quote author=christundivided]That word "know" used in 1 Cor 2:14 means that a man can not even "percieve" or can not even be "aware" for such things. Now, I am not the one saying this. I agree that "Know" means this.[/quote]

You don't like the fact that Calvin didn't actually use the word "consider" explicitly when he clearly describes a consideration, and then you turn around and change the definition of "know" (which is explicit in the text) because it makes you wrong. Inconsistent much?

[quote author=christundivided]Yet, I believe Calvary to be a natural event that man can actually understand. [/quote]

You believe something that contradicts what you said you believe the Bible to be saying?

[quote author=christundivided]Its were the heavenly became the earthly.[/quote]

No.

 

[christundivided]

Now are you going to attempt to tell me that Calvin didn't mean people can consider the gospel that Calvin explicitly states they reject? If you continue to read this chapter, you will find out that Calvin is explaining exactly what I said earlier: Calvinists (and others) would say that Calvary is something that only the Elect can accept, not something that only the Elect can consider.

You're on the wrong side of history when it comes to Finney, Read his autobiography. The very fact you're still trying to say that Finney is a Calvinist, tells a lot about you.

I'm sure it does.  :

Here. I'll give you a hint....

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. - Institutes, III, XXIV, VIII

Seriously - it was right there in my last post. Instead, you appear to be dancing around what is plain instead of admitting where you were wrong.

I read it. I even had it quoted in my reply until I decided to leave it out to consolidate the argument.

[quote author=christundivided]That word "know" used in 1 Cor 2:14 means that a man can not even "percieve" or can not even be "aware" for such things. Now, I am not the one saying this. I agree that "Know" means this.

You don't like the fact that Calvin didn't actually use the word "consider" explicitly when he clearly describes a consideration, and then you turn around and change the definition of "know" (which is explicit in the text) because it makes you wrong. Inconsistent much?[/quote]

If Calvin wanted to use the word consider. He would have. You're forcing "consider" into what Calvin said. I've noticed you doing that a lot here in the forum. Its really sad.

[quote author=christundivided]Yet, I believe Calvary to be a natural event that man can actually understand.

You believe something that contradicts what you said you believe the Bible to be saying?[/quote]

No. Keep up there little one.

[quote author=christundivided]Its were the heavenly became the earthly.

No.[/quote]

There you go. All you can say is NO. Poor baby. Children do that a lot. I stand by my three year old comment. The next thing you know you're going to telling me the advent of our Lord wasn't the heavenly meeting the earthly. Do you even understand what Christ did in His advent? What did HE partake of Vic? What His flesh and bone natural or super natural? I hope you don't get into that "heresy".

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]

I'm sure it does.  :

Here. I'll give you a hint....[/quote]

I was specifically referring to the fact that you consistently attack the person instead of the argument. In fact, you do the same thing later in this post.

[quote author=christundivided]http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm[/quote]

Yay for random websites for source material!

[quote author=christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]That word "know" used in 1 Cor 2:14 means that a man can not even "percieve" or can not even be "aware" for such things. Now, I am not the one saying this. I agree that "Know" means this.

You don't like the fact that Calvin didn't actually use the word "consider" explicitly when he clearly describes a consideration, and then you turn around and change the definition of "know" (which is explicit in the text) because it makes you wrong. Inconsistent much?[/quote]

If Calvin wanted to use the word consider. He would have. You're forcing "consider" into what Calvin said. I've noticed you doing that a lot here in the forum. Its really sad.[/quote]

How can someone "be enlightened for a time" if they haven't even considered the question being asked?

[quote author=christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Yet, I believe Calvary to be a natural event that man can actually understand.

You believe something that contradicts what you said you believe the Bible to be saying?[/quote]

No. Keep up there little one. [/quote]

That word "know" used in 1 Cor 2:14 means that a man can not even "percieve" or can not even be "aware" for such things. Now, I am not the one saying this. I agree that "Know" means this. - CU

...is directly opposed to...

Yet, I believe Calvary to be a natural event that man can actually understand.  - CU

[quote author=christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Its were the heavenly became the earthly.

No.[/quote]

There you go. All you can say is NO. Poor baby. Children do that a lot. I stand by my three year old comment. The next thing you know you're going to telling me the advent of our Lord wasn't the heavenly meeting the earthly. Do you even understand what Christ did in His advent? What did HE partake of Vic? What His flesh and bone natural or super natural? I hope you don't get into that "heresy". [/quote]

Calvary ≠ Incarnation = Advent



As an aside: if you continue with the petty personal attacks, I'll assume you really have no argument and/or are unwilling to discuss this in a Christ-like manner and will refuse to reply to your posts other than to educate others so they aren't swayed by your false teaching.

 

[Castor Muscular]

You know that's not accurate translation.

(RV)  The LORD hath made every thing for its own end: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

(ESV)  The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

So you're a Biblical Hebrew scholar now?  What difference does it make?  They all say the same thing.  God made everything for a purpose -- yes, including even the wicked.  In short, God MADE THE WICKED. 

The wicked might say, "Why did you still blame us, for who resists your will?"  The answer, to paraphrase, is "Who are you to question what I do?  I'm God.  I'll make whatever kind of people I want, and I ain't looking for your approval of my motives, methods, or actions."

 

[christundivided]

As an aside: if you continue with the petty personal attacks, I'll assume you really have no argument and/or are unwilling to discuss this in a Christ-like manner and will refuse to reply to your posts other than to educate others so they aren't swayed by your false teaching.

You really are a pain. You accuse me of  heresy and get upset when I call you a child? You say Charles Finney is a good source for Calvinist doctrine when you know nothing about him. You twist my words to try and form a contradiction when I clearly was referencing Calvinist teachings.... Enough said. Whine a little more without me!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]You really are a pain. You accuse me of  heresy and get upset when I call you a child?[/quote]

I accuse you of heresy when you make heretical statements. What you call me has no effect on that.

[quote author=christundivided]You say Charles Finney is a good source for Calvinist doctrine when you know nothing about him.[/quote]

Can you point where I've made that claim?

[quote author=christundivided]You twist my words to try and form a contradiction when I clearly was referencing Calvinist teachings.... Enough said. Whine a little more without me![/quote]

How in the world was I supposed to know that you weren't referring to the statement you made immediately before the statement in question? Oh yeah...I'd point out that you were using the same words and didn't even have a paragraph break. It was the next sentence in the same paragraph.

 

[christundivided]

You know that's not accurate translation.

(RV)  The LORD hath made every thing for its own end: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

(ESV)  The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

So you're a Biblical Hebrew scholar now?  What difference does it make?  They all say the same thing.  God made everything for a purpose -- yes, including even the wicked.  In short, God MADE THE WICKED. 

If you can't understand the difference in the translation you posted and the ones I posted, then you really don't understand the English language. You know they are different. You pick the one that best fit your ideals. I personally prefer sources that also consider the Greek OT rendering. Much like Augustine, I believe the Greek OT is vital to understand the Scriptures. You should know that The Greek OT is entirely different in Proverbs 16. Study it sometimes when you get the chance.

You mention Luther, you should know that Luther rejected the double predestination of Calvinism. Various Lutherans still differ on how much of Calvinist teaching should be included in their doctrinal beliefs.

The wicked might say, "Why did you still blame us, for who resists your will?"  The answer, to paraphrase, is "Who are you to question what I do?  I'm God.  I'll make whatever kind of people I want, and I ain't looking for your approval of my motives, methods, or actions."

That's so refreshing. Your post must make people really desire to know God. I've heard people say things like this before. I think a more fitting paraphrase of your thought is.....

"it is what it is"..... "live or die with it".

Maybe you should consider...

Act 7:51  Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

If someone can't actually "resist" the will of God, then why in the world did Stephen say Israel always resisted the Holy Ghost?

God's will not always accomplished. Does that hurt your feelings?

Are you ever going to explain Act 17 in light of what you believe or are you just going to say its not "necessary". You understand a few verses here and there and that's enough for you?

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]You really are a pain. You accuse me of  heresy and get upset when I call you a child?

I accuse you of heresy when you make heretical statements. What you call me has no effect on that.[/quote]

I never made a heretical statement. You assumed I meant something I didn't. You didn't even ask me to explain it or if I believed in such and such a way. To me, that's worse than me calling you a child for reacting the way you have.

[quote author=christundivided]You say Charles Finney is a good source for Calvinist doctrine when you know nothing about him.

Can you point where I've made that claim? [/quote]

There you go again. You will not afford me the same courtesy. You demand that I spend time to write my post so as a child like you could understand them and then you act like this?

I asked for a reputable source for a Calvinist that would use the word "consider" in reference to the reprobate dealing with the things of God. You post a quote from Charles Finney. Obviously, you believed that Finney was a Calvinist or you wouldn't have posted anything from him. You now say that Finney isn't a good source of Calvinist doctrine? Really? You just got caught. You obviously are a novice at Systematic Theology and intellectually dishonest in our conversation.

[quote author=christundivided]You twist my words to try and form a contradiction when I clearly was referencing Calvinist teachings.... Enough said. Whine a little more without me!

How in the world was I supposed to know that you weren't referring to the statement you made immediately before the statement in question? Oh yeah...I'd point out that you were using the same words and didn't even have a paragraph break. It was the next sentence in the same paragraph.[/quote]

No, you read into them what you wanted to see. I'm telling you that I did not mean what you said I did. Is that clear enough for you? OR do you want to post it again and say I made a contradiction? Are you just a one hit wonder?

 

[Castor Muscular]

That's so refreshing. Your post must make people really desire to know God.

Ah, I think we've identified your problem understanding the Bible. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]You really are a pain. You accuse me of  heresy and get upset when I call you a child?

I accuse you of heresy when you make heretical statements. What you call me has no effect on that.

I never made a heretical statement. You assumed I meant something I didn't. [/quote]

Flirting with heresy. In fact, close enough to heresy to confuse others:

Some have accused me of being a Open Theist. I do not consider myself as such. My belief differ somewhat from Open Theism. - CU

[quote author=christundivided]You didn't even ask me to explain it or if I believed in such and such a way. To me, that's worse than me calling you a child for reacting the way you have.[/quote]

I've seen your "exegesis". Not really interested in it.

[quote author=christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]You say Charles Finney is a good source for Calvinist doctrine when you know nothing about him.

Can you point where I've made that claim? [/quote]

There you go again. You will not afford me the same courtesy. You demand that I spend time to write my post so as a child like you could understand them and then you act like this?[/quote]

So...no.

[quote author=christundivided]I asked for a reputable source for a Calvinist that would use the word "consider" in reference to the reprobate dealing with the things of God. You post a quote from Charles Finney. Obviously, you believed that Finney was a Calvinist or you wouldn't have posted anything from him.[/quote]

Initially Finney was an Old Divinity Calvinist (a theological persuasion that strongly hints at hyper-Calvinism). Later, his soteriology softened greatly although He still believed God is the initiator (i.e. the foundational principle for Reformed soteriology). In fact, I have cited his own writings from later in his life affirming the "T" in TULIP (which is more evidence than you have provided, I might add).

Could I have chosen someone else? Perhaps. Would it have mattered? Not at all.

How do I know that? Because I cited Calvin himself and you still choose to remain willfully ignorant because you don't like the word selection.

[quote author=christundivided]You now say that Finney isn't a good source of Calvinist doctrine? Really?[/quote]

When has that ever come up? Oh! You're shifting the goalposts again.

I thought you decided since Finney wasn't adequate in your mind you wanted me to "get as close to the source as possible". You stated your criteria as "[m]aybe Calvin or Augustine themselves." I've met that goal...time to readjust the target again and call it a miss!

[quote author=christundivided]You just got caught. You obviously are a novice at Systematic Theology and intellectually dishonest in our conversation.[/quote]

That explains why you're avoiding the hard questions.  :

[quote author=christundivided]

How in the world was I supposed to know that you weren't referring to the statement you made immediately before the statement in question? Oh yeah...I'd point out that you were using the same words and didn't even have a paragraph break. It was the next sentence in the same paragraph.

No, you read into them what you wanted to see. I'm telling you that I did not mean what you said I did. Is that clear enough for you? OR do you want to post it again and say I made a contradiction? Are you just a one hit wonder?[/quote]

Fair enough. You did not mean for the statement you made to be read in the same context as the immediate preceding and following sentences. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me (or common rules of grammatical construction) but that's apparently how you write.

 

[rsc2a]

That's so refreshing. Your post must make people really desire to know God.

Ah, I think we've identified your problem understanding the Bible.

At least one of them.

 

[christundivided]

That's so refreshing. Your post must make people really desire to know God.

Ah, I think we've identified your problem understanding the Bible.

I could say the same thing....

Yes, I believe that Christ is obligated to save ANYONE that comes to Him. In fact, that is exactly what the Scriptures teach.

Joh 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Yes, I believe the natural man can understand the natural aspects of Calvary. Then, in his quest to find the truth present through the Gospel, he can seek and find God. Yes. Only Christ, Himself can save a man. Man doesn't have the power to save himself.

Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Yes, I believe this CAN happen to ANYONE. Not just the "Elect" drummed up by silly Calvinist doctrine.

Joh 7:37  In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Are you ever going to deal with Acts 17? Are you afraid?

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]You really are a pain. You accuse me of  heresy and get upset when I call you a child?

I accuse you of heresy when you make heretical statements. What you call me has no effect on that.

I never made a heretical statement. You assumed I meant something I didn't.

Flirting with heresy. In fact, close enough to heresy to confuse others:

Some have accused me of being a Open Theist. I do not consider myself as such. My belief differ somewhat from Open Theism. - CU[/quote]

This is the first you mentioned my comments on Open Theism. The first time. You didn't claim I was a heretic because of this. Have you forgotten what you wrote? I only mentioned Open Theism in response to your claim of heresy. Get you facts straight you liar.

I also said "I have been accused" of it. I didn't claim it. So much for your desire to be "accurate". The reason some have accused me of Open Theism is due to my beliefs on what "foreknowledge" actually means. It has nothing to do with this conversation and I've never mentioned them here. You dishonest hack. This is even more proof you know nothing of Systematic Theology or you would know Open Theism has nothing to do with our conversation. I've had enough of you. Bye.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Some have accused me of being a Open Theist. I do not consider myself as such. My belief differ somewhat from Open Theism. Needless to say, I don't fit into your mold of what you think I am.

Open theism...heresy again. This one geared for the temporally challenged.[/quote]

[quote author=christundivided]I also said "I have been accused" of it. I didn't claim it. So much for your desire to be "accurate".[/quote]

You claimed you differed "somewhat". Ergo, you are "somewhat" ok with a heretical belief.

[quote author=christundivided]The reason some have accused me of Open Theism is due to my beliefs on what "foreknowledge" actually means. It has nothing to do with this conversation and I've never mentioned them here. You dishonest hack. This is even more proof you know nothing of Systematic Theology or you would know Open Theism has nothing to do with our conversation. I've had enough of you. Bye. [/quote]

You think a complete conversation on salvation and God's election can be had without discussing foreknowledge? There is a point where your systematic theology becomes too "systematic".

 

[Castor Muscular]

I could say the same thing....

You could, but it wouldn't make any sense. 

Yes, I believe that Christ is obligated to save ANYONE that comes to Him. In fact, that is exactly what the Scriptures teach.

Joh 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

I agree 100%.  The question isn't who he will save, but who comes to Him and why.  And he explains that in the previous verses.  All the Father gives Him SHALL come to Him.  That's who.  Nobody else need apply, because they won't even want to come to Him. 

Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Yes, I believe this CAN happen to ANYONE. Not just the "Elect" drummed up by silly Calvinist doctrine.

Then you are ignoring what the Bible says.  It tells you who seeks the Lord of their own will -- nobody.  Then it tells you why some people seek the Lord.  The fact that you BELIEVE this can happen to anyone doesn't change the text.  The fact that you BELIEVE this can happen to anyone doesn't make the text say that.  That's your personal belief.  And it goes against what the Bible teaches. 

Joh 7:37  In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

And what makes the difference between a man who thirsts and a man who doesn't thirst?    Again, the Bible makes it clear that God makes the difference, not man. 

You're like the typical free-willer who cries, "Whosoever!  Whosoever!  That means anyone!"  But it doesn't.  I can say, "Whosoever is 6 feet tall or taller."  That isn't anyone, that's only those people who are 6 feet tall or taller.  The question isn't whosoever is 6 feet tall or taller, but WHY some people are 6 feet tall or taller and some people are shorter. 

So the question isn't whosoever believes, but WHY some people believe and some people do not.  "Whosoever" doesn't tell
you why.  You need to look elsewhere in the Bible.