Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | My Final Answer! :-) | 1 Tim 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 88061 | ||
"Some have contended that all of the references which refer to 'all' men really mean only 'some' men." And some have contended that this is a less-than-honest oversimplification of the argument. "My contention is that there is not a single verse which says that Christ did not die for all men, or that He only died for some men." There is not a single verse which (in isolation) speaks of the Tri-unity of God, either. That doesn't mean that Scripture doesn't teach it. 'As my last post, I will simply list many of these verses and ask, "Do these really mean only some people?"' And, as both of us know, we agree completely on the meaning of many of the verses you put forward (e.g. John 3:15, Acts 2:21, Romans 1:16-17, Romans 10:13, etc.). Why list those as proof of Arminianism when we have identical understandings of such verses? If each and every human being has been drawn by the lifting up of Jesus Christ, then we have a real problem explaining how those who have never even heard of Christ are drawn. Paul writes in Romans 10: 'for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent?...So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Paul makes it clear that the agency of human beings proclaiming the gospel is the means by which people believe. And, to use a familiar argument, there is not one verse in Scripture which speaks of the possibility of anyone becoming a Christian without having the gospel preached to them. So how are these men drawn? A single verse in Romans 11 has been employed to support the argument that God shows mercy to each and every human being, but unless Paul has multiple personalities, he in no uncertain terms closes that door a few paragraphs previously in Romans 9:18 ff. While Romans 9 is certainly not the only place we see our sovereign Lord withholding mercy from some and extending it to others, it is by far the clearest and most straightforward exposition on God's showing mercy to some (preparing them for glory) and hardening others (preparing them for destruction). Nowhere in the discourse of God's purpose in election is man active in the process, nor is the decision made during the lifetime of the "vessels." The familiar passages of John 6, supporting a particular redemption, have been raised, and not addressed in a way that is consistent with the text and fits into an Arminian framework. If a one wants a single verse pointing to the work of Christ on behalf of a limited group of individuals, we have a whole passage in John 6. This forum has seen this argument crop up more often than even some of its regular participants have cared to see it. I tend to steer clear of it unless my position is extremely misrepresented by its claimed adherents or its proponents. The "'all'-means-'some'" abbreviation of the Calvinist viewpoint is simply misleading, and I had hoped that pointing it out before would have resulted in a little less "spin." I see that's not going to be the case, however, so I will let this be my "final word" (for now ;)). --Joe! |
||||||
2 | My Final Answer! :-) | 1 Tim 2:4 | Morant61 | 88065 | ||
Greetings Joe! I have the utmost respect for you my friend, but I sincerely disagree with the following statement: "And some have contended that this is a less-than-honest oversimplification of the argument." Allow me to explain why! I quote an 'all' passage and I am told that the verses in question can't mean 'all'. Why? Because, the theological construct of Calvinism will not allow it. So, I ask for an honest question. If Christ really did not die for all men and I am misunderstanding this vital point, then show me any verse which contradicts the 'all' verses. Yet, there aren't any. I mean this in all sincerity my friend. From my perspective, I am being asked to reject the very clear meaning of many (not just one) verses on the basis of no evidence to the contrary. So, I don't see it as a less than honest oversimplification. If there were a verse which specifically stated that Christ did not die for all men, then I would change my view. Now, concerning Rom. 9, we have discussed this many times before. One cannot take chapter 9 in isolation from chapter 10 and 11. The 'one verse' you refer to in chapter 11 is the goal of God's plan of election. So, my contention is that Calvinists have totally misread the whole meaning of chapter 9. Paul is not arguing for God's right to limit His mercy, but for God's right to expand His mercy. As a result, those who were 'not His people' are now 'His people'. Those who were 'not loved' are 'now loved'. Those who were not Israel, are not part of Israel. This was the whole reason why God worked in the lives of individuals as He did, not to limit salvation, but to make it available to all men. It might surprise you, but as an Arminian, I love Romans 9-11. ;-) I pray that all is well with you and your family my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | My Final Answer! :-) | 1 Tim 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 88068 | ||
"So, my contention is that Calvinists have totally misread the whole meaning of chapter 9. Paul is not arguing for God's right to limit His mercy, but for God's right to expand His mercy." But none of the hypothetic questions in Paul's discourse can lead me to that understanding. The "questioner" is not asking about why so many Gentiles have been "let in," but rather Paul is answering that: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" The unspoken challenge is that the word of God has failed (i.e. that God has rejected Israel). That is what drives the whole argument in Romans 9-11. Romans 9:14 has the question of God's injustice in choosing Jacob over Esau (and, by association, including some of Israel as children of the flesh and rejecting others). And Romans 9:19 says: 'You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"' I fail to see how this is consistent with an argument of why God is "expanding his mercy." Paul's literary debater is asking why God finds fault with the reprobate, not why God has been so merciful to the Gentiles. What is the premise of the question about God finding fault? The rhetorical question: "Who resists His will?" (Implied answer: no one). Paul never challenges that question in his answer, because it is the appropriate conclusion to draw from the preceding verses of Chapter 9. "It might surprise you, but as an Arminian, I love Romans 9-11. ;-)" It doesn't surprise me at all, brother, to know that you love your interpretation of Romans 9-11. :) "I pray that all is well with you and your family my friend." My wife and the girls are doing great. Looks like the adoption might be final by the end of September, so I would appreciate your prayers that everything will go through! --Joe! |
||||||