Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13457 | ||
HANK: Note: bjanko, in view of your statement on election, please look again at John 3:16. The text says "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." BJANKO: Thank you. I'm glad you brought this verse up as it supports the view of limited atonement very powerfully. HANK: It does not say that Christ is not able to save, it does not diminish the power of God or elevate man's will. It simply stipulates in clear and unequivocal language the fact that, even though the offer of salvation is universal, the sine qua non is belief in Jesus Christ, i.e., the offer must be met with acceptance. BJANKO: Yes, it describes in very plain terms that whoever believes in Him will be saved. However, it nowhere says that just anyone at all is able to believe in Him! HANK: Belief, in the biblical sense, involves more than mere intellectual affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God. BJANKO: True, but doesn't seem to be releveant here. HANK: All are not saved, that is perfectly true. But all are by no means willing to surrender their lives to Christ either. BJANKO: I would not only agree with this but go further and assert, with the Scripture, that there are none willing to submit their lives to Christ: "As it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD.' (Rom. 3:10-11). When the God draws His elect to Himself, however, (see John 6:34), then those people become willing to surrender; this is evidence of their election. So, you are quite right to put forth John 3:16 as a prooftext of limited atonement. "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." This is a perfect description of those whom the Father has chosen to give to the Son for salvation: The ones the Father regenerates by His Spirit are the ones (whosoever's) who will believe. And those "whosoever's" will be saved, as God has predetermined. This puts all will and decision in the hands of God, thus glorifying Him, rather than in the hands of man, thus glorifying man, the creature. One is orthodox Christian; the other is semi-Pelagian and is false doctrine. |
||||||
2 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | Hank | 13460 | ||
bjanko, you make some good observations, and it seems unconscionable for any Christian to entertain the palest of notions that God is anything but sovereign. We do, however, tread in water over our heads when we presume to read the mind of God with our limited minds, and no better example can be put forth than our pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes, and this would surely encompass the terms election and predestination, about which I know little and understand even less..... I'm not sure your contextual definition of "semi-Pelagianism" squares with the views of Pelagius. He held that man is born with no bias to evil and is capable of freedom from sin and of salvation by works. He taught that man sins because of his environment alone and not at all because of his nature. All of which is, of course, unvarnished heresy. While you and I may have slight variations of viewpoints on the subject of election, neither of which approaches heresy, I think that we are certainly in unison on the belief that God is sovereign. On this note I submit that it is in the best interests, not only of ourselves but of the forum as a whole, to drop the issue and thus not attempt to resurrect a debate over it that raged on and ravaged the forum for many days in the recent past. Thank you for sharing your beliefs, and it is hoped that I will be privileged to engage in further discourse with you, but on a somewhat less controversial subject. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13468 | ||
HANK bjanko, you make some good observations, and it seems unconscionable for any Christian to entertain the palest of notions that God is anything but sovereign. We do, however, tread in water over our heads when we presume to read the mind of God with our limited minds, and no better example can be put forth than our pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes, and this would surely encompass the terms election and predestination, about which I know little and understand even less..... BJANKO If you will re-read my posts, I would be very interested if you can actually find any "pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..." I would also take issue that the long-held orthodox teachings on election and predestination, are pretenses "at understanding fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..." These are long-held doctrines, not because they venture into the "secret counsels" of God, but because they are revealed in Scripture. If you fear that they might lead to human pride, trying to uncover every facet of the secret counsels of God, then I would venture to correct you: the doctrines of predestination and election are not what are in question, but your understanding of those doctrines are, as you honestly claim when you said, "about which I know little and understand even less..... " HANK I'm not sure your contextual definition of "semi-Pelagianism" squares with the views of Pelagius. He held that man is born with no bias to evil and is capable of freedom from sin and of salvation by works. He taught that man sins because of his environment alone and not at all because of his nature. All of which is, of course, unvarnished heresy." BJANKO True. That is why I did not say your beliefs were "Pelagian," but rather "semi-Pelagian," which is a technical term, fairly similar with the term "Arminianism." Neither "semi-Pelagianism" nor "Arminianism" is rank heresy; but they are both unbiblical. Whlie they may try to claim that God has some sovreignty in salvation, they always, ALWAYS place man's responsibility and will ABOVE God's sovreignty -- a view which is patently unscriptural. HANK While you and I may have slight variations of viewpoints on the subject of election, neither of which approaches heresy, I think that we are certainly in unison on the belief that God is sovereign. BJANKO I have to admit, I'm not completely sure of your views; but if you are an Arminian, then I would suggest that our differences on election are more than slight and that, while neither of us would be a heretic, our views on God's sovreignty are equally NOT in unison. HANK On this note I submit that it is in the best interests, not only of ourselves but of the forum as a whole, to drop the issue and thus not attempt to resurrect a debate over it that raged on and ravaged the forum for many days in the recent past. Thank you for sharing your beliefs, and it is hoped that I will be privileged to engage in further discourse with you, but on a somewhat less controversial subject. BJANKO Nice conversing with you. |
||||||