Results 41 - 60 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 5470 | ||
There are no verses that actually state that Christ dies only for the elect. But this isn't really a problem since there are very few doctrines that are stated as in their popular conception in Scripture. But there are many verses that indicate that Christ came to save/die for only some. Examine the following: John 10:14-16, 25-30; 13:18; 17:2, 6, 9-12 II Tim. 2:19 But I really don't like giving proof texts. I'd rather talk about the patterns in Scripture. Like God's unmistakable pattern of choosing some individuals over others. Abel and Seth over Cain. Noah and his family over the rest of humanity. Abraham and his seed over the rest of the world. Isaac over Ishmael. Jacob over Esau. Judah over the rest of the brothers, even over Joseph. Etc. I think that this is a much better indicative of God's sovereign election than any single verse. Ryan Davidson |
||||||
42 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 5472 | ||
Nolan, I believe that you are wrong here. Consider the following: There are several options as to what and who Christ died for. 1) Christ died for all sins of all men. 2) Christ died for all sins of some me. 3) Christ died for some sins of all men. 4) Christ died for some sins of some men. Now consider the implications of each of these choices. 3 and 4 aren't really options, cause they don't save anyone. If the second is true, we have Reformed election. If the first is true, then everyone goes to heaven, for all sins are paid for. But, you say, can't people resist God's grace? Perhaps (but I think not). Assuming they can, would this not be sin? And would Christ not have died for it? Would that not make it forgiven? If not, why not? The only real option is particular redemption. Ryan Davidson |
||||||
43 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6347 | ||
Nolan, you are sounding dangerously Pelagian. I cannot distinguish the view you espouse here with the views of Pelagius, a British monk condemned as a heretic almost 1700 years ago. He basically said that Christ's work does not atone for anyone, it merely makes atonement possible. This is not what Scripture teaches. Christ's blood _pays for sin_, it _does not make payment possible_. Cf. Romans 3:25-26, 5:19, Hebrews 9:14, 10:14, Ephesians 1:11, 14, 5:2, II Corinthians 5:19, Colossians 5:20, John 17:2. These and many other verses do not speak of possibility they speak of accomplished fact. The atonement has been completed. Furthermore, the unforgivable sin _requires_ that there be at least some sins that Christ's atoning work does not cover. It doesn't even matter what you think that sin is, the fact that Scripture recognizes a category of sin that is outside the realm of God's forgiveness necessitates a limit to the atonement. Unless, that is, you wish to deny that Christ's death and resurrection really is an atonement. But you are not allowed to do that. This is a central tenet of the Christian faith, and to deny this is to be beyond question, a heretic. I know some will think ill of me for sounding so "harsh" on this point. But this is not something that is negotiable. Infant baptism vs. believers baptism is an issue worth discussing, even though I think that it has been settled in church history. But the atoning work of Christ may in no way be questioned. This is non-negotiable. |
||||||
44 | Please explain your position | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6349 | ||
It can, but it dosen't have to, even in Scripture. Scripture is a work of language just like any other, in the sense of its actual construction. Granted, it is divinely inspired and all that, but it is still basically literature, and must be understood as such. You don't read the Psalms the same way you read the gospels the same way you read Revelation the same way you read Proverbs. And you don't ignore hyperbole, such as the examples provided here. Whether or not you interpret these uses of the word "all" as exhaustive is determined by your doctrine of soteriology. If you want universal atonement, then it's exhaustive, for these are some of the very few verses that can be made to suggest such a thing. But if you do not believe in a universal atonement there is no reason to interpret these verses as anything but hyperbole. |
||||||
45 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6473 | ||
Allow me to quote Paul: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! I think that speaks for itself, don't you? |
||||||
46 | Accusations obligatory? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6502 | ||
Hmm. So the very nature of the atonement doesn't count as "the Good News of the Kingdom of God?" May I ask what does? As far as Paul is concerned, saying that Christ's death is not an actual atonement _is_ denying Christ. He calls everyone that differs on matters of the gospel to be eternally damned. Mr. Keck suggested something that would alter the very nature of the atonement, shifting it from an accomplished fact to a realizable possibility. That counts as pretty fundamental, and I will defend it to the death. | ||||||
47 | Accusations obligatory? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6527 | ||
There is no difference between "denying atonement" and "denying the nature of atonement." And what is this concern with being "offensive?" Christ never bothered with such niceties. Neither did Paul, nor Peter, nor God for that matter. Show me one time when God is "nice" and I'll show you three where he promises victory to his people and destruction of his enemies. How many do I "consider cursed?" As many as fit Paul's definition by believing "another gospel." And since the atonement _is_ the gospel, questioning that questions the gospel itself. Why should I make bones about this? What's the problem? I will speak as Scripture speaks, and Scripture speaks of those who change the gospel as damned. |
||||||
48 | Arminianism: Another Gospel? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6552 | ||
Okay, this is sounding a lot more like the Arminianism that we all know and love. I would agree that Arminianism is more semi-Pelagian than actually Pelagian, but Mr. Keck's presentation of Arminian doctrine is far to close to Pelagianism for comfort. This is what I was referring to when I quoted Galatians. And I have yet to be convinced that Arminianism isn't simply a restatement of Roman Catholic theology, which has salvation being a cooperative effort on the part of man and God, a gospel of works. I'm not convinced this case can be made, but you are welcome to try. It would certainly save me a lot of grief, since the church I attended for 15 years is pretty solidly Arminian. I have a lot of friends there that I don't want to have to consider heretics, but I'm still not convinced that this is a real option. Actually, the point I was trying to make with the passage from Galatians is that Paul considered his gospel to be the only gospel, and all others to be damnable. Thus, it is certainly within our interest to find out what this gospel is. I read Romans, and chapters 1-9 clinch the argument as far as I'm concerned. "Calvinism," if one wishes to call it that, is basically there. I can't see Arminianism working. I'm currently a sophomore/junior (class/credit). My majors are: philosophy, Biblical studies, history. |
||||||
49 | Accusations obligatory? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6555 | ||
What's wrong with dogma? And who said anything about bigotry? Put your label gun away. Scripture is full of covenant blessings for obedience and covenant curses for disobedience. Am I to not talk about the consequences of poor theology because you don't want to hear about it? You will find all of my language mirrored in Scripture, my friend. If that's the case, you'll be cutting out most of your Bible. Take issue with that if you want, but God speaks this way to his people, and commands us to do likewise when the situation requires it. I feel absolutely no obligation to submit to pop psychobabble. I will submit to the Word, even it that doesn't win me any friends. |
||||||
50 | Calvanism -vs- Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6626 | ||
I know the distinctives of Pelagianism. I do not think that Arminianism is coherent unless it denies all three of those things. TULIP, as silly an acronym as it may be, is a self-referential system. You cannot pull one letter out without getting rid of all of them. Thus, since Arminians deny particular redemption, they must also deny total depravity and salvation by grace. At least, you have to do this if you want to remain consistant. Your statements in your second paragraph are immediately contradictory. Allow me to demonstrate. 1) Salvation is wholly a work of God. [This would mean that nothing we do is involved. Salvation depends on divine fiat.] 2) Salvation comes to those who receive the offer of salvation. [If salvation is only an _offer_ is not wholly an act of God]. You can't have it both ways. The time for man to make a choice ended with Adam. That was the covenant of works. As soon as you add any aspect of choosing you turn the atonement into a pass/fail prohibition test, just like eating the fruit. If you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? They believe exactly the same thing and they've got their theology worked out completely. Plus they've got good views on worship, and even though their opinions on the Sacrament are pretty weird, they're often better than most Protestant churches. So if you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? Where did you go to college? And how can you possibly get around the statements of God's sovereign choice in Romans? I'd be fascinated to hear how you can interpret "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" as anything but elective in nature. You sat under _Hasker_?! Yes, I've read him. Heard him speak actually. May God have mercy upon you. In case you hadn't been following him lately, Hasker is currently at the forefront of the utterly godless and pagan "open theism" movement (and I will neither retract that nor apologize for it). I couldn't get through the book without throwing it across the room on a number of occasions. Don't get me started on Hasker. Suffice it to say that I do not regard him as a Christian brother. You can believe a lot, but open theism is too far. Enough on that. I really don't want to talk about it here or at all, for that matter. |
||||||
51 | Ten Commandments obsolete? | Rom 10:4 | orthodoxy | 6641 | ||
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Christ fulfilled the entire Law by his atoning work. But the Law has never been the way of salvation. It has always pointed to Christ. But no in the sense that it still does apply to us, _through Christ_ as a manifestation of God's character. So even though we no longer stone for adultery (might not be a bad idea though), we can still learn at least the following things from Mosaic discourse on the subject: 1) God deems it as worthy of temporal execution, so the state would do well to affix penalties to marital unfaithfulness; 2) since execution has been replaced with excommunication, the church should not be squeemish about excommunicating for it; 3) extra-marital sex is more serious than pre-marital sex (not the death penalty for the former, but less than that for the latter); 4) there are clearly defined limits to acceptable sexual behavior. It must be remembered that these commands have nothing whatsoever to do with justification, but everything to do with sanctification. We are called to obedience, and we know how to obey by examining the Law through the lens of Christ. |
||||||
52 | What is an apostate? | 2 Thess 2:3 | orthodoxy | 6524 | ||
"Heresy" is actually a difficult term to nail down. Definitions include: unbiblical doctrine: this is the broadest definition of heresy that which denies one of the ecumenical creeds and councils: Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, etc. A few others may be included, but these are most widely accepted. anything that has been condemned by the whole church in council: Pelagianism, Donatism, Manicheism, Montanism, Tritheism, Modalism, Gnosticism, etc. Since the church was only united as a single organization for a few centuries, most of these will be pretty old, but most of them are also hardy perennials, like weeds that you can't get rid of (Gnosticism and Pelagianism especially) Personally, I use "heresy" most frequently to refer to the last two, since there is so much unbiblical doctrine floating around. "Apostasy" is much easier to define. It is simply turning one's back on God. Thus, only a one-time Christian can be apostate. Pagan's cannot, for they were never in the covenant to begin with. Also, covenant children cannot ever be pagan, only apostate, since they started out inside the covenant. Hope that helps. |
||||||
53 | Where's the line? | 2 Tim 2:23 | orthodoxy | 5510 | ||
I have always considered questions to become "foolish and ignorant" when asked by people who are more interested in causing controversy or picking a fight than producing edifying dialogue. Pagans raising the same objections again and again is foolish and ignorant. So is nagging at a doctrine when one is not interested in changing one's own opinion or anyone elses. I believe that all subjects are open to honest speculation, but no subjects are open to foolish and ignorant speculation. Question for you though: do you have any Scriptural support for the idea of human free will? I've always considered it to be an extra-biblical concept and would be interested in another opinion. |
||||||
54 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | orthodoxy | 5782 | ||
This question is easy to answer, for it has been asked and answered in church history. The Athanasian Creed states: Now the catholic* faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. Actually, the possibility you present, that God exists as one person with three manifestations, is a long recognized heresy, Sabellianism, also called modalism. This was officially recognized as heresy in the third century and Sabellius, the theory's originator, was excommunicated. It has been firmly established that one cannot be part of the Christian church and hold to modalism. This is not intended to be a condemnation of anyone, but a simple word of warning. *a word rich in tradition simply meaning "universal." It is only when capitalized, thus: "Catholic," that this term refers to Rome. |
||||||
55 | Where is faith from? | Heb 11:1 | orthodoxy | 6156 | ||
Faith is a gift from God, and is the means through which God applies his grace in our lives (Eph. 2:8). Hebrews 11:1 is a good starting place, but there is more to it than that. Faith is the gift of God's spirit and has no origin in man (Rom 1:5, 5:2, 12:3, 1Tim. 1:14). It is the same for all believers, but is not something that we naturally possess and may allocate as we see fit. | ||||||
56 | Allocation or possession? | Heb 11:1 | orthodoxy | 6209 | ||
I was trying to dispel the common illustration about faith that equates it with assuming that the chair will hold me when I sit on it, or that the car will work when I drive it. That is most decidedly not faith. The popular argument goes something like: You put faith in the chair when you sit, so put your faith in God and be saved. The problem is not only is this not real faith, but we possess no saving faith of our own. And I do believe that some believers are given more faith than others. Certainly all are given "enough" to be saved. But some people have a much more difficult time trusting God than others. |
||||||
57 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6558 | ||
I think that limiting discussion to a few verses is a decidely bad way to go about this. The Gospel cannot be condensed to a few sentences. It took God a very large book, so why should we try and abridge it? I think it is hinging far too much on far too little to say that 1John 2:2 is decisive. First of all, "the world" does not have to entail every single individual in the world. To me, this looks synonymous with "the nations" which simply means "the Gentiles." Second, if the first is not the case, Scripture often uses hyperbole. Calvinists can say that Christ died for the world. But again, this does not necessitate that he died for everyone in the world. Since people are not actually mentioned, "the world" is decidedly vague. Third, you are still left with the problem that if Christ died for something, then it is paid for and nothing bars that person from heaven. Yet not all go to heaven. Problem. Finally, there is the matter of the unforgivable sin. To me, this is a blatant statement that Christ did not die for all sins. THe only way to get around this is to say that Christ's death is not actual forgiveness, but possible forgiveness. This is not an option. Anyone have a solution? |
||||||
58 | When is the World not the World? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6574 | ||
You cannot understand individual verses apart from the whole of Scripture. 1) Your original assertion was that there is no other way to read "world" than "every individual person in the world," even though that isn't actually what the text says. I suggested a few viable options, which would render your original assertion, that there is only one way to read this verse, invalid. 2) It sounds clear to me, and it clearly doesn't mean that everyone is atoned for. How? Other passages in Scripture. You can't just pick out a single verse and say that it is decisive. And there really isn't a "plain meaning of the text" any more than there are brute facts. _Everything_ is interpretation, the trick is to make sure that your interpretation is Biblical. 3) If the atonement is an accomplished fact for every individual, why doesn't everyone go to heaven? Because they didn't receive the gift of salvation? Is refusing the gift sin? Wouldn't that sin be atoned for? 4) I don't think that the unforgivable sin is a problem for me it all. It clearly states that God does not forgive everyone. If the atonement is an accomplished fact, something you have already admitted, this means that he did not die for everyone. Actually, this is a good illustration of why individual verses _cannot_ be allowed to define our doctrine. Your reading of this verse is in direct contradiction with the following verses: Rom. 9:12-15 Jude 4 Eph. 1:11-12 Rev. 20:15 and many others as well. Your interpretation also stands in direct contradiction to God's pattern of election in all of history. God chose Abel, not Cain. Noah, not the rest of the people. Abraham, and no one else. Isaac, not Ishmael. Jacob, not Esau. Judah, not Reuben, Simeon, Levi, or Joseph (or any other of the brothers). Moses, not Aaron. David, not Saul. And the elect, not everyone. It is also in stark contrast to God's covenantal language. It is _he_ that placed emnity between the serpent and the women; it is _he_ that provided the lamb in place of Isaac; it was _he_ who brought the Israelites out of Egypt; it is _he_ who was struck that the Israelites might drink; it is _he_ who is both the promise and the keeper of the promise. There is absolutely nothing left for us to do. Plus, you still have to come up with a way of making the atonement both an accomplished fact and somehow conditional upon something other than God. |
||||||
59 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6627 | ||
I'll take your suggestion and focus on a single area. Namely, the distinction you draw between the "offer of the gift" and the "acceptance of the gift." I deny that such a distinction exists. I do not think that the gospel is offered. I do not think that the gospel is accepted. I think that the gospel is _applied_ by the Holy Spirit on the elect. God _saves_ sinnesr, he does not _offer_ salvation. Can you find any place in Scripture that says that he does? About hermeneutics. I can apply exactly the same standard to you as you did to me. The reason that non-Reformed students of Scripture place so much emphasis upon isolated phrases is that when the entire weight of Scripture is considered, it disallows anything but Reformed theology. And you are committing exactly the thing you refuse to allow me to commit. 1John 2:2 _does not say_ that every individual is saved. That is the fallacy of division, saying that what can be said of the whole can be said of every part of the whole. You simply can't do that. 1John 2:2 makes no reference to individuals. None at all. You have to assume that "the world" always means "every individual," an assumption I deny as having no Scriptural basis. |
||||||
60 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6628 | ||
I'll take your suggestion and focus on a single area. Namely, the distinction you draw between the "offer of the gift" and the "acceptance of the gift." I deny that such a distinction exists. I do not think that the gospel is offered. I do not think that the gospel is accepted. I think that the gospel is _applied_ by the Holy Spirit on the elect. God _saves_ sinnesr, he does not _offer_ salvation. Can you find any place in Scripture that says that he does? About hermeneutics. I can apply exactly the same standard to you as you did to me. The reason that non-Reformed students of Scripture place so much emphasis upon isolated phrases is that when the entire weight of Scripture is considered, it disallows anything but Reformed theology. And you are committing exactly the thing you refuse to allow me to commit. 1John 2:2 _does not say_ that every individual is saved. That is the fallacy of division, saying that what can be said of the whole can be said of every part of the whole. You simply can't do that. 1John 2:2 makes no reference to individuals. None at all. You have to assume that "the world" always means "every individual," an assumption I deny as having no Scriptural basis. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |