Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Hebrews | John Reformed | 42283 | ||
Dear Tim, Thanks for your careful consideration of my post. Too many times, I respond before fully apprehending the thoughts of the writer (these lessons inhumility are no fun at all!). I'll get to your points sraightaway. 1) To what does the excemption clause of John 17:12 refer? Was Judas lost or not? My resonse is YES Judas was lost but he was never saved. I'll explain: "but Christ’s distinguishing Judas from those that were given him (for ei meµ is adversative, not exceptive) intimates that the truth and true religion ought not to suffer for the treachery of those that are false to it, 1 Jn. 2:19." (M. Henry Bible Commentary) The NASB translates ei meµ as except. The King James uses but. This may weaken your premise which is based on the word except. I don't consider this to be a small point, for if Henry is indeed correct, your contention is made on a flawed interpretation. My second point is that Jesus immediately labels Judas as "the son of destruction". I am not clear on why Judas is called by this term. It implies a state of being to me. When did Judas begin to reflect this title? We have no indication from scripture, except that whenever he is mentioned it is as a thorough-going rotter! When was he ever presented to us as an ardent lover of Christ? Never! Thirdly, we cannot overlook the fact that Judas was lost for a particular reason which was so that Scripture might be fulfilled. That can mean but one thing (please don't faint); Judas was preordained to perish. What else could it mean? One final point comes to mind. Why would God send His son to die for people He already knew were doomed? Would it not have been kinder to not have created them at all? Just a thought. 2) Can God's will for our lives be impacted by our choices? For instance, can God desire someone to be saved and that person not be saved? NO. God is soveriegn over all his creation. He has an eternal pupose that He will unfailingly accomplish. The Westminster Confession Chapter 3 - Of God's Eternal Decree 1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Heb 6:17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, Eph 3:11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, Tim, I've gone on too long and better sign off. Two questions. Of what benefit is the new creation if it can be cast aside like a garment? What do we have that we have not been given by God? One more question and I promise to close my mouth. God was not obliged to save anyone, if out of pure mercy He chose to save some and let others contiue in rebellion, how would that be unfair? Thanks Tim, John Reformed |
||||||
2 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Hebrews | Morant61 | 42584 | ||
Greetings John! Part two: 1) Mt. 23:37: My friend, none of the verses you quoted say anything at all about human ability or inability to choose within God’s sovereign plan. Each of these verses speaks of God’s plan - which is unchangeable. But, Mt. 23:37 specifically addresses the issue of God’s will for Jerusalem and their rejection of it. The word ‘thelo’ is the same word used in Rom. 9:18: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he WANTS to have mercy, and he hardens whom he WANTS to harden." (Caps indicate the word translated from ‘thelo’.) It is the same word used in Rom. 9:22: "What if God, CHOOSING to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?" In both of these verses, we are told by Calvinists that these are examples of God’s sovereignty. Yet, in Mt. 23:37, God would but Jerusalem would not! How do you explain Mt. 23:37 my friend? 2) Now, let me touch upon your questions. a) Is it fair to save some but not all? I don’t believe that I ever mentioned the issue of fairness, but my short answer would simply be this: God does not owe us anything. But, if He issues a universal call to salvation which is not truly universal in scope, then that would be unfair. Scripture clearly calls all to salvation. If, however, we then turn around and say that only some are given the ability to respond, then that would be unfair. b) What benefit is the new creation? In actual practice, I don’t think that our believes differ that much in terms of security. I reject the view of some Arminians that every act of sin causes us to lose our salvation. I am completely secure in my salvation, because it is based upon Christ’s finished work on the cross. However, just as I had to accept that gift, I also believe I can willfully reject that gift. Would I? No! Could I? Yes! In your tradition, you would simply say (probably) that someone who began the walk and fell away was never saved to begin with, whereas I would say that they had rejected the gift of salvation. Either way, they are lost! In terms of security, I have always wondered about the assurance of salvation that a Calvinist feels. I ask this question in all sincerity, I’m not trying to be a wise guy! How do you know that you are one of the elect? In my tradition, salvation is offered to all. Rom. 10:13 - "Whoever calls upon the Lord will be saved." So, I have complete assurance that I am a Christian because I called upon the Lord. But, in your tradition, how does one know that they are one of the elect? Just curious! Well, I’d better go my friend! I really enjoyed your latest post and I look forward to interacting with you more. Hopefully, we will be able to interact on some other issues in the future. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Hebrews | John Reformed | 42613 | ||
Dear Tim, Forgive me, but Mt 23:37 can be easily answered by close attention to the context of the passage in question. Matt 23:37..."Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Who is Jerusalem? Who are the children? (The following is from James White's "The Potters Freedom". 1)It is the leaders to whom God sent the prophets. 2)It is the Jewish leader who killed the prophets and those sent to them. 3) Jesus speaks of "your children," differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those whom the Lord desired to gather together. 4)The context speaks to the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees. White further states: "A vitaly important point to make here is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who "were not willing"! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they the leaders, would not allow Him to "gather". Jesus was not desiring to gather the leaders but the children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The "children" of the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. The "you would not" then is referring to the same men indicated by the context: The Jewish leaders who were "unwilling" to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of Christ. This verse then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matt 23: 13. (James White) "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Sola Scriptura, Brother John |
||||||
4 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Hebrews | Morant61 | 42628 | ||
Greetings John! Excellent response my friend! I only see one problem with the reasoning. White's argument doesn't deal with the fact that Christ's will was prevented by other's unwillingness. Even if one makes a distinction between the leaders and those Christ wanted to gather, the verse still indicates that Christ was not able to gather them because of the leader's unwillingness. Personally, I think it makes more sense as a reference to Jerusalem in general, but the identity of the groups involved is not the crucial issue. We are still left with a verse which says that Christ was unable to accomplish something He willed because others were unwilling. Further, judgement is being brought upon Jerusalem because of their unwillingness. Thus, the context indicates that judgement was not God's will for Jerusalem, but was the result of their unwillingness to respond to Him. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Hebrews | Ray | 42637 | ||
Hi Morant61, I think that Matthew 23:34-37 and John 11:52,53 are good verses to compare. From the heart, Ray |
||||||