Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||