Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198725 | ||
Hello Doc, I am really not sure what you are getting at for 1 Tim 4:10. You said that "Had Paul intended the sense you suggest, he'd have not added the "specially" clause. Bringing the full scope of Scripture to bear on this verse, the orthodox interpretation has been that God is Savior to all men potentially, but of believers effectually." - First off, I am not sure what God is potentially the saviour of all men means. God has the power to save them all but doesn't? God doesn't live up to His potential? I am not sure what you are saying there, but you basically just add the words potentially, which aren't there. - Second, the "specially" clause doesn't negate what he said earlier. Check out these other verses that use the same word translated "specially" Gal 6.10 - As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. So we should potentially be good to all men, but in effect just to other Christians Phil 4.22 - All the saints salute you, chiefly (same Greek word) they that are of Caesar's household. All saints potentially salute you, but in effect just they that are of Caesar's household 1 Tim 5.8 - But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. So you should potentially provide for your own, but in effect just your own house. 2 Tim 4.13 - The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. Potentially bring all the books, but really just bring the parchments. No, none of these suggest that the first statement is negated by the use of the word specially in the second statement. It just doesn't work that way. You also say "Bringing the full scope of Scripture to bear on this verse". What this really means is "this is how my theology interprets this verse. We already know that God doesn't save everyone, so this verse must mean... All of us do this (myself included). We try to cram the Word of God into our theology. We do not use the word "specially" to negate the phrase before it, and to suggest so is to cram the verse into existing theology. 2 Corinthians 5-18:19 I was focusing on verse 19 which says " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," not the us in verse 18 which is talking about followers. 1 Tim 2:4-6, Not sure what you are saying here. You keep mentioning orthodox interpretations, but I am not interested in orthodox interpretations. What does the Scripture say? Our orthodox interpretation is merely the tradition of men. And we have "word of God of none effect through your tradition". I don't mean to slam you personally, just that I am not concerned with what learned theologians have to say. Finally, Col 1:20, 1 John 4:14, and many others say the same thing. Basically God will reconcile all and Jesus is the saviour of the world or maybe the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world, etc. |
||||||
2 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | DocTrinsograce | 198766 | ||
Dear Nick, You say, "I am not interested in orthodox interpretations." (sic) That is already clear from your heterodox interpretations. However, you had originally asked, "How can one say that Scripture does not support all being reconciled to God?" (sic) (I'm always assuming -- clearly erroneously -- that people mean what they say and say what they mean.) Hence, you have been kindly proffered answers. Since you are not interested in what the godly Christian scholars, pastors, teachers -- gifted to the church by Christ (Ephesians 4:8-16) -- of the last twenty centuries, I must ask a question: Why in the world bother to ask anything? If you demean all those wise and learned men, do you really esteem so highly what folks like us, on a public Internet forum? Seems highly doubtful. Son, asking a question affecting to be someone seeking knowledge, while in truth having some other agenda, is problematic on two counts: First, it is less than honest. Pressing an argument in ways contrary to the character of our Lord will edify none of us. It serves, at best, to weaken your entire position. Second, it is contrary to the explicit wishes of our gracious host. You see, when you sign up to participate in the forum, you commit yourself to the Terms of Use set forth by Lockman. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198774 | ||
Doc, I must admit, you have me on that first one. I did ask the question and you did provide the answer. However, about "not interested in orthodox interpretations", what I mean is that there are plenty of "Biblical theologies" out there. If Martin Luther had cared only about the Catholic interpretation we wouldn't have Protestants. Calvin didn't care about the Armenianest traditions, etc. To go one step further, Jesus didn't really care about the traditions of the Pharisees which were the learned men in the Jewish tradition. So what I mean to say about "not interested" is that just because it has been taught that way for awhile doesn't mean it is right. Secondly, I am not trying to be argumentative with my question. I brought it up because in that string there was "discussion" over Armenianism and Calvinism, but both sides made it clear that Universalism wasn't scriptural. All three sides have scripture to support them (even if out of context) so why is Universalism dismissed so easily? Finally, I do not mean to upset anyone or stir up trouble (though to be honest, saying God will reconcile all often has that effect). Thank you for your response. I see from your profile that you attempt to help many with their questions and have done so with me as well. If I offended I apologize. Nick |
||||||
4 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | DocTrinsograce | 198778 | ||
Dear Nick, Offending me is a matter of no consequence. Who we must honor is the Lord. Every road has two ditches. Be careful not to condemn something you've not studied, lest you find yourself in direct opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit. (Proverbs 18:3; Acts 5:39; Matthew 23:1-3) You asked, "Why is universalism dismissed so easily?" In a nutshell: It is rejected easily (by those who hold to sola Scriptura) because it is clear from Scripture that not everyone is saved. Let us allow this old thread to fade back into forum history. The majority of the participants have long since ceased to post. In Him, Doc |
||||||