Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 89653 | ||
Dear Tim You said that only the Arminian can produce verses to support their views. What an outrageous statement. When it comes down to exegesis, the Reformed position is the only one that stands SOLA SCRIPTURA, while the Arminian view must, by sheer necessity, import something into the text that is either outside Scripture or a blatant misuse of CONTEXT. You certainly do have your traditions, (emphasis on traditions) of which I used to hold as well until I was challenged to truly THINK about the issues at hand in light of ALL of Scripture. You all have your "Pet" proof-texts that have been consistently shown to be illogical or irrevelent given their own context (i.e. John 12:32), yet the heart of the issues never seem to be touched upon. Some of the questions you ask indicate that even though you say you know what Calvinist believe, one is left to wonder if that's really true. For example, "If God can draw some, why can't He draw all"? Now, don't you understand that it's not a matter of "CAN GOD" but rather "WILL GOD". I believe the DRAWING is directly related to SALVATION and you have shown me absolutely NOTHING for me to consider to the contrary. If you won't deal with John 6:35-45 within it's own context, and instead choose to quote John 12:32 from the hip, then please take the time to reconcile the FACT that those who are drawn are given eternal life (John 6:44). You see, there is nothing in John 12:32 to suggest that it is referring to salvation. In Christ, JIBBS |
||||||
2 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | BradK | 89664 | ||
Dear Jibbs, I think you're being a little hard on our brother Tim:-) He has spoken with wisdom and shows a scriptural basis for his views. Though I would consider myself a "Calvinist", and have followed this thread, the majority of what Tim has stated I would agree with. Jibbs, when you say "When it comes down to exegesis, the Reformed position is the only one that stands SOLA SCRIPTURA, while the Arminian view must, by sheer necessity, import something into the text that is either outside Scripture or a blatant misuse of CONTEXT.", I have to say that's an overstatement at best. Without attempting to be drawn into this fray, allow me to offer a couple brief observations for thought. What we're really dealing with is one's foundation of interpretation, is it not? 1. To be true to the principle of Sola Scriptura, we must allow the Bible to be its own interpreter. It would seem, in practice that this principle is largely ignored, We can see both Catholic and Protestant churches that interpret the Bible in light of the historical teachings of their church or confessional statements; 2. Absolute objectivity is practically impossible. None of us approaches the study of the Bible empty-headed. Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, Protestants,Charismatics, etc. approach the study of the Bible with a mind set already conditioned by traditional interpretations. We certainly should strive for objectivity by controlling our presuppositions, with the goal being that of understanding what scripture says, rather than reading into the text, our own presuppositions. Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 89696 | ||
Dear Brad Thanks for the reply. I hope Tim knows that I was not being "hard" on him at all. It's not personal. My last post to him was hastily put together since I was very short on time, hence the slightly to-the-point tone I took. Now, the point of this whole discussion is that Tim will only go as far into the discussion as his traditions allow. But as soon as LOGIC shows the absurdity of the universal atonement position based on Scripture, the head goes in the sand. I'll discuss the issue with anyone, as long as they consider for a few seconds that the interpretation they've had for 30 years just may not be the Law of the Land. THerefore, my challenge stands as is: Show me on what basis anyone is judged for their sin if Christ paid for every sin of every person on the Cross. Right there the Arminian has some serious logical problems in his position. Yet not one word has been said in any attempt to offer a Biblical explanation. I can explain it, but then again, you have to be a big bad Calvinist for the Atonement (THE CORNERSTONE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS!) to be a logical aspect of the faith. Regarding presuppositional philosophy, I respectfully submit to you that it IS the Reformed position that attempts to honestly interpret Scripture using proper hermaneutical methods. If there is anything consistent in Arminian theology, it would be consistent misuse of Scripture context to support--you got it--their own unBiblical presuppositions. Tim thinks that by offering a verse that says Christ died for all without interpreting it in it's own context somehow counts as exegesis and the verse becomes the ABSOLUTE standard by which we should view the atonement. Here's how I see it--I have no problem with someone being in disagreement with me, but at least take the time to explain yourself beyond the quoting of a few proof-texts. These issues are eternally vital! If I'm in error, then please take the time to show me why in an intellectually honest way and--ABOVE ALL--we should ALL keep our minds open and be willing to be taught. Have a good night. In Christ, JIBBS PS You mentioned presuppostional philosophy. Are you into reading Van Til or Bahnsen? |
||||||
4 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | BradK | 89720 | ||
Jibbs, Thanks too for your comments and reply:-) In answer to your question "Are you into reading Van Til or Bahnsen?" No. I'm not familiar with either of them. Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||