Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | romans | 70163 | ||
Dear John Reformed, I was following the discussion on the question "Is God somehow repsonsible" until I read your reply. If I may say "I was so stunned" by your statement that God loves only the Christians. All along I thought God loves all as in ALL (all people universaly as you put it). In a layman's point of view, I strongly disagree with that view in regards to the following verses that I believe prove otherwise. 1) John 3:16 say "For God so love the world ...whoever believes in HIM..." The question here is who is the "WORLD?" I believe the world refers to the righteous and unrighteous; believers and unbelievers; Christians and Gentiles. Furthermore, it says 'WHOEVER' that I am quite sure means "anyone whether Christians or Gentiles." 2) If God only loves the Christians, what is His feeling towards the unbelievers, moreso to the soul who are already in hell? I can't say HE neither love nor hate them because there ie no neutral ground when it comes to God (you are either hot or cold; Rev.3:15). Then, God must hate the unbelievers. But with this view, the following verses will prove otherwise. The following verses will prove that God loves the unbelievers too. 2Pt. 3:9 says "...not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Ezekiel. 18:23 says " Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD . Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel 18:32 says "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD . Repent and live!" In fact, the preceeding verses tell us that God is wanting the unbelievers to repent and be save. Would God takes time and effort, not mentioning giving His Son to die on the cross, to the unbelievers if He does not love them? Just look at the story of Nineveh in the of Jonah. Though the people of Nineveh were wicked but because God loves them, He sent Jonah that they may repent and so they did. You might want to read Jonah 4:10-11. Later in history, we learned that Nineveh was still detroyed because they went back to their wickedness. But God loved them. Jesus died for all sins (sins of the Christians and unbelievers) that is why everyone is invinted to come and have feast with the Lord (Jn. 3:16 - 'whoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life.'). Since He died for all sins, He must have loved/loves all people. Though Jesus died for all and loves all people, it does not mean all/everyone will be saved. It is up to individual if he/she will accept the gift of eternal life from God. The gift of God to all is eternal life BUT THAT GIFT WILL NEVER BE YOURS OR MINE UNLESS WE TAKE THAT GIFT FROM HIM. MEANING THE GIFT, THOUGH IT IS FREE AND FOR US, WILL REMAIN IN GOD'S POSSESSION UNLESS WE ACCEPT AND TAKE IT. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
2 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | John Reformed | 70184 | ||
Dear Romans, I appreciate your concern regarding my statement about God's love and how it applies to mankind. I should have explained myself in more detail. It is true that God loves all people, but He has a special kind of love toward those He has elected to salvation. This "special" love is that of a father for his children or a husband for his wife. What I had in mind, when I made my remark, was the false doctrine known as "the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." This doctrine stems from the teaching that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind i.e., "unlimited atonement". The historical (and I hold, biblical)teaching of the protestant faith has been a "limited atonement". "Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25). This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!" (reformed.org) You wrote: "1) John 3:16 say "For God so love the world ...whoever believes in HIM..." The question here is who is the "WORLD?" I believe the world refers to the righteous and unrighteous; believers and unbelievers; Christians and Gentiles. Furthermore, it says 'WHOEVER' that I am quite sure means "anyone whether Christians or Gentiles." I disagree because the verse says "whosoever believes". Who will believe? Those whom have been chosen and whose names have been written in The Book of Life from eternity. We love God because He first loved us! I would gladly respond to the other verses you listed, but I would like a reponse to this post before going further. God Bless, John |
||||||
3 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70206 | ||
Greetings John! I would like to respond to the Scriptures you use to support a limited atonement. 1) John 17:9 has nothing to do with atonement or the extent of atonement. Jesus simply says that He is praying for His disciples and not the world. 2) Eph. 5:25 - If Christ died for all, then obviously He died for the parts as well. So, it could be said to even one individual that Christ died for 'you', but that does not mean that Christ therefore did not die for anyone else. So, it does not logically follow from the statment that Christ gave Himself for the church that He therefore did not actually give Himself for those who are not currently part of the church. 3) Mt. 26:28 seems to be your best 'proof'. However, even it falls apart when we read other passages where 'many' clearly means 'all'. In Romans 5:15 did only 'some' die because of sin, or did 'all' die because of sin? In Rom. 5:19, were only 'some' made sinners, or were 'all' made sinners? Concerning John 3:16, there is nothing in the verse to indicate that Christ's death is limited to only those who believe. The construction is that "He died for the world, that those who believe...". Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | John Reformed | 70218 | ||
Hi Tim 1) John 17:9 has nothing to do with atonement or the extent of atonement. Jesus simply says that He is praying for His disciples and not the world. Context says it has everything to do with atonement. John 17:20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word 2) Eph. 5:25 - If Christ died for all, then obviously He died for the parts as well. So, it could be said to even one individual that Christ died for 'you', but that does not mean that Christ therefore did not die for anyone else. So, it does not logically follow from the statment that Christ gave Himself for the church that He therefore did not actually give Himself for those who are not currently part of the church. You are partially. The elect are the church past, present and future. But there is no support for Christ's dieing for the sake of the reprobate (those whom God has witheld saving grace). Grace never fails and those whom God bestows it upon always will come to Him. 3) Mt. 26:28 seems to be your best 'proof'. However, even it falls apart when we read other passages where 'many' clearly means 'all'. In Romans 5:15 did only 'some' die because of sin, or did 'all' die because of sin? In Rom. 5:19, were only 'some' made sinners, or were 'all' made sinners? It is interesting how this arguement about many and all can be flipped when it defends one's position. Please bring this to attention od EdB and Hank :-) Concerning John 3:16, there is nothing in the verse to indicate that Christ's death is limited to only those who believe. The construction is that "He died for the world, that those who believe...". Neither does it support unlimited atonement. I must stop for now. John |
||||||
5 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70228 | ||
Greetings John! I was hoping you would bring up the point about 'all'! :-) There is a difference. The first has to do with context. There isn't any passage of Scripture which deals with salvation where it can be shown that 'all' can mean both 'all' or 'some'. In fact, the only passages where it can be shown that 'all' means anything other than 'all' is where it is modified by a phrase such as 'all believers' or 'all women', ect... In these cases, cleary 'all' is a subset of a bigger set. Or, sometimes 'all' can be used in hyperbole, like 'the whole world came to see Him'. However, these various uses of 'all' can never be demonstrated conclusively in any context involving salvation or the extent of the atonement. It is only assumed because of theological demands. Whereas, 'many' (as I quoted in my previous post) is found in two identical contexts, both dealing with sin and salvation. In Romans, it is clear that 'many' means all, unless you want to argue that not all have sinned! :-) So, your challenge is to demonstrate from Scripture a passage where the text clealy indicates that 'all' doesn't mean 'all' when Scripture says such things as: John 1:7 - "He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe." Romans 11:32 - "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." 2 Cor. 5:14 - " For Christ?s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died." 2 Pet. 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." To take these very clear verses and turn 'all' into 'some' is to make language absolutely meaningless. Greek has a word for 'some'. If God had meant 'some', He could have simply inspired the writers to use that word, but He didn't! :-) Concerning John 3:16, I would say that the statmenet that Jesus died for the 'world' does support unlimited atonement. For whom did He die? He died for the world! Finally, concerning John 17. The priestly prayer of Jesus is clearly divided into three sections. In John 17:1-5, He prayer for Himself. In John 17:6-19, He prays for His 12 disciples. In John 17:20-26, He prays for future believers and the world. However, not one of these verses says anything about the extent of the atonement, just the extent of the prayer. In fact, if we want to make John 17 an extent of the atonement passage, then we would have to include John 17:21, where Jesus prays that the world might believe through the witness of the disciples. ;-) Are you and your family ready for Christmas? My kids can't wait! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Emmaus | 70233 | ||
Tim, Let me throw these questions into the mix for everyone's consideration. Do you see a connection between the doctrine of double predestination and the doctrine of extrinsic justification? Or to adapt Luther's analogy in Bondage of the Will, does God ride man's will and soul to heaven in some cases and to hell in other cases, since even if one ackowledges the Devil, God's sovereignty demands that the Devil too is subject to God's will and his acts are also predestined and the Devil is therefore God's agent? Emmaus |
||||||
7 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70237 | ||
Greetings Emmaus! I'm not sure I follow your question completly, but if I am on the right track I would say that there is no necessary connection. I reject double predestination, but I do accept extrinsic justification. So, I don't see that either is necessary for the other. Maybe you can clarify your question for me! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Emmaus | 70244 | ||
Tim, Can extrinsic grace elevate a man to the ability to make a truly free choice or does that require intrinsic grace? If grace is extrinsic it does not really change the man's nature but only covers the dung hill. Whereas intrinsic grace transforms fallen man. Personally, I can't see how extrinsic grace can be sanctifying if it is truly extrinsic since sanctifications would seem to be something intrinsic. Emmaus |
||||||
9 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70314 | ||
Greetings Emmaus! Thanks for clarifying your question my friend! I quess I would respond in two ways! First of all, I'm not one who really believes that the Bible teachs that man lost the ability to make a free choice. Secondly, I think most Protestants would say that extrinsic (or forensic) grace is only one side of the coin. We see several works of God in salvation, one being justification and one being sanctification. So, to use your terminology, justification would be the extrinsic aspect of salvation, while sanctification would be the intrinsic aspect of salvation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
10 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Emmaus | 70321 | ||
Tim, Thank you for your response. I think that man makes a free choice, but that is made possible by an actual rather than sanctifying grace. Actual grace being a grace given for a specific purpose, but not necessarily sanctifying, such as the gift given to Balaam to prophesie. And of course where I come from we hold justifying grace and sanctifying grace to be the same and to be infused(intrinsic) as well as forensic(extrinsic). It just seems to me that when grace is extrinsic there is a certain logic that leads to the even the most extreme Calvinist position as found in Barth. In my neck of the wood we hold that God predestines (but not to damnation)and man makes a truly free choice, but that how those two actually interact is a mystery. There seems to be something about the Calvinist position that disdains the mystery and has to explain everything in this context by the logic of man. Which is not to say they do not acknowledge the mystery of God Himself, but that they seem phobic about admitting any mystery in the this particular(predestination / free will)context. What is lacking in the Protestant mileu is an authoritative Church voice to say "Enough already! It's a mystery!" Would you guys like to borrow a Pope of a Council? :-) Emmaus |
||||||
11 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70325 | ||
Greetings Emmaus! :) We could elect a Forum Pope! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
12 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | CDBJ | 70334 | ||
Tim, now you are even getting my interest up with that statement. We could elect a Forum Pope! I more or less stay out of the A and C debate as much as possible because neither one has ever been proven, or this debate wouldn’t even be going on. The idea of a Forum Pope might work though and just think of all the money the forum could make charging for each post? Do you think though that after a while we would quit using the Bible as our source of information and guide and depend on him for truth and guidance: we could call it excaforum. |
||||||