Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
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 | Reformer Joe | 70282 | ||
"p.s. - What would you think if I told you that Rom. 3:23 didn't really mean that 'all' have sinned, but only some?" Well I could point you to the immediate context of Romans 3:9-18 to demonstrate the universal nature of that word in this case. And, by the way, taking the entire context of the Bible into account, I would say that even this "all" doesn't include every single human being who ever lived. Can you think of one man who hasn't sinned? A very prominent biblical figure comes to mind... --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70294 | ||
Greetings Joe! Concerning Rom. 3, I could then turn around and say that based on Rom. 3:9, 'all' here only refers to all kinds of people, both Gentile and Jewish! ;-) By the way, God in the flesh doesn't count! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70307 | ||
"Concerning Rom. 3, I could then turn around and say that based on Rom. 3:9, 'all' here only refers to all kinds of people, both Gentile and Jewish! ;-)" Do you really think that the first three chapters of Romans do not provide a much better supporting context for our common understanding of "all" in Romans 3:23 than the first six verses of 1 Timothy 2? Paul even includes all the "no, not one" statements just to be clear on this one. :) "By the way, God in the flesh doesn't count! :-)" Of course, I agree that the "all" Romans 3:23 does not include Jesus. But how can one conclude by looking at this verse that "God in the flesh doesn't count"? Jesus is more than God parading around in skin. He is also a Jewish human being now and forever. I don't want to beat the point to death as is common here, but I think we can agree that "all" is SOMETIMES (not always) qualified by the rest of the Bible. Other passages where I believe we would agree that the "all" is qualified by the sense of the rest of Scripture: "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." --Matthew 21:22 "And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." --Mark 1:5 "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" --Romans 8:32 "but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith" --Romans 16:26 "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved." --1 Corinthians 10:33 "Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord." --Colossians 3:22 "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men" --1 Timothy 2:1 You will say something along the lines of "It's obvious in these cases what the writers meant," and I agree. We have to exercise reason in discerning the meaning of the text. It is not that "all" is some kind of universal NT code word for "some." Rather, it is just too simplistic that to say in the case of every occurrance of the word "all" that it necessarily means every single possible thing or person that can belong to the category in question. And that's "all" I have to say on the subject! (And many are hoping that "all" really does mean "all" here!) --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70317 | ||
Greetings Joe! You wrote: "Rather, it is just too simplistic that to say in the case of every occurrance of the word "all" that it necessarily means every single possible thing or person that can belong to the category in question." Here is exactly where we disagree. I would say that unless the text modifies 'all' in some sense, or unless we have an obvious example of hyperbole, then 'all' does include every single possilbe thing or person that can belong to the category in question. Rom. 3:23 does not qualify or restrict 'all' in any sense, so we would both be in agreement that 'all' here means every single individual; past, present, or future. However, neither does 2 Peter 3:9. To make his point clear, Peter uses two pronouns. The first in the phrase 'not wanting anyone to perish' is an indefinite pronoun. The second is in the phrase 'but all to come to repentance'. The text doesn't say, 'any of you'. The text doesn't say 'any of the elect'. The context doesn't talk about rulers like has been argued with 1 Tim. 2. So, there isn't any qualifier of any sort in the passage. Neither is there any verse in the Bible which states that Christ does not desire all to be saved. So, why change the clear meaning of the text? I personally believe that God is perfectly capable of expressing Himself clearly. There are words in Greek for 'some' or 'part'. God could have even had Peter say 'all of the elect', which would have cleared this point up for all time. So, it appears to me that the meaning of 'all' is changed here simply because it conflicts with a theological system of thought, not because of anything in the text. Have a Great Christmas my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70326 | ||
"Here is exactly where we disagree. I would say that unless the text modifies 'all' in some sense, or unless we have an obvious example of hyperbole, then 'all' does include every single possilbe thing or person that can belong to the category in question." But, see, that doesn't even address all the verses I cited in my previous post. Let's just look at the first one: "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." --Matthew 21:22 This verse is frequently used by the "name-it-and-claim" it crowd to suggest that riches and power and perfect health are theirs for the asking. There is nothing in the immediate context that modifies the term "all things." So are these folks right in their interpretation? I think we would both say "no." What would be your answer to why "all things" really doesn't mean "every single thing imaginable," using only Matthew 21? "Rom. 3:23 does not qualify or restrict 'all' in any sense, so we would both be in agreement that 'all' here means every single individual; past, present, or future." But Paul does not intend to include every single individual here, but rather every single individual minus one. The rest of Romans and the rest of the New Testament makes it plain, as you and I will agree, that Jesus Christ the human individual is exempted from this judgment. We have already discussed 2 Peter 3:9 several timesbefore. We just disagree on whether the context of the verse ("patient toward YOU"), the chapter and the epistle qualifies the word "all" or not. And looking at longer, more explanatory passages like John 6:38-65 and Romans 9:18 ff. and Matthew 13:10-15 (the larger context of the New Testament), I see the same type of exegetical work required as we have in excluding Jesus from the "all have sinned" statement. By the way, I agree wholeheartedly that it is absurd to even suggest that Paul had Jesus in mind here, but the basis of declaring it absurd is not from the lexical use of the word "all," but rather the overwhelming testimony throughout the New Testament of Jesus' perfection. The verse in 1 Peter 3 is, of course, not nearly as obvious, but the Reformed arguments regarding this verse are not nearly as ridiculous and as unfounded on Scripture as their opponents claim them to be. --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Morant61 | 70357 | ||
Greetings Joe! I could agree with you my friend if there were one verse which says that God does not desire to save someone! Then, we would have to make a choice based upon two apparently contrasting verses. However, their isn't one! The only contraditory statements are the assumptions of Calvinism, which are not explicit in Scripture. Again, I would say that if I came to you with a doctrine and supported it by saying that this word doesn't really mean this, and that word doesn't really mean that, ect...., that you would rightfully laugh me off of the forum! :-) But, we apparently don't 'all' agree on these points! :-) Regardless, I appreciate you my brother and friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Emmaus | 70360 | ||
Tim and Joe, May I recommend an interesting book relavent to this discussion? Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"? with A Short Discourse on Hell by Hans Urs Von Balthasar Ignatius Press Emmaus |
||||||