Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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! |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||