Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6650 | ||
Greeting Orthodoxy! 1) There are two problems with your first paragraph. First of all, Rom. 5:15-17 specifically state that the two are not exactly parallel. Secondly, you never even attempted to deal with the word 'receive.' V. 17 specifically says that it applies only to those who receive it. 2) I think I dealt with this question in another post (I'm not sure it was in response to you though.) I see the atonement as uncondition, whil election is conditioned upon our acceptance. 3) Or, there is a third option. God offers salvation, not willing that any should perish. I've got to go to work now! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6950 | ||
Hello, again, Tim! Just wanted to put in a few brief points myself. Been busy working on a teen mission trip (yes, Calivinists DO evangelize! :) ), so I haven't had the luxury of following this thread too closely. 1) What evidence is in the text that receiving in Romans 5:17 is an active deed rather than a passive kind of receiving? 2) If we hold that election is conditional, who is really the one doing the choosing? Does that match up with Sho is choosing in every passage in the NT where this is brought up. In other words, where is there any comclusive, incontrovertible verse that states that we are at any point "free to accept or reject Christ." We both know that the "whosoever believes..." passages are not ignored by Calvinists, but easily fit into the TULIP framework. Is there anything else besides those, since we both agree that all who will believe are saved? 3) My biggest problem with this (and I am a fairly new Calvinist by the way -- last couple of years), is that a God who is not willing that any should perish is a God who fails to some extent in his redemptive plan. What I mean by this is that if he loves us all in a salvific way, then why would he not "do more" (which is within the capability of an omnipotent God) to change the minds of all who have rejected him? A corollary to this is the question, What makes some accept Christ and others reject Him, if the Holy Spirit works equally to "try and save all"? Thanks again for your dialogue. I do enjoy it! --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6955 | ||
Greetings Joe! Thnanks for the input! I've been busy too, but I'm just putting a transmission in my car! I would much rather be doing what you are doing! Good luck with the trip. 1) Your first question is an easy one. The word for 'receive' is a present active participle. If Paul meant for us to understand that they only received through an act of God, he would have used a middle or a passive voice to express that idea. An active voice indicates that the subject of the sentence or clause did the action. 2) With all due respect, "whosoever" passages only fit into a Calvanistic understanding by deny that 'all' really means all. Every Calvanistic interpretation I have ever read (and there have been many) of the universal passages has went to extreme lengths to say that 'all' only means all elect, not all individuals. There are a few passages were that case might be made from the context, but most of the time it simply doesn't work. For instance, 1 John 2:2 is such a verse. Your main question is a litte more difficult. It is more difficult simply because of the way it is phrased. If you assume that only those who believe will be saved, but God determines who will believe, then you have eliminated every single verse that says "believe and you will receive" as a proof text. However, even with this limitation, I still think there are many passages that make the case that the Gospel must be responded to or received. Let me deal with one in detail. a) 2 Cor. 5:11-21 is a passage where Paul deals with the ministry of reconciliation. Note that Paul states in this passage that Paul that Christ died for all men - 2 Cor. 5:14. He then describes what this truth means for those who "are in Christ" (i.e. - He is a new creation) - 2 Cor. 5:17. He says that all of this a consequence of the reconciliation that Christ accomplished on the cross - 2 Cor. 5:18-19a. However, Paul then goes on to describe his ministry of reconciliation. He says that he is like an ambassador, through whom God is making His appeal - "Be reconciled to God" - 2 Cor. 5:20. He also describes his ministry as one of persuassion (2 Cor. 5:11) motived by the love of Christ, which compels him - 2 Cor. 5:14. This passage cleary teaches an objective accomplished fact (unlimited atonement) which must be responded to. Compare also Romans 10, where the offer of salation is made to all through preaching. 3) I'm not quite sure how to respond to this point. I know that some Calvanists cannot accept an election of grace because their understanding of the nature of God's will does not allow for something that God's wills to not occur. I'm not if that is what you mean or not. My short answer is this: The offer of salvation is a free gift. It is sovereignly extended to "whosoever will", but man must repent from their sins and choose life. I don't see how God could do anything "more" to ensure our acceptance and still make the choice "free." Not to be mean, but why should the fact that some do not respond to the gospel cause you to think that God has somehow failed? Under Calvanism, God actively prevents people from being saved! 4) Concerning your corollary question: Look at Romans 11. Paul describes two classes of Israelites: those who are included in the election of grace and those who have stumbled and have been broken off of the olive tree (Israel). Note however that the reason for their rejection was their unbelief - Rom. 11:20. Paul also says that they can be grafted in again if they do not continue in their unbelief - Rom. 11:23. Salvation is not easy. It requires a choice between slavery to the flesh and slavery to God. Many people do not want to submit to God. They would rather live in, what they think is freedom, and fulfill the desires of their flesh. Thanks for your response Joe! I'll keep your missions trip in prayer. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6967 | ||
Thanks for the prayer, Tim. We have about 50 teens who are investing at least two weeks in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in a variety of different settings this summer. I do hold to a "sovereign will"/"moral will" distinction myself on the part of God, in which God's sovereign will is everything done according to his active involvement in affairs of creation, as well as his allowance of things that he allows that are outside his moral will (e.g. rebellious acts on the part of demons and humans, or "non-moral" acts such as me choosing the red shirt over the blue one). What I meant on the whole "God's will failing" is the following: 1. God is omnipotent and omniscient 2. If God is willing that no humans perish at all, then 3. He is either incapable of saving everyone or chooses to limit Himself in some way, stopping short of doing everything possible to convert the sinner. And from a Calvinist perspective, the only way God "prevents people from being saved" is by not extending saving grace to them. It is the depravity of their nature, their sin, their active rebellion against a holy God which prevents them from being in a right standing with God. It just doesn't logically follow that if God chooses to show undeserved kindness to some that all the rest suddenly deserve the kindness shown to the elect. The elect are shown mercy; the reprobate receive justice. No one is shown injustice. I would contend that NO ONE wants to submit to God in their unregenerate state. In looking at an Arminian view, why is God's "prevenient grace" effective in some and not in others? Does God not know what the "hook" is to reel the sinner in? Or is it that the one who chooses Christ is wiser or smarter or more intuitive or whatever? If the latter is the case, how can the one who chooses Christ not have a reason to boast superiority to the one who also received "prevenient grace" and didn't choose Christ? In short, what is the quality in the sinner that makes her choose Christ rather than reject Him if God's saving grace is extended to all, and how is that not meritorious in itself? --Joe! |
||||||
5 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6977 | ||
Greetings Joe! Obviously Calvanists and Arminians approach Scripture with different sets of assumptions. However, Scripture should be the final arbitrator. During the course of this thread, several people have asked me about specific passages of Scripture. I haven't tried to give honest and thorough answers about each passage. However, no one has responded concerning those passages. For instance, you asked me about Rom. 5:17. Then you asked me for Scripture demostrating that salvation is something that can be accepted or rejected. I responded with a fairly detailed examination of 2 Cor. 5:11-20. Before we go on to discuss why some accept and some don't, would you respond to these two passages from your perspective. a) Romans 5:17 uses an active voice for the verb 'receive.' The normal meaning of this would be that the subject does the receiving. How does this square with Calvanism? b) The most important passage is 2 Cor. 5:11-20. Paul describes there his ministry of reconcilation, given to him by God, in which he implores and persuades men to be reconciled to God as though God Himself were making the plea. Paul does so because the love of Christ compels him. His final command is this: Be reconciled to God. This passage seems like it is describing Arminianism perfectly. God reconciled the world to Himself in Christ (unlimited atonement), but those to whom Paul is preaching must "be reconciled (conditonal election)." As a Calvanist, how do you interpret this passage? Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran p.s. - Let us know how the mission trip goes! |
||||||
6 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6995 | ||
Okay, let's look: a) I admit unfamiliarity with the "middle passive" voice in Greek, so I am unable to comment on the grammatical particularites involved here. In any case, I do not contend that the active reception of a gift or faith runs contrary to the Reformed position in any case. Calvinists contend that we do choose Christ, that we do place our faith in Christ. It is volitional and active on our part, but only because the disposition of our hearts have been changed logically prior to exercising saving faith. This differs from Arminianism in the sense that it is more than a "prevenient grace" that merely makes us ABLE to receive Christ; it makes us WANT to do so. The verse does not imply that there are some to whom it is offered but not received. And, of course, the verse itself does not identify who those people are that will "receive the abundance of grace." However, let's see if we can infer who those individuals may be. We know that they are initially "ungodly" (5:6), which does describe everyone, but doesn't necessarily mean ALL ungodly men. The same verse also identifies the ungodly as "we," so does the "we" mean "we humans" or "we Christians" to whom the letter is addressed? Obviously the latter category is a subset of the former, so we need more to go on. We see that the "us" is continues in verse 8, in that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Same people being referred to here as in verse 6, unless you can see some reason why the "we" has shifted. Verse 9-10 shows that "we" have been "justifed by His blood" and "shall be saved of the wrath of God through Him" and "shall be saved by His life." Do Arminians hold that all humans fall into this category? Verse 11 shows the pronoun "we" again, in terms of having received reconciliation. Have all human beings been reconciled to God now? It seems that the "we" referred to is limited to Christians. Now it may be that Paul is not emphatically saying in this passage that the unsaved are unatoned for, but the "we" seems to be dealing with those who have been justified, reconciled, saved through Christ from the wrath to come. Therefore, the "ungodly" in verse 6 and the "us" in verse 8 seems very likely to be referring to believers. Now verse 17 is in the middle of a passage where Paul is comparing Christ's atonement to Adam's transgression. He uses the words "the many" to refer to both the condemned and the saved in all the verses except for 18, in which he states that Adam 's sin resulted in condemnation of "all men" and through Christ's death and resurrection "there resulted justification of life to all men." First of all, were ALL human beings condemned until Christ? Secondly, were ALL human beings justified through Christ? Keep in mind that justification means a "declaration of righteousness" and that there is no evidence that Paul is speaking of a "potential justification," just like he wasn't writing of a "potential condemnation." This is why Calvinists hold in many cases that "all men" means "all kinds of men" (which is really not any grammatical stretch) rather than "each and every human being." --Joe! |
||||||
7 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 7008 | ||
Greetings Joe! Thanks for the response! It is much easier to discuss an issue like this when we both deal with a particular Scripture or passage. Let me try to interact with your position. 1) I had to delete this point, my post was too long? :-) 2) Concerning your second, third, and fourth paragraphs: I would agree that the usage of ‘we’ through Rom. 5:1-11 is referring to believers. The context makes it abundantly clear. After all, he is writing to a church. However, that does not necessarily limit Paul’s comments about the actions of Christ only to believers. We have to ask, can Paul’s statements in Romans 5:6-10 also apply to all men? In other words, did Paul believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all men? Consider the following passages: a) 2 Cor. 5:19 - "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." Clearly in this passage, Paul felt that Christ’s atoning work applied to the WORLD, not just believers. b) 1 Tim. 2:4-6 - "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." Again, the ransom was for ALL men. c) Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." The reasons I appeal to these verses is simply this: While the specific audience of Romans 5:1-11 may be the church at Rome, what Paul says here applies equally to all men, as he makes clear in other Scriptures. So, one would not be guilty of reading something into the text to say that Christ died for all ungodly. Especially since, Rom. 5:10 uses the same terminology as 2 Cor. 5, where it is said that God reconciled the world to Himself. In answer to your final question of the fourth paragraph: Arminians would say that potentially all men are included in this category! 3) Concerning your fifth paragraph: According to 2 Cor. 5, all human beings have been reconciled to God at the cross. All that remains is for us to "be reconciled" as God Himself appeals to us through Paul. 4) Concerning your last paragraph: Romans 5:12-20 is the crucial passage for our discussion. Here Paul goes into a detailed explanation of what occurred as a result of Adam’s sin, and what occurred as a result of Christ’s death. You asked if all men condemned until Christ. According to v. 18, they were. You also asked if all men were justified through Christ. According to v. 18, they were. You also commented that Paul isn’t talking about "potential justification." However, isn’t that exactly the point of v. 17? Rom. 5:16 sets up a contrast, not a comparison. Continuing the contrast in v. 17, Paul says that death reigned upon all men through Adam’s sin (we know this from v. 12), but life only reigns in those who receive God’s grace. In light of Rom. 5:16-17, Arminians would say that atonement has been made for all men, but it effects only become active individually upon acceptance of the gift. I really appreciate your interaction. You have laid out a logical case. The only major weakness I can see is in your last sentence. And this is one of the major problems I have with Calvinism. Romans 5:12-20 is obviously dealing with the status of all men. Death came upon all because of Adam. Sin reigns in all because of Adam. Even Calvinists appeal to this passage for Original Sin. So, how can you take "all" in this passage to only mean all kinds of men? To me, this is the major weakness of Calvin, He was unwilling for all to mean all because his doctrine said that all could not mean all. You may have been trying to deal with this question in your last paragraph and I just didn't follow it. Can you provide one example where "all" clearly means "all kinds of men?" Frankly, I don’t buy that argument at all (no pun intended!) In English and in Greek, ‘all’ clearly refers to numerical quantity, not types. Where is there any indication in the verses I quoted in points 2a-c, that Paul is only saying that God only came to save certain kinds of people, and not every individual? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||