Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 7011 | ||
Greetings Joe! 1) I would agree that the 'we' and 'us' are obviously restricted to Paul's audience and his fellow ministers. However, that doesn't automatically restrict every pronoun in the passage to these two groups. Notice the following usages: a) V. 14 says that Christ died for all men. b) V. 16 says that Paul views 'no one' from a worldly view any longer. c) V. 19 says that God was reconciling the "world" to Himself. May I point out that every time you deal with a passage that says "all" or the "world", your objection is based upon your theology, not upon the text itself. 2 Cor. 5:11-20 simply does not make any sense under Calvinism, but it makes perfect sense under Arminianism. Our reconciliation is an accomplished objective fact at the cross (God was reconciling the world to Himself), but we must accept God's gift (and be reconciled.) You ask whose sins are people suffering in hell for? Their own, because they refused to accept the sacrifice of Christ, which was sufficient to pay for all our sins. I also notice that while you tell me what you think this passage can't mean in light of Calvinism, you do not provide any interpretation about what it does mean in light of Calvinism. What does it mean to "be reconciled" to God? Why is it an imperative? I do appreciate the dialogue. Even if we never agree, I am learning alot for our discussion. For instance, while studying 2 Cor. 5:20, I noticed that the command to be reconcilied is in the passive voice. That confused me totally for awhile! Typically, an active voice refers to the subject doing the action of the verb, while a passive voice refers to the subject receiving the action of the verb. The confusing part of this verse was that the verb is a command. How can a command be passive? Then it struck me. An excellent (and legitimate) way to translate that command would be: "Allow yourself to be reconciled." This address some of the concerns that Calvinists typically have. The reconciliation is totally a work of God, accomplished on the cross. However, we have to allow ourselves to be reconcilied. Therefore the command is an aorist, passive, imperative. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 7024 | ||
Tim: You said, "You ask whose sins are people suffering in hell for? Their own, because they refused to accept the sacrifice of Christ, which was sufficient to pay for all our sins." This is precisely my problem with the view of unlimited atonement. Did Christ die for any ACTUAL sins? Take a person (let's call him "George" for simplicity's sake). The view of unlimited atonement says that Christ died for George's sin on the cross. If George "refuses the payment," according to Arminianism, then George pays for his own sins for all eternity. Therefore, we have a case where Jesus AND George pay the penalty for George's sin. The only other alternative I see is viewing Jesus' death on the Cross as only a POTENTIAL atonement for everyone, rather than an ACTUAL atonement for the elect as Calvinists view it. Christ's death really saves no one unless we act in accordance with it. It is terribly troublesome to think that Christ and I both have to do something for Christ's sacrifice to not be a futile one. If there is another alternative that I am missing in which God ends up being just (no "double jeopardy") and Christ's sacrifice was an actual payment for the actual sins of actual people on the first Good Friday, please point that out to me. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
3 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 7029 | ||
Greetings Joe! You have asked an excellent question! Keep in mind that this forum limits how much detail I can go into, but I will attempt to answer your question from my perspective. Robert Shank has phrased this better than I ever could, so I am going to borrow his paradigm to explain my view of the atonement. 1) The atonement is efficacious for all men potentially. I believe that the atonement is a once and for all of Christ on the behalf of all men. The cross paid for every sin of every individual for all time. This is an objective reality that does not depend in any way upon anything that we might do or say. 2) The atonement is efficacious for no man unconditionally. I also believe that the benefits of the atonement are conditioned upon the basis of our "receiving - Rom. 5:17" the grace of God (Repentance). 3) The atonement is efficacious for the Israel of God efficently. I further believe that the atonement is efficent only for those who have become a part of the Israel of God (the Elect). The key point that I don't think you see (from my perspective) is that Arminians don't see the atonement as only potential, but an objective reality. To use a limited human version of your George example, Christ payed His debt, but George insists on paying for himself (which he can't do). By the way, this view corresponds exactly with 2 Cor. 5:11-20. The reconciliation is an objective fact provided by God, but we have to be reconciled. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||