Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 19460 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! Let's try a different approach! Scripture has to be the source of our definition of words. The word group dealt with in Rom. 3:25 and 1 John 2:2 is made up of a total of 4 words, each of which is used twice in the New Testament. Let us appeal to them and allow Scripture to define what 'propitiation' is or is not. 1) hilaskomai (# 2433): It is used in Luke 18:13 and Heb. 2:17. a) Luke 18:13 - "‘‘But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’" Here we see that 'propitiation' is something that a sinner can receive from God. b) Heb. 2:17 - "17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." Here we see that 'propitiation' is a high priestly function related to the sins of the people. 2) Hilasmos (# 2434): This word is used in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10. a) 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." Here we see that 'propitiation' is a sacrifice which Christ made for sin (for ours and for the sins of the whole world). b) 1 John 4:10 - "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." This verse says pretty much the same thing as 1 John 2:2, without mention of the world. 3) Hilasteerion (# 2435): This word occurs in Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5. a) Rom. 3:25 - " God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—" Here, we again see that 'propitiation' is a sacrifice. We also see a reference to the blood of Christ. Hence, drawing our attention to His death. b) Heb. 9:5 - " Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now." Here we have a reference to a part of the Ark. 4) hileos (# 2436): This word occurs in Mt. 16:22 and Heb. 8:12. a) Mt. 16:22 - " Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ‘‘Never, Lord!” he said. ‘‘This shall never happen to you!”" This word is used in the sense of 'May the Lord be merciful to you.' Thus, it is not very relevant to our discussion. b) Heb. 8:12 - "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”" Three things become abundently clear about 'propitiation' from these passages. 1) It is something done by Christ for us. 2) It is an atonement for sins. 3) It was done for everyone's sins. Nothing in these verses limits the extend of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. In fact, 1 John 2:2 spells out the extent. To be perfectly blunt, (in my opinion) it is only your reformed tradition which mandates that 1 John 2:2 cannot mean "the sins of the whole world". If all we had was 1 John 4:10, I could allow that your interpretation might be possible. Who are us? Could 'us' simply refer to the believers to whom John was writing? Of course it could be! But, 1 John 2:2 does not allow that interpretation. We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, not our theology. The wrath of God was appeased against all sin on the cross. According to Heb. 7:27, it was a once for all sacrifice, never to be repeated. It is only your view of election that prevents you from accepting the "all's" and "whole's" and "everyone's" of Scripture. But, that is your right! :-) As for me, if some tells me they are going to give me a "whole" pie, then I don't believe that they are only going to give me a part of a pie. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19524 | ||
Tim: How does the Arminian interpret Jesus' conversation with the Jewish leaders here? "Then He said again to them, 'I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.' So the Jews were saying, 'Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, "Where I am going, you cannot come"? And He was saying to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.'" --John 8:21-24 It seems from this passage that those who will not believe in Christ will die in THEIR sins. How is this possible if all sin was propitiated at the cross? And just a side note: Arminians also do not take every instance of "all" to mean "every single one." To be fair, you should point out that the Reformed do not say that "all" means "some," but rather we disagree as to whom the "all" is referring to. For instance, Ananias says to Saul: "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard." --Acts 22:15 Was Paul really a witness to all men? Even if we consider his epistles a "witness," is he even today a witness to ALL men? One more example, so as not to belabor the point. I would think that you would agree that every human being is not justified, but we have verses like this: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." --Romans 5:18 Now if we take this verse by itself, it would seem to teach universalism. We may disagree on the interpretation of this verse in its context, but I would think you would admit that ALL are not justified, since that comes through faith in Christ. The context qualifies words like "all," Tim. That is why we can go to 2 Peter 3:9 and say that the "all" in that instance could very well mean "all the elect" (cf. 2 Peter 1:1-2) rather than "all of humanity" (which clearly will NEVER happen). --Joe! |
||||||
3 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 19528 | ||
Greetings Joe! Good to hear from you my friend! Let me take each point seperately! 1) John 8:21-24: This one is simple! Verse 24 answers your question. It says, "if you do not believe....you will die in your sins." This is a conditional statement. Jesus gave them a choice. Even TULIP seems to teach that the benefits of the atonement are approriated by faith. The only difference is that TULIP teaches that only the elect will respond in faith, whereas I believe that salvation is a universal offer to which anyone CAN respond, but not everyone DOES respond. 2) Acts 22:15: I would say that Paul has witnessed to all men about what he saw and heard through the Bible. The verse never said that all men would hear it or read it. Either way, to say that all doesn't mean all here is a judgement call, not a fact. 3) Rom. 5:18: So does "all men" in the first part of the verse not refer to "all men"? Part of the problem with this verse is that there is not a single verb. It literally reads: "Therefore, as through one sin unto all men unto condemnation, so also by one righteous acts unto all men unto justification of life." However we interpret the verse, it is clear that there is an exact correspondence being described. One resulted in condemnation for all men and one resulted in justification for all men. We can't take the first "all men" to mean all men, and the second "all men" to mean some men. Now, to be clear, I do not believe in universalism. I think the key to understand v. 18 is found in vv. 17 and 19. Verse 17 refers to those who receive (active voice) the gift of righteousness and grace, while verse 19 refers to many being made righteous (not all). Therefore, I would say that verse 18 speaks to the potential of Christ's atonement. All can be made righteous (just as in Adam all were condemned), but only those who receive the gift (v. 17) of righteousness will be made righteous (v. 19). Thus, all in verse 18 does mean all (in both instances). 4) 2 Peter 3:9: In all honesty, this verse is not a problem for Arminians. It simply states that it is God's desire that all be saved. It never says that all will be saved. It is a problem for those of the reformed tradition (in my opinion) only because of it's definition of sovereignty. Hence, if God's desires all to be saved, all MUST be saved. Therefore, 'all' in 2 Peter 3:9 cannot mean all. I don't buy that line of thinking. 2 Peter 3:9 expresses God's desire, but He has not determined the outcome. p.s. - If God meant "all the elect" in 2 Peter 3:9, why didn't He just say so? :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19563 | ||
Tim: Regarding Acts 22, my point was that the savage in the deepest jungle of the Amazon forest has not been witnessed to by Paul. Therefore, not "all men." I know that this is so completely obvious so as to be ridiculous. However, the point I was trying to make was that most everyone understands that Ananias' words to Saul were not referring to every single individual on the earth at that time or ours. This is one blatantly obvious example of where "all" needs to be understood in a contextual/common sense fashion. Granted, 2 Peter 3:21 does not fall into the "blatantly obvious" category. However, the sweeping statement that the Reformed simply want to instantly re-define "all" to mean "some" does not really ring true. The problem that the Reformed have with the Arminian interpretation of this verse, incidentally, is that Peter is saying that the return of Christ has not come yet because God is waiting. Why is God waiting? Because he desires for all to come to Christ. When will ALL come to Christ? Never, and God knows that. If his desire regarding the salvation of each and every human being will not be met (God not ultimately getting what He wants is a BIG problem for me, but let's leave that for now), he has known that from the beginning. So once again, what is God waiting for? --Joe! |
||||||
5 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 19580 | ||
Greetings Joe! I don't know! You'll have to ask Him! :-) However, as someone from a good reformed background would say, "Just because we don't understand what He is waiting for, doesn't mean that it isn't so". ;-) My answer would be that Peter is illustrating a point. God could come at any time. The only thing holding Him back is His patience and His merciful desire for all to come to Christ. Peter doesn't go into detail about when enough will be enough. Concerning Acts 22, it is only a blatant example if you view it from the perspective of the hearer rather than from Paul's perspective. But, however you view it, I would say that there must be a very strong reason to change 'all' to some. 1 John 2:2 and 2 Pet. 3:9 are among those verse that I just don't see any justification for it, other than the necessity of reformed theology. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||