Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6575 | ||
Greetings, I wasn't expecting such a quick reply! My counter reply is: You cannot understand the whole unless you understand the parts. An appeal to the whole, to me, means I can't explain the verse! :-) 1) I don't believe I said there was only one way to read it. What I recall saying was that the natural reading is that the whole world refers to the whole world, not just part. For instance, if I said that I ate a whole apple pie today, the natural reading would be that 'whole' refered to the entire pie and not just a part of it. 1 John 2:2 says that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)" So, did He or did He not atone for the sins of the whole world? This is the natural reading. If you are going to read it otherwise, you must provide reason for understanding "whole world" in some other way than "whole world." 2) I'll deal briefly with the individual verses that you list later in your post. a) Romans 9:12-15: Is the election refered to here one of salvation or purpose? No where in this passage does it say that Isaac was saved and Esau was lost. In fact, Romans 9:11-12 states that God's purpose in election, which was not based upon works, was that the older would serve the younger. How does this contradict 1 John 2:2? b) Jude 4: You lost me on this one! God long ago, wrote about certain godless men who would deny Christ. How does this relate to 1 John 2:2? c) Eph. 1:11-12: This one deserves much more discussion (maybe a new thread!) My short response is this: The purpose of election in Eph. 1 is to bring Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. The Jews (the we of vs. 11) were the first to respond to the Gospel, but the Gentiles, (the you also of vs. 13) were also included among the elect when they responded to and believed the Gospel. My understanding of election is corporate in nature, not individual (per Robert Shank). Note however, that these verses no where state that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world. Where is the contradiction to 1 John 2:2? d) Rev. 20:15: Whose names are written in the book of life? How do they get there? Does this verse say that He did not die for those who are not in the book of life? 3 and 4) From my perspective, you are confusing he offer of the gift with the acceptance of the gift. Atonement has been made once and for all for all sin by Christ on the cross. However, the gift must be received or it does not save. In essence, Christ paid for our sins and now says, "Are you with me or against me?" If we reject His offer, we are lost. 5) Election history: Did God choose to save the indiduals you listed first and choose to condemn the ones listed second? Or did He choose to work through the first and not the second? This is one reason why Calvanist's (in my opinion) prefer to look at the whole and not individual verses, because there is not a single verse that says Christ died only for the elect or only for some. The fact that God choose to make David king over Saul does not mean that some are elected to salvation and others are not. 6) Plus: I can't come up with something to make the atonement conditional upon something other than God. It isn't conditional, it is an accomplished fact that we can choose to accept or reject. Thanks for you reply! Might I suggest that we narrow the focus in the future. These posts are getting long. You might pick one passage or one area that we could focus on for discussion. I'll go with the flow. Suggestion: Things like T.U.L.I.P. are helpful in distguishing between Calvanism and Arminianism. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6628 | ||
I'll take your suggestion and focus on a single area. Namely, the distinction you draw between the "offer of the gift" and the "acceptance of the gift." I deny that such a distinction exists. I do not think that the gospel is offered. I do not think that the gospel is accepted. I think that the gospel is _applied_ by the Holy Spirit on the elect. God _saves_ sinnesr, he does not _offer_ salvation. Can you find any place in Scripture that says that he does? About hermeneutics. I can apply exactly the same standard to you as you did to me. The reason that non-Reformed students of Scripture place so much emphasis upon isolated phrases is that when the entire weight of Scripture is considered, it disallows anything but Reformed theology. And you are committing exactly the thing you refuse to allow me to commit. 1John 2:2 _does not say_ that every individual is saved. That is the fallacy of division, saying that what can be said of the whole can be said of every part of the whole. You simply can't do that. 1John 2:2 makes no reference to individuals. None at all. You have to assume that "the world" always means "every individual," an assumption I deny as having no Scriptural basis. |
||||||
3 | All, but not All? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6629 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Thanks for narrowing the focus! Is or can the gift be accepted? Let me stick with one of the passages that we have been dealing with - Romans 5:17 says, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." I don't think that you would diagree that contextually the gift in Romans is salvation. In this passage, Paul is making a lengthy comparison and contrast of the act and subseqent effects of Adam's sin and the act and subsequent effect of Christ's death. To summarize Paul's point, death reigned upon all because of Adam's sin, but life regins in those who, according to v. 17, receive God's abundant provision of grace. The word receive is a Present Active, Participle. They did the receiving. To me, when he Bible says that someone received something, it's pretty clear. Concerning hermeneutics: I have been kind of joking around with you, but I do think this is an important point. Obviously, you need to look at all of Scripture to shape and accurate understanding of doctrine. We would agree on that point. However, you must deal with Scripture. Doctrine is not built by simply adding up the verses (558 say election vs. 400 say free will, therefore, election wins.) If you have a clear statement in even one verse that disagrees with your understading (or mine) of a doctrine, we must reexamine our presuppositions, not simply ignore the verse because it doesn't agree with our theology. (I'm not implying that you are doing this. I'm simply making the statement because I am concerned that appealing to the whole of Scripture without dealing with Scripture will lead to that problem.) p.s. - If I eat a whole pie, did I or did I not eat every part of the pie? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran. |
||||||
4 | All, but not All? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6639 | ||
Treat the examples of Christ and Adam as parallel. You didn't act to receive Adam's sin. In exactly the same way, you do not act to receive Christ's righteousness. Of course we still do receive Christ's righteousness, but it's like receiving, say, a swift kick to the head, or how the earth receives rain. No action on our part is required. Let me put it this way: Does Christ's death all alone, by itself, bring about justification? Or is some action in receiving it required? I want to say that the blood of Christ is sufficient by itself with no action on our part. Do you? Reprobation is not spelled out very clearly in Scripture. It is simply the flip side of election. You can't have one without the other, for if God chooses some people to save, that means that he chooses other people not to save. If I can prove election, reprobation follows. |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | kalos | 6870 | ||
TULIPism does not see 2) or 3) as viable alternatives. | ||||||
7 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6871 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I agree that answers 2 and 3 are not valid under Calvanism. However, Calvanism is the only way to view the Biblical data. What about response number 1? Under Calvanism, can yo exlain 'receive' in Rom. 5:17? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6966 | ||
See other post! There is an ammended version of this post! Tim Moran |
||||||