Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
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 | 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. |
||||||
2 | 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. |
||||||
3 | 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. |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | kalos | 6870 | ||
TULIPism does not see 2) or 3) as viable alternatives. | ||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6966 | ||
See other post! There is an ammended version of this post! Tim Moran |
||||||