Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87824 | ||
Greetings John! So, let's compare two verses my friend: Mt. 1:21 - "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." 1 Tim. 2:6 - "who gave himself as a ransom for all men?the testimony given in its proper time." Could 'His people' include all men? Where is 'His people' defined in the text? I looked up the phrase 'his people' and it looks like every occurance is a reference to Israel. But even if it isn't, the term is not defined. So, on the basis of the vague phrase 'His people', I am supposed to gather that 'all men' doesn't really mean 'all men'? I'm not sure which verse you are referencing about God's wrath, but my general answer would be: 2 Cor. 5:14-15 - "For Christ?s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. " Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | John Reformed | 87842 | ||
Please Tim, Let's not go down the "all always means all path". We both know the verses where "all" is not a univrsal catch-all. Matt 2:3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Mark 1:5 And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. etc., etc. 1 Tim. 2:6 - "who gave himself as a ransom for all men?the testimony given in its proper time." We also have covered 1 Tim 2:6. The reformed view sees "all men" as "all kinds of men" and have a solid arguement drawn from the first two verses of th Chapt. Tim 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 1 Tim 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. "Could 'His people' include all men? Where is 'His people' defined in the text? I looked up the phrase 'his people' and it looks like every occurance is a reference to Israel. But even if it isn't, the term is not defined" I believe that "His people" whom He came to save are synonomous with "His sheep" who He came to save. John 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. I presume that you have no problem seeing that the Jews and Gentiles who are of the Lord's flocks, identify "His people" as being those who WILL (NOT MAY!) hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. 2 Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; THEREFORE ALL DIED. It is clear that Paul is referring to all who have experieced the death of the "old man", those who are to consider themselves dead to sin and alive unto Christ. This death only occurs to those who have believed. It is now beddy-bye time. Your Friend and Brother in Christ, John |
||||||
3 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87851 | ||
Greetings John! You appeal to Mt. 2:3 and Mk. 1:5 as evidence that 'all' doesn't mean 'all'. Is there some reason why all of Jerusalem could not have been troubled? Is there some reason why all of the people of Judea and Jerusalem could not have gone out to John? This is the problem I have with those whole interpretative approach. You are assuming that it can't mean 'all', but there is no valid proof that it doesn't mean 'all'. John was a major prophetic figure. Why would it be impossible for all of Judea and Jerusalem to go out to him? You also wrote: "I believe that "His people" whom He came to save are synonomous with "His sheep" who He came to save." What is the Biblical basis for this belief? Is there somewhere in the Bible where the two phrases are used together? There are several places where the phrase 'His people' clearly refers to Israel. Consider the following: Luke 1:68 - "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people." The context even goes on to talk about the covenant God made with Israel. Acts 13:17 - "The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country, 18 he endured their conduct for about forty years in the desert, 19 he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance." Rom. 11:1 - "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don?t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah?how he appealed to God against Israel:" Rom. 15:10 - "Again, it says, 'Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.'" Jude 5 - "Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe." So, here are a couple of example where 'His people' clearly refers to Israel. Where are the Scripture verses where 'His people' is used as a reference for elect individuals? Finally, where in 2 Cor. 5:14 is the 'old man' mentioned? The passage simply lists who He died for, as do the following verses. Heb. 2:9 - "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." 1 Tim. 2:6 - "who gave himself as a ransom for all men?the testimony given in its proper time." 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." The funny thing about this discussion is that the verses I am quoting all actually say what I am saying. I made the claim that Christ died for all men. Behold, the verses I quote say the same thing. I don't have to explain them, or add words to them, or say what they really mean. I just quote them! Where is the verse which says that Christ did not die for all men, or that He only died for some men? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | John Reformed | 87877 | ||
Hi Tim, "Is there some reason why all of Jerusalem could not have been troubled? Is there some reason why all of the people of Judea and Jerusalem could not have gone out to John?" Anything is possible. But in this case it is highly unlikely. What was the population of Jerusalem at that time? 100 thousand at least (I would think) maybe someone could help us out. But I do think that if the entire city, man woman and child, all of the officials and the Sanhedrin, all the Romans and other Gentiles....Do you see what I mean? It is just not credible. If this had happend it would have been the talk of the whole Roman Empire and the entire known world (Of course by "whole" and "entire" I mean figuratively not literally). Let's back up a bit before we go forward. In ID# 87824 you asked: "Could 'His people' include all men? Where is 'His people' defined in the text? I looked up the phrase 'his people' and it looks like every occurance is a reference to Israel. But even if it isn't, the term is not defined." My reply was I believe that "His people" whom He came to save are synonomous with "His sheep" who He came to save. John 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. I presume that you have no problem seeing that the Jews and Gentiles who are of the Lord's flocks, identify "His people" as being those who WILL (NOT MAY!) hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. Do you agree. And if not, why not? God Bless, John |
||||||
5 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87884 | ||
Greetings John! So, are we now to toss out what Scripture actually says because we don't believe it is credible or likely? :-( Do you see how your argument is going my friend? You are in essence saying, "I don't believe that 'all' the people really did come out, even though the text says they did, so 'all' must only mean 'some'!" Would you buy this kind of an argument from me? ;-) As far as the 'His sheep' phrase is concerned, I don't see any relevance or tie to the verse you originally quoted. My orginal question was, 'Where is there a single verse which says that Christ either did not die for all, or that He only died for some'. Your response was to use a verse which spoke of saving 'His people' from their sins. Yet, 'His people' is used throughout the NT (and OT) as a reference to Israel. Thus, 'His people' is not synonymous with 'the elect'. I asked if you could provide Scriptural evidence to back up your contention that 'His people' is the same group as 'His sheep'. Evidence would have to be some sort of verse or passage where the two phrases are linked somehow. You have not provided any as of yet. But, I have provided you with several examples where 'His people' refers to Israel. So, I am still looking for a verse which specifically states that Christ did not die for everyone, or that He only died for some. Until such a time as a verse is brought forth, I will have to accept that Christ did in fact die for 'all men' as Scripture says! :-) As for your last question, if indeed 'His people' is a reference to Israel, then of course they would be included in 'His sheep', but the two phrases would not be synonomous. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87900 | ||
"Do you see how your argument is going my friend? You are in essence saying, "I don't believe that 'all' the people really did come out, even though the text says they did, so 'all' must only mean 'some'!" Would you buy this kind of an argument from me? ;-)" Now, I don't think that is quite fair. Unless you go for a wooden translation of the text, I think John's conclusion is a reasonable one. When Paul says in Colossians 1 that the gospel is bearing fruit in Colossae "just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing," do you think that Paul means ALL the world? Was the gospel bearing fruit in the Western Hemisphere? If so, perhaps I need to revisit Mormonism as a viable world view. No one always uses the adjective "all" with the connotation that you seem to think it MUST have. To force the "each-and-every" understanding in every instance of the word renders some passages nonsensical, others heretical, and some in direct contradiction with their immediate and general context. Regarding "My sheep," Jesus was speaking of Christians, of course. He laid down his life for His sheep. He repeats that twice, saying that He knows who are His, and He lays his life down for them. It completely deflates the discourse to write in "and those who are not my sheep, too." He is not everyone's Shepherd, nor does the Shepherd lay down his life for those who are not His sheep. Likewise, passages like Ephesians 5 compare the way a husband should cherish his wife, self-sacrificing like Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Again, to parenthetically assume that Jesus died for those who are not His completely ruins the simile. We also saw 2 Corinthians 5:15, where Jesus' death has the purpose "so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." The purpose is limited to "those who live" (i.e. the regenerate), so Christ dying for them and everyone else leaves a lot of purposeless suffering for Him. Even Arminians (except for kooks like Pinnock) say that God foresees who will accept and who will reject Jesus. The general redemption model makes Christ suffer needlessly on behalf of those who will never receive the ultimate benefit of that sacrifice. I find it interesting that Arminians have a problem with God not giving all sinners (i.e. those who deserve judgment) redemption, but have no qualms about Jesus the sinless Son suffering more of God's wrath to no end whatsoever. --Joe! |
||||||
7 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87934 | ||
Greetings Joe! Well, we are going in circles now my friend! :-) My practice is not accept what Scripture actually says! So, if it says that all the city went out to John the Baptist, I believe that all the city went out to John. If 'all' is modified by or limited by other helping words, then I modify or limit the term 'all', otherwise, it means 'all'. :-) You wrote: " I find it interesting that Arminians have a problem with God not giving all sinners (i.e. those who deserve judgment) redemption, but have no qualms about Jesus the sinless Son suffering more of God's wrath to no end whatsoever." He only died once! He didn't have to die once for each person! So, I don't understand this objection at all! His suffering wasn't needless at all. He was reconciling the world to Himself to make salvation available to all. How is that a waste? Now, I could turn the argument around and say that it is interesting that Calvinists have no problem with a God who deliberately doesn't save some, but have qualms about a God who makes an offer of salvation which isn't accept by all! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||