Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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! |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||