Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33591 | ||
Since you've only answered a couple of the verses I mentioned, let me think on Hebrews 2:9. As for 1 Timothy 2, do I understand you correctly as saying that God desires all "kings and all who are in authority to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"? I don't see how that helps the case for limited atonement (unless one happens to be a king or someone in authority). Wasn't Nero the emperor at the time Paul wrote these words? As for 1 Timothy 4:10, I agree that there are different degrees of salvation, "saved" and "unsaved". The point is that, in his death, Christ was able to save all men (the payment is actually offered to, and is good to save, all men), (why not call this "common grace") especially of believers ("effecacious grace") because they have accepted Christ's payment. |
||||||
2 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33667 | ||
Ben: I didn't comment on the other verses because I agree with you that all are outwardly called to repent. That brings about greater judgment upon the reprobate and is a means of grace to salvation for the elect. I do not hold that 1 Timothy 2 is talking about universal governmental atonement (or whatever clever name we could come up with). My point was that the Reformed understanding of the 1 Timothy 2:1-6 has to be reconciled with other verses which explicitly place some in the category of atoned for and others that don't (John 6:37,44,65 in its context being a prime example). Hence, does God want every single human being to be saved (and ultimately does not accomplish His desire), or does the "all" refer to all the elect rather than all of humanity? Scripture interprets Scripture, and I cannot reconcile an universal redemption view with the balance of the New Testament. What I find interesting is that you hold to election but reject particular redemption. In your view, why did Christ die for those who had not been chosen? Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33691 | ||
To answer your question first, the Bible explicitly states, "elect" (Romans 8:33 and elsewhere). Why He did, doesn't matter. The fact is that He did. As the Lord, Himself, told Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." He "loved the world" (no qualifications given) He "gave His only begotten Son" (from the immediate context, to the world, not just to the elect.) "that whoever believes in Him" (the offer is open for any whoever.) This verse doesn't address the issue of who will believe or how they will believe, and therefore doesn't qualify the offer. The offer is open to and is good for everybody. Just because some people don't (or "won't") believe doesn't mean that the offer isn't good for them. John 6:37, "all that the Father gives me will come". All who have been predestined for salvation will be saved. But unless I am missing something from this verse, the blood is still good for all. 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Despite the fact that whoever will come may have life, only those who are drawn by the Father will come and be saved. From 45, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." I'd have to do a little more research on this one, as I understand it now, "Everyone who is drawn comes." 6:65, "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." Only the elect can come to Christ. That has nothing to do with the extent of the offer of redemption. Is the death of Christ only able to save the elect? These verses don't address that issue. Is it good enough to save everyone, if they would come (even though they don't.)? Yes, and I can honestly tell an unbeliever, "Christ died for your sin. Now, you must accept His payment to have eternal life." Romans 5:6, "Christ died for the ungodly." (All of them. Note, this verse does not just say "us" - it is a general truth, 5:8 personalizes it. 5:6 can stand alone.) If, by your comment, you mean that the Reformed understanding of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 needs to be reconciled with the rest of Scripture, I agree with you. The way it stands, it isn't now, but needs to be. God wants "thelo" everybody to be saved. God intends "boulomai" all the church (we might say "elect") to come to repentance. Scripture does interpret scripture. I cannot reconcile particular redemption with the balance of the New Testament. Your turn, Ben |
||||||
4 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33746 | ||
I have already posted more than most people would like for me to have posted on this issue, and you can view my posts from the past to get your fill (and more) of my point of view. I am not sure what you mean precisely when you argue that the blood of Christ is ABLE to save more than the elect. By no means do I believe that God COULDN'T have saved more. The question in my mind isn't whether Jesus could have died for the sins of all human beings. Of course that is the case. The question is "For whose sins did He indeed die?" Which brings me to the question of God's justice. Who dies for the sins of those who will spend eternity in hell? If Christ died for the sins of the damned and the sinner pays for them as well, we have two beings dying for the same offenses. How is it just for someone to die for sins that Christ has died for? Double payment for sin just doesn't seem to mesh with a God who is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His justice. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Curtnsally | 33753 | ||
Really well said Joe. | ||||||