Results 1 - 17 of 17
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: congregationalist Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45232 | ||
Amen! | ||||||
2 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45224 | ||
Hi CDBJ I’m thankful for your thoughtful reply, you are easy to converse with which is a rarity in online discussions. You wrote: [snip] I am a very, very firm believer in eternal security and this is one point that I can't be budged from, no mater how people try to twist scripture around, grace is grace. I’m glad you believe that but don’t you think perseverance of the saints is dependant on predestination being true? You wrote: [snip] Can one ever enjoy something that is done for them when the person that did it is forced to do it: do you see where I am coming from? Maybe. I think your problem with grasping the doctrine lies in the fact that you bring some foreign notion to it, namely that predestination implies coercion. It doesn’t. The fact, the Biblical fact that is, that God foreordains everything that comes to pass does not imply he forces His will on the choices men make. Calvin warned us that we should handle this particular doctrine with care and shouldn’t take it too far, to inquire into God’s mind why He does what He does Calvin thought was sinful. We should simply deal with the scriptural truth as it was laid down for us in the Holy Writ. Does it teach predestination? Yes it does (you admit that as well). Does it teach that God coerces people into doing what He foreordained? No it doesn’t. Does it follow, logically, from the premises that if God foreordains everything then man’s choice is coerced? No it doesn’t. So then, this is where I think we should stop our inquiry and this is where Reformed Christianity stops together with apostle Paul “O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?”. You wrote: P.S. If you want to get those ugly black blobs out of your post, change your default font to ARIAL 10; I use 14 so I can see it easer but the key is ARIAL Well actually my settings have no influence on how your browser displays stuff, I wish it had actually for then my job, which is web development, would be a lot easier then it is now ;-) Any problems you might be having with how text is displayed in your browser is either the developers’ fault (but they will never admit it) or your browser’s settings have to be changed. Cheers |
||||||
3 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45151 | ||
LOL! I'm definitely a bloke, you can be sure of that :-) but if I'm a good one? I dunno mate :-) call me Nik, it is my real name (short for Nikolai) | ||||||
4 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45147 | ||
Hello New Creature, you wrote: Concerning John 3:16-18 What is meant by the word "world" is clarified in verse 18 "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead because their deeds were evil. This is clearly the whole fallen world. You did not address my conclusions, New Creature. My main point was to illustrate, from Scripture, that the meaning of the word should be determined by, firstly, its immediate context and, secondly, in light of God’s revelation as a whole. I have pointed out to you that interpreting the word ‘world’ to mean ‘every single human being’ brings at least 3 difficulties that cannot be reconciled with the rest of the Scripture. You didn’t address those conclusions at all and simply keep insisting that your interpretation is correct. As for the verse 19 to which you now draw my attention to (not 18 BTW) I would have no problem in agreeing with your understanding of the word ‘world’ there, in verse 19 that is. But this is further strengthens my point, namely that the meaning of the passage, or the word for that matter, should interpreted in its context first. The ‘world’ in verse 19 does not pose any difficulty but it does pose some serious problems in John 3:16-18 if taken to mean ‘every human being’ but this has been already addressed by me and ignored by you. You wrote: Scripture says "When he the Holy Spirit comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment. (John 16:8) Certain denominations theology demands that "world" and "all" don't really mean all. It is painful to watch the logic of many denominations, respond by claiming the Bible uses the words "world" and "all" in a restricted limited sense. If all does not mean all fallen human beings, then what does it mean in Romans 3:23 when it says: All have sinned. Using the logic that all doesn't mean all would then mean that in this verse the word "all" means that only all the elect have sinned, which I am sure you will disagree with. OK then, if “world’ in the scriptures, particularly in John, always means what you say it means then John 7:7 teaches that Chinese peasants hated Christ in about 30 AD, John 8:26 teaches that Christ spoke the truth to the North American natives in about the same time Chinese peasants hated Him and John 12:19 teaches that Pharisees believed that Australian natives have gone after Christ when they said among themselves “Look, the world has gone after Him!”. The nonsense like this disappears when proper exegesis is applied to the word of God to discern the truth it reveals. You wrote: Also: How do you get around this verse? 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and NOT FOR OURS ONLY, BUT ALSO FOR [the sins of] the whole world. I do not get around verses, I simply compare one scripture with another to determine what God is teaching me here or there. 1 John 2:2 does not pose a problem for me as you might think it does. If scripture everywhere teaches that Christ has propitiated for the sins of his church, his people only, then 1 John 2:2 cannot teach the contrary since God is the Lord of truth, not of lies. If 1 John 2:2 teaches that Christ propitiated for the sins of every human being, then 1 John 5:19 teaches that every human being is under control of the evil one since one and the same word, kosmos is used but we know that Christians are not under the evil one but under God as 1 John 5:19 teaches. Your insistence on one and only meaning of the word ‘world’ just makes nonsense out of scriptures. Tell me, if you believe Christ has propitiated for the sins of all human kind, why some are in hell? Because of their unbelief? Now I ask (together with John Owen), is not unbelief a sin? If yes, then did not Christ propitiated for all sins of all men, including the sin of unbelief? Did He or did he not? Any answers? You wrote: Finally, I don't believe that salvation is universal. It is only universal in it's offer, but is only made actual for those who by faith receive it. But surely a great number of the human kind have never ever heard of either God of Abraham or Son of God Christ Jesus or that there’s salvation offered and available. How can it be universal if it’s not truly universal? You wrote: Neither do I believe than God ever fails or failed in any mission. But if Christ was sent to save the world, the human kind but did not save it, then He surely failed the mission His Father has assigned to Him. John 3:17 clearly states that Christ was sent that the world might be saved and John 4:42 calls Christ the saviour of the world. If your meaning is attached to these verses then you can say you don’t believe Christ failed in his mission as long as you like but clearly this is what you testify with your own words you think he did – He intended to save the world, the human kind but failed. |
||||||
5 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45146 | ||
Hello New Creature, you wrote: Concerning John 3:16-18 What is meant by the word "world" is clarified in verse 18 "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead because their deeds were evil. This is clearly the whole fallen world. You did not address my conclusions, New Creature. My main point was to illustrate, from Scripture, that the meaning of the word should be determined by, firstly, its immediate context and, secondly, in light of God’s revelation as a whole. I have pointed out to you that interpreting the word ‘world’ to mean ‘every single human being’ brings at least 3 difficulties that cannot be reconciled with the rest of the Scripture. You didn’t address those conclusions at all and simply keep insisting that your interpretation is correct. As for the verse 19 to which you now draw my attention to (not 18 BTW) I would have no problem in agreeing with your understanding of the word ‘world’ there, in verse 19 that is. But this is further strengthens my point, namely that the meaning of the passage, or the word for that matter, should interpreted in its context first. The ‘world’ in verse 19 does not pose any difficulty but it does pose some serious problems in John 3:16-18 if taken to mean ‘every human being’ but this has been already addressed by me and ignored by you. You wrote: Scripture says "When he the Holy Spirit comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment. (John 16:8) Certain denominations theology demands that "world" and "all" don't really mean all. It is painful to watch the logic of many denominations, respond by claiming the Bible uses the words "world" and "all" in a restricted limited sense. If all does not mean all fallen human beings, then what does it mean in Romans 3:23 when it says: All have sinned. Using the logic that all doesn't mean all would then mean that in this verse the word "all" means that only all the elect have sinned, which I am sure you will disagree with. OK then, if “world’ in the scriptures, particularly in John, always means what you say it means then John 7:7 teaches that Chinese peasants hated Christ in about 30 AD, John 8:26 teaches that Christ spoke the truth to the North American natives in about the same time Chinese peasants hated Him and John 12:19 teaches that Pharisees believed that Australian natives have gone after Christ when they said among themselves “Look, the world has gone after Him!”. The nonsense like this disappears when proper exegesis is applied to the word of God to discern the truth it reveals. You wrote: Also: How do you get around this verse? 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and NOT FOR OURS ONLY, BUT ALSO FOR [the sins of] the whole world. I do not get around verses, I simply compare one scripture with another to determine what God is teaching me here or there. 1 John 2:2 does not pose a problem for me as you might think it does. If scripture everywhere teaches that Christ has propitiated for the sins of his church, his people only, then 1 John 2:2 cannot teach the contrary since God is the Lord of truth, not of lies. If 1 John 2:2 teaches that Christ propitiated for the sins of every human being, then 1 John 5:19 teaches that every human being is under control of the evil one since one and the same word, kosmos is used but we know that Christians are not under the evil one but under God as 1 John 5:19 teaches. Your insistence on one and only meaning of the word ‘world’ just makes nonsense out of scriptures. Tell me, if you believe Christ has propitiated for the sins of all human kind, why some are in hell? Because of their unbelief? Now I ask (together with John Owen), is not unbelief a sin? If yes, then did not Christ propitiated for all sins of all men, including the sin of unbelief? Did He or did he not? Any answers? You wrote: Finally, I don't believe that salvation is universal. It is only universal in it's offer, but is only made actual for those who by faith receive it. But surely a great number of the human kind have never ever heard of either God of Abraham or Son of God Christ Jesus or that there’s salvation offered and available. How can it be universal if it’s not truly universal? You wrote: Neither do I believe than God ever fails or failed in any mission. But if Christ was sent to save the world, the human kind but did not save it, then He surely failed the mission His Father has assigned to Him. John 3:17 clearly states that Christ was sent that the world might be saved and John 4:42 calls Christ the saviour of the world. If your meaning is attached to these verses then you can say you don’t believe Christ failed in his mission as long as you like but clearly this is what you testify with your own words you think he did – He intended to save the world, the human kind but failed. |
||||||
6 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45111 | ||
Hi Tim You wrote: "...premise 2) cannot be correct under your system of thought since nothing can just happen apart from the will of God.” I think you simply misunderstood my argument Tim. I have pretty much defined the word ‘happens’ in the 1st premise, namely that whatever happens in the universe happens because God wills it so. ‘Happens’ therefore is defined as anything that comes to pass, comes into being or takes place in the universe God created. Probably a better wording, I admit, would be ‘comes to pass’ or even ‘takes place’. So if I re-word the argument you are not happy with it will look thus: a. whatever takes place in the universe, takes place because God wills it to take place b. sin took place therefore, God willed that sin would take place. If you still think the argument is no good, please let me know what’s wrong with it. You wrote: If nothing can happen apart from God's sovereign will, then of course God must be responsible for sin. Again, you probably didn’t pay enough attention to what I wrote in the post you are replying here to. Your ‘of course’ conclusion above just does not follow from the premise I put forth, i.e. because God foreordained the end from the beginning (as per Isaiah 46:10 and many other passages), including sin of course, it does not follow at all God is the author of sin. What you’ve got here is a classic Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion), consider, all men are mortal, Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates was a Greek. The conclusion just does not follow from the premises stated. So it is with my argument, you just cannot simply arrive at ‘therefore God is responsible for sin’ from the premises I stated, you need to work your way through to arrive at the conclusion you wish to arrive at but I’m not giving you a hand with this one ;-) Also please note that both (a) and (b) are soundly scriptural, both premises can be easily supported from Scripture and since the Scripture is true, it follows the premises are true also, and since the argument is formally valid we have a sound argument and the conclusion is necessarily true. You are welcome to refute the argument of course if you wish. You wrote: If man is incapable of excersising free choice, then God must be responsible for our very choices. Same thing, Ignoratio Elenchi. If you disagree, please demonstrate how you arrived at the conclusion that because man has no free will God is responsible for the choices man makes. You wrote: Personally, I don't believe that the Biblical doctrine of Sovereignty eliminates the possiblity of God granting us the ability to freely choose. This is the only way I can find that does not make God responsible for sin. You interchangeably use ‘free will’ and ‘free choice’ and since I assign different meaning for each of these phrases I’m afraid we could be talking past each other if we don’t define our terms properly. By ‘free will’ I understand an ability to a contrary choice and I reject men have such an ability, I believe God has predetermined all our choices before He created the universe. By ‘free choice’ I understand an un-coerced choice. To illustrate, I choose to live in Sydney but not in LA not because I was coerced to choose Sydney, but my choice was predetermined by God already. If you are wishing to say that God is responsible for my choice, I’m all ears (or eyes), let’s see the argument. As it stands, the conclusion is irrelevant. Cheers |
||||||
7 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45080 | ||
Hi New Creature, you wrote: Are you saying God is not all loving? That God shows partiality? John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Who does that exclude?) Everyone who is not included in the word ‘world’ in this particular passage. That the word ‘world’ does not mean ‘all humans’ is evidenced immediately in the following verses, the verses ever forgotten by today’s preachers. In verse 17 John says that the Son was sent not to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. Clearly then if ‘world’ means ‘every human being’ then the passage teaches universal salvation since the Son was sent to save the ‘world’ or ‘every human being’. If you deny universal salvation, then you have to admit the Son has failed in his mission to save the ‘world’ or ‘every human being’ since according to the Son Himself not all human being are going to be saved. Which of the two do you prefer, New Creature? The universal salvation or the failed mission of the Son? Further, verse 18 states that some humans are already condemned for not believing in the Son. If then ‘world’ in this passage means ‘every human being’ in addition to two difficulties arising in v17 alone we have here in v18 the Son who was sent to save ‘every human being’ even though some of them, if not most, have been already condemned. Therefore, in light of these observations one cannot conclude the word ‘world’ here in John 3:16-18 means ‘every human being’ and more scriptures should be consulted, namely, on what mission was the Son sent and what was he sent to accomplish? And of course ‘For God so loved the world’ does not teach God loved Judas or Esau, in fact Paul together with Malachi claimed that God hated Esau (Rom 9:13). You also wrote: The recipients of God's favor are those who by grace through faith receive the gift of salvation which is freely offered. Please explain how grace and faith fit in with your belief in free will and belief that God’s will can be resisted? In Reformed Christianity we speak of grace in relation to man’s inability to respond to the gospel of Christ. Man is totally and absolutely sinful and does evil continually but God mercifully intervenes, regenerates the sinner, gives him faith to believe that Christ by dying on the cross has fully and irrevocably propitiated for all the sins the sinner has ever committed or will commit and earned salvation for the sinner based on Christ’s righteousness alone, the salvation of the sinner has nothing whatsoever to do with the sinner himself, his salvation happened and been secured outside of himself. This is grace and this the gospel. If however, man has free will and able to resist the will of God then I don’t see how a depraved God-hater can come to repentance and saving belief of the gospel without God intervening. If God intervenes but can be resisted then, since all men are God-haters, it follows that all men should be able to resist God’s will. What makes a difference between those who submit to God and resist God? If it is man, then all men should resist God, if God then your freewillism is false. |
||||||
8 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45074 | ||
Hello New Creature, you wrote this to Joe(I think): (1) If God is all-powerful, then He could save all persons. (2) If God is all-loving, then He would save all persons. If an all-powerful God can save all, but He will not save all, then God is not all-loving. For a God who is all-loving would save all, if He could save all. There are several logical problems with your argument here (for instance, the ‘if God is all-loving’ clause is not granted nor demonstrated at all, you simply smuggle in an ungranted premise into an argument and thus the argument is questionable, although I don’t think there’s time for me to pin point all the problems now) but at this point I only wish to ask this: if God is omnipotent and ‘all-loving’ (meaning willing to save all) then why all are not saved? If you say because some resist God’s will, I ask, is this resisting more powerful than God’s will? Can you please answer? Also, I don’t think it’s such a good idea to construct complex arguments where the premises are themselves arguments, the good idea, on the other hand, is to keep things simple ;-) |
||||||
9 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45069 | ||
Hello New Creature. In your reply you didn't answer my question I asked you in my previous post: If murder is a sin (and I gather you would agree with me that it is), then does foreordaining murder makes God the author of that particular sin? Can you please answer it this time around? You also wrote: I still hold that your ideas on this would mean that God is the author of sin. Well, fine, you can hold that but I would be interested to see how did you arrive at the conclusion you hold. Thanks Congregationalist |
||||||
10 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45066 | ||
OK, I've done that ;-) the profile I mean but as far as the former Congregational theologians go I'm probably closer to John Owen than J Edwards ;-) |
||||||
11 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 45064 | ||
Hello CDBJ, you wrote to me: “I ask you a question and this is how you answered. Does the Bible teach predestination or not? Can you please tell me? Nice ploy, but you answer my logical question first; mine is easy since all I want is your opinion. There is no verse to back it up either way.” Well, if I was avoiding an answer then yes, it could’ve been a ploy but I wasn’t. I’ll answer your question below but let me firstly address my intention by not giving you a straight answer right away – if you answered ‘yes’, i.e. yes you do believe in predestination then you would simply contradict yourself since your own question presupposes silently that you do not believe in predestination (you wrote “…since the people that one might witness to are predestined already, why waste your time; and why bother to pray for someone if God has already made his decisions!..." implies that praying only makes sense if the doctrine of predestination is false and since presumably you pray for others it follows you do not believe in predestination) and by contradicting yourself you would clearly see your false position. On the other hand, if you answered “no”, i.e. no you do not believe in predestination I would have surely asked you to exegete 20 or 30 passages ;-) (well no, 2 or 3) where predestination is clearly taught. By doing all this one would hope some scripture would be read, examined and hopefully some conclusions made. Another reason why I didn’t answer your question straight away is because I think the question is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion, namely, even if it is shown that praying doesn’t make any sense if predestination is true does not make the doctrine false (your argument is implicitly this – if predestination is true, then praying doesn’t make sense, now praying does make sense therefore predestination is false. The argument is fallacious on a few counts and I don’t think I have time to go into it now). Now to your question: “If it isn't going to make any difference anyway, since the people that one might witness to are predestined already, why waste your time; and why bother to pray for someone if God has already made his decisions!” The obvious answer is of course we are commanded to pray: “..And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel..” (Eph 6:17-19) Here Paul commands us to pray with supplications for all saints and for Paul himself so that he might be able to preach the gospel, therefore we ought to pray for saved as well as for unsaved people. It is rather simple, regardless of wether or not God predestines everything there is to pass He commands us in His word to pray for saved and unsaved alike, although the contents of such prayers are different. Now let’s just compare the two views as far as the supplicational prayer goes. Both a Calvinist and an Arminian pray to God for their unsaved neighbour that he might come to the saving knowledge of Christ. A Calvinist believes that his neighbour’s future is predetermined by God and since he doesn’t know what this future is he, following the Devine command and also knowing that prayers are pleasing to God, turns to God with his supplications about his neighbour. Whether or not his neighbour will be saved is irrelevant as far as the content of the supplication goes, a Calvinist exercises his duty and leaves the matter in God’s hands. Arminian, on the other hand, apparently believes that his prayers are going to influence God’s decision since he believes that the future is not predetermined by God already. But one wants to ask what kind of God is this whose decisions are influenced by prayers of sinners? Did not Isaiah say: “I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, “My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure””? The end from the beginning, according to Isaiah 46:10 has been declared by God and His council shall stand, it shall not be changed by prayers or by anything else. Likewise, if a neighbour and not God is a decisive force in the matter of saving faith, in other words if it is a neighbour who decides to believe or not to believe the gospel and it is not God who foreordains such an act, then shouldn’t an Arminian pray to his neighbour and not God, why pray to God if it is a neighbour who desides his future and not God, if God does not foreordain neighbour’s choice to believe or not to believe the gospel? Would that be a satisfactory answer? |
||||||
12 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 44398 | ||
Hello New Creature you replied to me: "To agree with you, makes God the author of sin. And I don't believe God is the author or originator of sin." I hear you too ;-) Well I don't believe God is the author of sin either but you didn't demonstrate how ordaining the fall of man makes God the author of sin. You are not in disagreement with me, it should be the least of your concerns being in disagreement with me but your disagreement is with the Scripture which teaches from Genesis 1 onwards that God alone is sovereign and He in His wisdom foreordains *everything*, sin included. If you think I'm in error interpreting the Scripture the way I interpret it, then your duty as a Christian is to correct me and point out where the Scripture teaches that God foreordains everything except the sinful actions of men or angels. In the meantime, would you please answer this little enquiry of mine? If murder is a sin (and I gather you would agree with me that it is), then does foreordaining murder makes God the author of that particular sin? Thanks Congregationalist |
||||||
13 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 44375 | ||
Hi New Creature I think I answered this kind of question in my previous post (interesting, isn't it? ;-) God commands all people (without exception as per Romans 1) to keep Hs moral law or to repent of their sin as per the passage you quoted. But as you well know no one, save Christ alone, has ever kept God's law. God commanded Israelites to love Him with all their heart, mind and strength and yet no one ever did that, again, save Christ our Lord alone. As I said previously, commandments or precepts are there for us to follow but it does not mean at all God decreed or willed that these precepts will be obeyed, He actually decreed the opposite, that all men will break His law and be guilty of sin before God and on this bases God punishes the wicked, for their breaking the law and not repenting of it. To answer your question directly, God commands all people, without exception (how He commands people who never heard the gospel to repent Paul mentions briefly in Romans 1) to repent of their sin but He decrees that only His church, his elect, will repent and have saving faith, both of which are God's gifts by the way which He Himself gives to whomsoever He desires irrespective of persons' standing on the moral ladder so to speak. |
||||||
14 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 44371 | ||
Hi Hank, you wrote to me: "...It has been my observation that the Reformed/Calvinist camp is fond of using brackets after passages in Scripture that say _all_ or _whosoever will_ and other synonymous terms, in order to promulgate their view that what the passage really means is not _all_ at all but the elect." But isn't it called 'exegesis'? My starting point is an axiom that the Bible alone is the word of God written and therefore inerrant (the 'therefore' is of course a conclusion, not an axiom). I further deduce that because Scripture is inerrant it contains no contradictions (for in contradiction at least one part of it is false). Because Scripture teaches that 1) God does whatsoever He wills (agreed?) and 2) that not all men will be saved (agreed?), it follows *necessarily* that God does not will that every single individual will be saved or to be more formal as per the argument God wills that not every single individual will be saved. You may not like the logic of this argument and this is fine (as far as this discussion goes of course, otherwise it's not fine at all) but you have to reconcile one scripture with another scripture if you are willing to take an approach like the one you seem to be taking. For instance, when Christ said that he is the bread of life you of course do not take it to mean he is made of dough, you use your intellect and other scriptures to deduce what Christ meant by calling himself 'bread' or 'the door' or 'the way' and so on. So it is with the passage we are looking at. The overwhelming scriptural teaching is that God alone is sovereign and He alone decides or rather decrees who is going to be saved or damned and therefore 2 Pet 3:9 and a few other passages do not teach that God wills to save all men but decrees to damn some (or most) contrary to His own will. Further, if you are willing to say that 'all' always means 'every single individual' every time we read 'all' referring to people, then look at how much nonsense this no-exegesis can create: Mat 2:3: When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. would you say then that every one in Jerusalem was troubled? Mark 13:13: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.. does it mean that all men will hate Christians? John 8:2: And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him... does it mean all people in the universe who ever lived? all people of Jerusalem? all people of the neighbourhood? who are these 'all'? I'm simply trying to show you that there's no reason whatever to assume that 'all' in 2Pet 3:9 means 'all people without exception' and BTW I have briefly said why I don't think the passage doesn't teach that God wills all people to be saved based on the passage itself and maybe you should give your reasons why you don't accept my exegesis. I mean I know you don't believe what I believe concerning this passage but I gave you my reason why I believe what I believe, you didn't give me yours (which is OK if you don't want to). And lastly, I'm well aware how John 3:16 is often misapplied today to make people believe what the passage does not teach, namely that God loves every person without exception and wills everyone to come to saving faith but I don't think people who teach that looked closely just two verses below, on v18, that is where we read that "...he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." The full teaching then is 'God loves everyone without exception and wills everyone without exception to come to saving faith but He already condemned some for their disbelief'. I don't think this teaches the God of scripture. The God of scripture already elected His church before foundation of the world, appointed His Son to redeem this church from their sin and damned the rest for their unbelief. And why they did not believe? Free will?. Well, Christ told us why - "Jonh 10:26: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.." People do not believe because they are not Christ's sheep and the sheep was obviously chosen before the world begun, there's simply no room in the Bible for free will theology. He chose to save some and not others and this very doctrine every believer *should* find the greatest comfort knowing that nothing will separate him, the believer, from the love of God because Christ already fully appeased God's wrath on the cross and the sin is paid off in full, it is as Christ said finished. |
||||||
15 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 44353 | ||
Hi CDBJ you replied to my post: "...you sound like Reformer only with another hat on.." I understood the 'Reformer' bit but missed the bit about the hats ;-) what did you mean? you also wrote: "... If it isn't going to make any difference anyway, since the people that one might witness to are predestined already, why waste your time; and why bother to pray for someone if God has already made his decisions!..." Does the Bible teach predestination or not? Can you please tell me? Thanks, Congregationalist |
||||||
16 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | congregationalist | 44246 | ||
Hi New Creature, I appreciate your reply. You seem to be in agreement with me that, according to Scripture, God is sovereign, i.e. God has absolute, personal control over the events of the universe, including ordaining and therefore knowing the number of hairs on your head at any given moment or the number of mosquitos in the state of Vermont. He, God that is, foreordained before the foundation of the world that Jesus Christ would be born of the virgin, live a sinless life and die on the cross in order to redeem his people, his elect, from hell and nothing, absolutely nothing could hinder God's decree, not because He looked through time and saw it coming, quite the opposite, it came to pass because He foreordained it to achieve His purpose. Now if this is your view (this is certainly mine) then I don't see how free will fits in unless you explain a bit more about what you mean by 'free will'. I've heard and read quite contrasting definitions of this confusing term so you might want to offer yours if you don't mind. Now to 2 Pet 3:9 Your interpretation implies a God who wills one thing but something completely the opposite happens - God wills that Judas would be saved and not perish but something (or someone) prevented God from fulfilling His own will. Such interpretation denies God's omnipotence (even though you might not want to mean it, but conclusion certainly follows from your exegesis), He does whatsoever He wills, remember the Psalms I quoted last time? Your interpretation makes either Peter or some Psalms stating a falsity and if you believe the Scripture is God's word, and therefore inerrant, then you have to admit there's something wrong with your interpretation and I think I know what it is. To avoid a difficulty 2 Pet 3:9 could present it needs to be realised that God's will should be properly understood as being decretive, on one hand, and perceptive on the other. God's decretive will is mostly hidden from us but we, however, do learn some of His decretive will as the history unfolds. For instance in Acts 4:27-28 we learn that God determined that His Son shall be murdered by the hands of the people of Jerusalem (...to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel [God's that is] determined before to be done, Acts 4:28). God also determined that no one else but Judas will betray Christ and obviously Judas could not get sick or change his mind about betraying Christ for God has determined him to do so (thus goes away free will theology). This is an example of a decretive will of God, some of it we know because it already been fulfilled, some we know will happen in the future (the return of Christ or the resurrection) but most of God's decretive will we do not know (Deut 29:29). Now the best, or at least the best known, example of perceptive will of God is the Ten Commandments. God desires that no one will murder or dishonour their parents, and yet the Ten Commandments are disobeyed all the time, including by Christians as well, He desires that the law would be kept perfect and we would avoid hell as a result but God obviously does not decree such our performance, He actually decrees that we fall. This is necessarily follows from the doctrine of the sovereignty of God whether we like it or not and to answer your original question 'how did sin originate' it should be said that God predetermined, foreordained sin to happen even though the sole responsibility for committing sin lies with Adam alone as our representative and us by, firstly, imputation of sin to us when we are born and secondly by our committing sins ourselves. God’s foreordination of sin does not in any way makes Him culpable for our actual sinning, this is just does not follow logically nor scripturally for whatever God does is good and just, therefore foreordaining sin is good and just as opposed to sinning. Sinning is evil and wicked and this is what we do. God, in the first place, has no law answerable to and by definition cannot sin for there’s no law for him to break thus trying to make God responsible for our sinful action is wrong off the start, whatever the means are chosen for the task but, as I mentioned previously, if God is sovereign, it follows necessarily God and no one else willed and foreordained the fall of man as well as some angels. Also, finally, note who Peter addresses in the epistle (and the passage as well). It is 'us', 'the beloved', 'brethren' and so on. Of the same people, that is saved and regenerated Christians, Peter says "The Lord is... longsuffering to us-ward, [us-ward, Christians that is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance [that is all the elect, they and they alone should come to repentance]. |
||||||
17 | is jesus god? | John 1:1 | congregationalist | 43856 | ||
Lots of verses ;-) but the problem, it seems, is not with the lack of Biblical material on the doctrine of the Trinity but rather with a) correct interpretation of the Bible and b) belief in what has been correctly interpreted. The former is relatively easy to do, any soundly thinking human being can correctly interpret most of the Biblical material but to believe that material requires new birth, regeneration by the Holy Spirit. I'm going to offer two more verses here which I didn't see were used in this discussion and as a matter of fact for some rather strange reason are not often used when the Trinity is being discussed. The 1st one is from Acts 20:28: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Indeed, what an excellent verse! In it we are told that God had purchased his church with his own blood and since it was no one else who died on the cross to purchase his church but Christ, it follows then that Christ is God. The next one is still from John 1 but it's not John 1:1. There been lots of material written about John 1:1 on both sides of Trinitarian debate but, in my opinion, John 1:1 does not refute anti-Trinitarians beyond all doubt, what refutes them is John 1:3- All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Most anti-Trinitarians assert that there was a time when Christ was not (Arians and their off shoots assert that) and they go into lengthy (and mostly fallacious) arguments to prove their position when all the while they in their blindness overlook John 1:3 where it is plainly stated that ANYTHING that was made was made by Christ. If Christ, as they assert, was 'made' (created) then it follows, does it not, that Christ created himself. Absurd. Since, therefore, John 1:3 teaches that EVERYTHING that was made was made by Christ, it follows that Christ WAS before ANYTHING was made and therefore he is at least eternal, he always was. When this is established, a quick look through the OT shows that no one is eternal but God alone or conversely, whoever is eternal (non-created) is God. |
||||||