Results 141 - 160 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8880 | ||
Greetings Mel! Thanks for the input to the discussion! Allow me to briefly deal with the two passages you mention which deal with baptism (John 3:5 and Acts 2:38.) Then, I would like you to address two specific questions. As a preliminary, let me state once again that no one debates that baptism is important. It has been commanded by Christ for Christians. The only point being debated is whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. You, Sharp, and Ezekiel seem to be saying that baptism is essential to salvation - no baptism, no salvation. I, and the rest of the thread, are arguing that our salvation is not effected in any way by our baptism or lack thereof. With this is mind, let me address these two passages. 1) Acts 2:38: There are two points that I think argue against baptism being essential to salvation in this passage. a) There is a grammatical anomaly in this verse. The command to repent is a second person plural imperative - in other words a plural you. Unfortunately, there is no way in English to distinguish between a 2nd person plural and a 2nd person singular. To use the King James method of ‘you’ and ‘ye,’ the command here is ‘Repent Ye!’ The phrase ‘for the remission of your sins’ is also a 2nd person plural as indicated by both the definite article and the personal pronoun. So, obviously, the command to repent and the phrase concerning the forgiveness of sins belong together. However, the command to "be baptized" is a 3rd person singular imperative. This simply means that the phrase "for the remission of sins" does not go with the command to be baptized at all, rather it belongs with the command to repent. b) Secondly, the phrase "forgiveness of sins" is used four other times in Acts (5:31, 10:43, 13:38-39, and 26:18) and none of them mention baptism. If baptism is essential for salvation, why don’t all of these other verse include references to baptism? My answer is that there is no command in Scripture to be baptized for the remission of sins. The command in Acts 2:38 is a command to repent for the remission of sins, with a parenthetical statement thrown in that each one should then be baptized. 2) John 3:5: Concerning this passage, my first observation is that Christian baptism is not mentioned directly anywhere in this passage. In fact, it would be unusual for it to be mentioned, since Christian baptism hasn’t even be instituted at this point. Your assuming that "born of the water" means baptized. However, the context makes it much more likely that "born of the water" is a reference to natural birth in contrast to spiritual birth. Notice the flow of the passage. Jesus says in Jn. 3:3 that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. In verse 4, Nicodemus immediately assumes that Jesus must means that we have to re-enter the womb and be physically born again. Verse 5 is Jesus’ attempt to correct Nicodemus’ false assumption. In it, He says that we must be born of water and of Spirit. Is Jesus talking about baptism when He says "born of water" or is He talking about natural birth. I believe the later. Why? Because in verse 6, Jesus directly contrasts physical birth and spiritual birth by stating that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So, even if my interpretation of this passage is in error, you would have to assume that Jesus meant baptism when there is nothing in the context that even deals with baptism. Every text used in this thread to support the idea that baptism is essential to salvation has some serious difficulties attached to it. Furthermore, the concept itself goes against everything Scripture says about salvation being through faith alone! I have tried to answer your questions, and I will expand on my answers if you wish. Now, I would like you to answer two questions. 1) In Acts 10, Peter is preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius. As he was preaching, Acts 10:44 tells us that the Holy Spirit came upon all those who heard the message and they spoke in tongues, just as the disciples had in Acts 2. This is an important sign that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles. Notice however what Peter says in v. 47, ‘‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Were these people saved at this point? They had already been filled with the Holy Spirit! How could this be true if they were not saved? Yet, if baptism is essential to salvation, how could they have been saved without being baptized? 2) What about the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43)? Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise, today! Yet, he had never been baptized! Was he saved? I look forward to your response and I appreciate your kind spirit! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
142 | Why do so few Scriptures mention baptism | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8823 | ||
Greetings Sharp! Thanks for the response! Here lies the concern that I think most on the forum, including myself, have. Scripture makes it very clear that salvation is by faith, not faith plus baptism. So I ask my original questions about Acts 2:38 again! I would appreciate it if you would respond to these original points: I have been following this thread with interest. Is baptism a necessary for salvation? You seem to be arguing that it is based upon Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, ‘‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Thus, you must be taking the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" as expressing the result of repentance and baptism. However, there are three very good reasons to avoid this interpretation of this verse. 1) The rest of Scripture does not make baptism necessary for salvation, including Acts. Consider the following verses from Acts where forgiveness is mentioned and notice that not one of them links forgiveness with baptism. a) Acts 5:31 - "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." b) Acts 10:43 - "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." c) Acts 13:38-39 - ‘‘Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." d) Acts 26:18 - "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." Notice that none of these other verses in Acts tie baptism in with the forgiveness of sins. If baptism were essential to salvation, you would think that it would be mentioned in these other verses as well. 2) There are reasons to believe that "for the forgiveness of sins" does not express result, but rather expresses the ground or reason for baptism. The preposition translated as ‘for’ in Acts 2:38 is sometimes used in this way. Consider the following examples and notice that two of them involve baptism (additional evidence that Acts 2:38 should be translated as "on the basis or grounds of the forgiveness of your sins): a) Matthew 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." b) Matthew 12:41 - "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." Allow me to address Mt. 12:41 first. The phrase "repented at the preaching of Jonah" uses the same preposition (eis) as does Acts 2:38. Obviously, the preaching of Jonah was the basis of their repentance, not the other way around. The other example illustrates the same thing and it involves baptism. In Mt. 3:11, baptism did not produce repentance. Rather, repentance was the grounds for baptism. 3) Finally, there is evidence in Acts 2:38 that the middle clause (involving baptism) may be a parenthetical statement. The command to repent is plural. The command to be baptized is singular. This would seems to indicate some break in the chain of thought. If this is the case, the phrase "for the remission of sins" may not even belong with the command to be baptized. No one would debate with you that baptism is important to a believer. However, I just can’t see that baptism is necessary for salvation. There are only a couple of debated Scriptures that even seem to make that case, while the vast majority of Scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is through faith alone. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
143 | Are we saying the same thing? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8797 | ||
Greetings Sharp! You said in your post: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation." It may be that we are saying the same thing, but simply aren't making ourselves clear. Let me state again what I am trying to say: 1) Baptism is important, since it was commanded by Christ. I don't think anyone on this forum is saying that baptism is unimportant. I know I'm not! 2) Baptism does not in any way contribute to or take away from our salvation. In other words, one does not have to be baptized to be saved. 3) Baptism is a outward testimony of what God has already done in saving us. If this is what you are saying as well, then I agree with you one hundred percent. However, if you are saying that baptism is necessary for salvation, then I would disagree with you one hundred percent. That would be making a work necessary for salvation and Scripture is clear that we can do nothing to earn salvation. Let me know if you agree with the above statement, then we can proceed from that point. p.s. - I think your reference is Luke 7:30! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
144 | Cities of Judah or Cities of Demons? | Genesis | Morant61 | 8347 | ||
Greetings Heir of God! Thank you for such a polite response! If I may, allow me to deal with two of your points (the context of Jer. 4 and Benny Hinn's ministry.) 1) The context of Jer. 4. The word town is used 3 times in Jer. 4 (.vv. 7, 26, and 29.) The context makes it very clear that the towns refered to our in Judah. Verse 5 talks about warning Judah and Jerusalem. The warning is about destruction coming from the north (v. 6) in the form of a destroyer of nations who will lay waste to their land and ruin their cities (v. 7). Verse 8 tells them to lament God's wrath on them. Verses 9-10 talk about the false prophets who said that Judah would have peace when even now the sword is at their throats. Verse 16 talks about a besieging army from the north which is raising a war cry against the cities of Judah. Verse 20 talks about the land lying in ruins. Why or how, in light of this context, would Jer. 4:23-26 suddenly change meaning and refer to cities in exitistance long before Adam? Jer. 4:23-26 is clearly an apocolyptic description of God's judgement upon Judah. There is no mention of demons. There is no mention of a time before Adam. However, there is constant mention throughout Jer. 4 of Judah and her cities. The problem I have with Benny Hinn is exactly this kind of teaching. There is not a shred of evidence to support what he is saying. But the problem even goes beyond this one issue. His theology is constantly this messed up. I wouldn't trust anything he says on any issue. 2) Concerning messengers of God: There are many "messengers" with whom I don't agree on every point, but they are solid in their theology and ministry. However, I believe that Benny Hinn is a complete fraud. I don't say that lightly. If you are interested, we can examine his theology point by point. I only say this to you (and to others reading on this forum) because I believe this man is dangerous to the faith. Even if we don't agree about the man, I appreciate your positive attitude. I look forward to your response. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
145 | What Cities are Refered to in Jer. 4:26? | Genesis | Morant61 | 8257 | ||
Greetings Heir of God! Let me state up front that I am not an admirer of Benny Hinn, so you know where I am coming from. To me, Benny Hinn's teaching is a good example of how wild speculation becomes accepted without regard to the context of Scripture. Look at Jer. 4:23-26: "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone. 24 I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying. 25 I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away. 26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger." The questions that must be answered in looking at a passage like this are: 1) What is the context? 2) What is the time frame? 3) What cities are mentioned? The context of Jer. 4 is clear. The Babylonians are coming in from the north to attack Judah (Jer. 4:4-6). This attack is part of God's punishment for Judah's sin and rebellion. The time frame of Jer. 4:23-26 is the near future, not the distant past. The cities mentioned in Jer. 4:26 refer to the cities of Judah, not ancient Demon cities. Jer. 4:23-26 is simply a passage (in an apocalyptic style) describing the near future destruction of Judah by the Babylonians. I would lovingly urge you to avoid Benny Hinn. His doctrine and theology are dangerously flawed. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
146 | Why Destroyed? | Rev 20:14 | Morant61 | 7772 | ||
Greetings Cepas! Thanks for the quick response! Verse 14 could definitely refer to the abode as well as their inhabitants. My question would be though: How does an abode get thrown in the Lake of Fire? The easiest answer seems to be that they are personifications. Thus, references to them refer to the individuals within them. But I could be wrong! The main point though concerns the word "destroyed." I think (though I can't realy speak for anyone else) that many of the responders to your original post think that you are fishing for a preconceived answer (i.e. - that people in the Lake of Fire are destroyed, and not tormented for eternity.) So I ask directly, why do you make the inference that Death and Hades are destroyed? Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
147 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 7338 | ||
Greetings Forum! I would appreciate your help. I am currently doing a study of sanctification. I am especially interested in the doctrine of Entire Sanctification. Here is my question: Is there any support for the doctrine of Entire Sanctification in the Bible? This is not a trick question. I am in the process of studying this issue and have an open mind to whatever the Bible says. So, if you have any comments (based upon Scripture) either for or against this doctrine, I would appreciate hearing from you. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
148 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6977 | ||
Greetings Joe! Obviously Calvanists and Arminians approach Scripture with different sets of assumptions. However, Scripture should be the final arbitrator. During the course of this thread, several people have asked me about specific passages of Scripture. I haven't tried to give honest and thorough answers about each passage. However, no one has responded concerning those passages. For instance, you asked me about Rom. 5:17. Then you asked me for Scripture demostrating that salvation is something that can be accepted or rejected. I responded with a fairly detailed examination of 2 Cor. 5:11-20. Before we go on to discuss why some accept and some don't, would you respond to these two passages from your perspective. a) Romans 5:17 uses an active voice for the verb 'receive.' The normal meaning of this would be that the subject does the receiving. How does this square with Calvanism? b) The most important passage is 2 Cor. 5:11-20. Paul describes there his ministry of reconcilation, given to him by God, in which he implores and persuades men to be reconciled to God as though God Himself were making the plea. Paul does so because the love of Christ compels him. His final command is this: Be reconciled to God. This passage seems like it is describing Arminianism perfectly. God reconciled the world to Himself in Christ (unlimited atonement), but those to whom Paul is preaching must "be reconciled (conditonal election)." As a Calvanist, how do you interpret this passage? Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran p.s. - Let us know how the mission trip goes! |
||||||
149 | One Source or Several? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 6958 | ||
Great post Rextar! I did have one question though! It is my understanding that the Majority and the Testus Receptus are not based upon the Byzantine manuscripts only. They simply give more weight to them because they are more numerous. However, they both use manuscripts from many different areas. In the same way, the Critical text does rely only upon Alexandrian manuscripts. It simply gives more weight to their readings because of the perceived quality of the manuscripts and their early date. I especially appreciated your comments about the quality of the text that we have in the Bible. To me, this is one of the great evidences for the inspiration and continuing protection of God's Word by the Holy Spirit. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
150 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6873 | ||
Follow up - I made two mistakes in my reponse to this post! First of all, I thought I was responding to Orthodoxy (sorry JVH0212)! Secondly, I meant to type that "Calvinism is NOT the only way to view the Biblical data! Sorry! Tim Moran |
||||||
151 | 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 |
||||||
152 | When is all not all? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6757 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Thanks for the input! As I had discussed with Othodoxy, I believe that invidiual verses must be dealt with in our theology and doctrine. This verse just cannot be made to fit a doctrine of a limited atonement (in my opinion.) However, it is not just this verse but a clear pattern of Scripture as well that Christ both atoned for the sins of the world and wills that all men be saved (hence the offer of salvation to all is real.) Consider the following verses of Scripture: 1) Concerning the extent of the atonement: a) 2 Cor. 5:19 - "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. " b) John 3:16-17 - "‘‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." c) John 12:32 - "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” d) John 6:33 and 51 - "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” ..."I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” e) Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." f) 1 John 4:14 - "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." g) 1 Timothy 2:6 - "who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." 2) Concerning the will of Christ to save all: a) 1 Timothy 2:4 - "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." b) 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." c) Romans 11:32 - " For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." I believe that all of these verses demonstrate the love of God, in that He died for all and res all to be reconciled to Him. The tragedy is that so many fail to respond to the grace of God. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
153 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6725 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I actually responded to this post a couple of days ago, but for some reason it was lost (or non-elect :-) ). Allow me to respond to each of your paragraphs. 1) I partially agree with you about TULIP. If you have P, you must have TULI. However, you can have T, without having ULIP. Suppose for instance, that God elected everyone. Arimians believe in T. They just don't go along with ULIP. 2) This is a tough one to answer quickly. Let me state it this way. I believe in an unconditional atonement, but a conditional election. The atonement is an accomplished fact at Calvary. Nothing I do or say will ever change the fact (from my perspective) that He atoned for the sins of the world on the cross. However, I can choose whether or not I want to be a part of the elect body. 3) Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are not the same, so I don't know where this paragraph came from or why! 4) I share your concerns about Dr. Hasker's theology. He and I seldom agreed on anything when I was in class under him. However, He was an excellent professor. He was always fair and honest. I definitely would regard him as a brother in Christ, while whole heartedly disagree with his view's on the knowledge and nature of God. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
154 | 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 |
||||||
155 | 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. |
||||||
156 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6575 | ||
Greetings, I wasn't expecting such a quick reply! My counter reply is: You cannot understand the whole unless you understand the parts. An appeal to the whole, to me, means I can't explain the verse! :-) 1) I don't believe I said there was only one way to read it. What I recall saying was that the natural reading is that the whole world refers to the whole world, not just part. For instance, if I said that I ate a whole apple pie today, the natural reading would be that 'whole' refered to the entire pie and not just a part of it. 1 John 2:2 says that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)" So, did He or did He not atone for the sins of the whole world? This is the natural reading. If you are going to read it otherwise, you must provide reason for understanding "whole world" in some other way than "whole world." 2) I'll deal briefly with the individual verses that you list later in your post. a) Romans 9:12-15: Is the election refered to here one of salvation or purpose? No where in this passage does it say that Isaac was saved and Esau was lost. In fact, Romans 9:11-12 states that God's purpose in election, which was not based upon works, was that the older would serve the younger. How does this contradict 1 John 2:2? b) Jude 4: You lost me on this one! God long ago, wrote about certain godless men who would deny Christ. How does this relate to 1 John 2:2? c) Eph. 1:11-12: This one deserves much more discussion (maybe a new thread!) My short response is this: The purpose of election in Eph. 1 is to bring Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. The Jews (the we of vs. 11) were the first to respond to the Gospel, but the Gentiles, (the you also of vs. 13) were also included among the elect when they responded to and believed the Gospel. My understanding of election is corporate in nature, not individual (per Robert Shank). Note however, that these verses no where state that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world. Where is the contradiction to 1 John 2:2? d) Rev. 20:15: Whose names are written in the book of life? How do they get there? Does this verse say that He did not die for those who are not in the book of life? 3 and 4) From my perspective, you are confusing he offer of the gift with the acceptance of the gift. Atonement has been made once and for all for all sin by Christ on the cross. However, the gift must be received or it does not save. In essence, Christ paid for our sins and now says, "Are you with me or against me?" If we reject His offer, we are lost. 5) Election history: Did God choose to save the indiduals you listed first and choose to condemn the ones listed second? Or did He choose to work through the first and not the second? This is one reason why Calvanist's (in my opinion) prefer to look at the whole and not individual verses, because there is not a single verse that says Christ died only for the elect or only for some. The fact that God choose to make David king over Saul does not mean that some are elected to salvation and others are not. 6) Plus: I can't come up with something to make the atonement conditional upon something other than God. It isn't conditional, it is an accomplished fact that we can choose to accept or reject. Thanks for you reply! Might I suggest that we narrow the focus in the future. These posts are getting long. You might pick one passage or one area that we could focus on for discussion. I'll go with the flow. Suggestion: Things like T.U.L.I.P. are helpful in distguishing between Calvanism and Arminianism. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
157 | Whole world or not? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6573 | ||
Greetings Sam! I agree that dealing with one verse is stacking the deck in my favor! However, it is my thread and if you don't want to play by my rules, I will take my thread and go home! :-) Seriously though, I did try to limit the discussion for a reason. The debate between Calvanism and Armnianism deals with many issues: The sovereignty of God, freewill, the order of decrees, human nature, original sin, grace, and a host of other theological issues. The problem I have is that many times we never deal with a particular point, but only throw around a bunch of "yeah, but what about this verse"'s. So, my goal was not to eliminate debate, but simply focus it. Now concerning the meat of your post! 1) You asked, "Did Christ die for the sins of all humans or for all humans who sin?" I'm not sure I see a huge difference since we all sin, but I understand where you are going. Can the phrase "the sins of the whole world" not mean every inividual? I say no! The term sin is modifed by a plural personal pronoun. It is not just sin, but our sin for which Christ died. Then, John goes on, not just our sin, but the sin of the whole world. If John is speaking of individuals in the first phrase, he must still be speaking of individuals in the second phrase. 2) How about John 10:11? First of all, each passage must be interpreted based upon it's own context. If in fact 1 John 2:2 refers to the whold world, that fact does not automatically mandate that "sheep" in John 10:11 must also refer to the whole world. John 10:11 and 1 John 2:2 are different books, and in different contexts. The sheep "parable" in John 10 is a story told to make a point. It was not intended to be a theological textbook for or against either Calvanism or Arminianism (though it may speak for or against either). In the sheep passage, Jesus makes several statements about His sheep. However, He does not say how one becomes (if possible) one of His sheep. He does not say why some are and some are not His sheep. And, if I understand your point correctly, the fact that Christ died for His sheep, in no way is a statement that Christ did not die for those who aren't His sheep. For instance, if I said that God loves Christians, does that mean that God hates non-Christians? There isn't any statment in John 10 that Christ did not die for anyone other than His sheep, while 1 John 2:2 specifically says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Aside: There are several issues that must be addressed in John 10 if we are to understand the theology of it. a) Who are the sheep? Elect as opposed to non-elect? Christians as opposed to non-Christians? Jews as opposed to non-Jews? b) Why does John 10:15 say that Christ died for "the sheep" and not "my sheep?" c) Who are the other sheep of John 10:16? I am more than happy to discuss other verses, post a thread with a verse or passage that you want to discuss and I'll respond. However, no one has yet given me a contextual reason why "the sins of the whole world" does not really mean the "whole world." The reason I chose this particual verse for debate was beause the phrase "whole world" cannot mean anything else. Either Christ was the propitation for the sins of the whole world or He wasn't. Which is it? In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
158 | Calvanism -vs- Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6567 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Thanks for the reply! Let me respond to each of your paragraphs for organizational purposes. 1) I really don't want to speak for anyone else, so I'll deal with my understanding of Arminianism. I really can't agree that Arminianism is any-kind-of-Pelagianism. Calvanism and Arminianism have much more in common than Pelagianism and Arminianism. Pelagianism did not believe: a) Depravity. b) Original Sin. c) Salvation by Grace alone. While Calvanism and Arminianism disagree on several major points, they do both teach that man is born a sinner, that man is born guilty, and that salvation is provided and obtained through God's grace alone. 2) Let me take a stab at your challenge. The following statements are very broad statements, but I think they illustrate the primary differene between Calvanism and Arminianism. a) Calvanism teaches that salvation is wholly a work of God. The only receipents of this salvation are those whom God has sovereignly elected to salvation. b) Arminianism teaches that salvation is whollly a work of God. The only receipents of that salvation are those who respond to God's sovereign offer of salvation. This salvation is a free gift offered to all alike and based entirely upon the death of Christ. Therefore, man adds nothing to salvation. God has simply sovereignly allowed man an option: accept or reject. However, acceptance or rejection does not add to or take away from the objective and accomplished fact of the atonement. Our choice only determines whether or not we get to receive the benefit of God's free gift. 3) I did a major paper (60 pages - Whew!) on Romans 9-11 in college. I also think that it clinches the argument (sorry, but I see Arminianism :-)). If you have any particulars that you would care to discuss or debate, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. It would probably require another thread. 4) Great majors! I didn't plan on taking any philosophy (or at least as little as possible) when I was in college. However, I ended up with enough to almost major in it. If you have been studying philosophy, you might have read one of my professors - Dr. William Hasker. Keep up the good (I'm assuming) work! Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
159 | When is the World not the World? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6564 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I have to disagree with your first point. Theology and doctrine should be based upon sound exegesis of Scripture. While you definitely need to look at all of Scripture to formulate doctrine, you must understand the individual verses first. I think this is where so many people go wrong. They start quoting a bunch of verses without ever really dealing with what the verses are actuall saying. In terms of the extent of the atonement, I do believe that this is a decisive verse. It does not deal with everything relating to the atonement, but it does deal with the extent of the atonement. Allow me to briefly touch upon your points. 1) Does "world" refer to every individal? There is a comparison here. John is comparing the sins of us (obviously the Christians to who he is writing) and the sins of the whole world (the sins of everyone else). He doesn't say all Christians everywhere. He specifically says the sins of the world and then qualifies that further with the word 'whole.' If you are going to interpret this phrase in some other way, you must provide a rational to do so. There is no mention in 1 John of Jews and Gentiles, so that won't work either. Other than your doctrine, do you have contextual reasons to interpret the 'sins of the whole world' to mean something other than the sins of the whole world? 2) Hyperbole? Vague? It sounds clear to me! Hyperbole would definitely be a legitimate linguistic device, but what evidence is there that hyperbole is being used here? Simply listing three or four possible options without providing any evidence does not eliminate the plain reading (the most natural reading) of the text. 3) Your third point is only a problem if you hold to a Calvanistic viewpoint of Sovereignty and free will. From my standpoint, the atonement is an accompished fact for every individual. However, only those who receive the gift of salvation partake in the benefits of it. From a Calvanistic standpoint, Christ cannot have died for everyone, or everyone would be 'saved' simply because Calvin never allowed for any human freedom. 4) The unforgivable sin is more a problem for Calvanist than for Arminians. This is a good illustration of why we need to deal with individual passages. If Christ died for the 'sins of the whole world,' then the doctrine of the limited atonement cannot be Biblical. So, this key verse must be dealt with. |
||||||
160 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6540 | ||
Greetings Y'all: There have been several threads deaing with the extent of the atonment. Rather than rehasing all of those discussions, I would like to propose something different. A limited discussion on 1 John 2:2. Personally, I think the best way to debate an issue like this is to deal with a limited number of verses. Since I proposed this, I will start first. Here is my take on 1 John 2:2. The question concerning the extent of the atonement is simply this: Did Christ atone for all or only the elect? Many verses, which seem to indicate that Christ died for all, can be interpreted in such a way as to limit the extent of the word 'all.' However, 1 John 2:2 seems to be perfectly clear. There is a contrast here between believers (our sins) and unbelievers (the whole world). Christ is the propitation for all sin. Now, what does it mean that Christ is the propitation for all sin? The word 'hilasmos' is only used twice in the New Testament (Here and in 1 John 4:10). It signifies a turning a way of God's wrath by an offering. The entire ministry of Christ is signified by this word in 1 John 4:10. The gift of salvation in Romans 3:25 is described using a related word 'hilasterion.' This same word ('hilasterion') is used in Heb. 2:17 to refer to the priestly ministry of Christ. In my opinion, this verse is decisive. Christ died for the sins of everyone. The Cross is the one and only act of atonement for all men and for all sin. I don't see anyway, in light of this verse, that one can argue that Christ only died for the elect. p.s. - A note for all those who respond. Unless one is dealing with heresy, I view debate as an opportunity to sharpen our understanding of Scripture. By interacting with one another, we can see how others view Scripture, consider other points of view, and sharpen our ability to deal with objections to our viewpoints. We may never agree with each other, but I can live with that! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |