Results 6681 - 6700 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6681 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 7029 | ||
Greetings Joe! You have asked an excellent question! Keep in mind that this forum limits how much detail I can go into, but I will attempt to answer your question from my perspective. Robert Shank has phrased this better than I ever could, so I am going to borrow his paradigm to explain my view of the atonement. 1) The atonement is efficacious for all men potentially. I believe that the atonement is a once and for all of Christ on the behalf of all men. The cross paid for every sin of every individual for all time. This is an objective reality that does not depend in any way upon anything that we might do or say. 2) The atonement is efficacious for no man unconditionally. I also believe that the benefits of the atonement are conditioned upon the basis of our "receiving - Rom. 5:17" the grace of God (Repentance). 3) The atonement is efficacious for the Israel of God efficently. I further believe that the atonement is efficent only for those who have become a part of the Israel of God (the Elect). The key point that I don't think you see (from my perspective) is that Arminians don't see the atonement as only potential, but an objective reality. To use a limited human version of your George example, Christ payed His debt, but George insists on paying for himself (which he can't do). By the way, this view corresponds exactly with 2 Cor. 5:11-20. The reconciliation is an objective fact provided by God, but we have to be reconciled. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6682 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 7026 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! My short answer to your question would simply be this: If John wanted to say that, he could have very simply - "Not only did is He the propitiation for our sins, but He is the propitiation for the sins of all believers." He choose not to say that. Further, there is nothing in the context that would allow that interpretation. Furthermore, the word "world" is itself qualified by the word "whole." Is there any place in John's writtings where "world" only refers to believers? Is there any place in all of Scripture, were "world" only refers to believers? In my view, the answer to both of these questions is no. In order to interpret "world", consider how John uses the word "world" in the rest of his writings. a) In John 1:10, John says that the "world" did not recognize Christ. b) In John 1:29, Christ is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. c) In John 7:7, the "world" hates Christ. d) In John 8:23, the "world" is contrasted with heaven. e) In John 10:36, Christ is sent into the "world." f) In John 12:25, it is the one who hates his life in this "world" who will inherit eternal life. g) In John 13:1, it is the time for Jesus to leave this "world." h) In John 14:17, the "world" cannot accept the Spirit of Truth. i) In 1 John 2:15-16, we are commanded not to love the world. In fact, the word "world" is used a total of 17 times in 1 John alone. In every other occurance of the word "world" in 1 John, it either refers to the physical world or the opposition of the world to Christ. Therefore, in light of John's usage of the word "world" throughout his writings and in 1 John in particular, to add the word "believers" would be an example of forcing the verse to say what our theology demands it to say, rather than letting the verse inform our theology. I appreciate your response. However, I don't see that the case can be made for limiting the word "world" to only believers when John never ever uses the word in that way in any of his writings. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6683 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 7011 | ||
Greetings Joe! 1) I would agree that the 'we' and 'us' are obviously restricted to Paul's audience and his fellow ministers. However, that doesn't automatically restrict every pronoun in the passage to these two groups. Notice the following usages: a) V. 14 says that Christ died for all men. b) V. 16 says that Paul views 'no one' from a worldly view any longer. c) V. 19 says that God was reconciling the "world" to Himself. May I point out that every time you deal with a passage that says "all" or the "world", your objection is based upon your theology, not upon the text itself. 2 Cor. 5:11-20 simply does not make any sense under Calvinism, but it makes perfect sense under Arminianism. Our reconciliation is an accomplished objective fact at the cross (God was reconciling the world to Himself), but we must accept God's gift (and be reconciled.) You ask whose sins are people suffering in hell for? Their own, because they refused to accept the sacrifice of Christ, which was sufficient to pay for all our sins. I also notice that while you tell me what you think this passage can't mean in light of Calvinism, you do not provide any interpretation about what it does mean in light of Calvinism. What does it mean to "be reconciled" to God? Why is it an imperative? I do appreciate the dialogue. Even if we never agree, I am learning alot for our discussion. For instance, while studying 2 Cor. 5:20, I noticed that the command to be reconcilied is in the passive voice. That confused me totally for awhile! Typically, an active voice refers to the subject doing the action of the verb, while a passive voice refers to the subject receiving the action of the verb. The confusing part of this verse was that the verb is a command. How can a command be passive? Then it struck me. An excellent (and legitimate) way to translate that command would be: "Allow yourself to be reconciled." This address some of the concerns that Calvinists typically have. The reconciliation is totally a work of God, accomplished on the cross. However, we have to allow ourselves to be reconcilied. Therefore the command is an aorist, passive, imperative. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6684 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 7008 | ||
Greetings Joe! Thanks for the response! It is much easier to discuss an issue like this when we both deal with a particular Scripture or passage. Let me try to interact with your position. 1) I had to delete this point, my post was too long? :-) 2) Concerning your second, third, and fourth paragraphs: I would agree that the usage of ‘we’ through Rom. 5:1-11 is referring to believers. The context makes it abundantly clear. After all, he is writing to a church. However, that does not necessarily limit Paul’s comments about the actions of Christ only to believers. We have to ask, can Paul’s statements in Romans 5:6-10 also apply to all men? In other words, did Paul believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all men? Consider the following passages: 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." Clearly in this passage, Paul felt that Christ’s atoning work applied to the WORLD, not just believers. b) 1 Tim. 2:4-6 - "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." Again, the ransom was for ALL men. c) Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." The reasons I appeal to these verses is simply this: While the specific audience of Romans 5:1-11 may be the church at Rome, what Paul says here applies equally to all men, as he makes clear in other Scriptures. So, one would not be guilty of reading something into the text to say that Christ died for all ungodly. Especially since, Rom. 5:10 uses the same terminology as 2 Cor. 5, where it is said that God reconciled the world to Himself. In answer to your final question of the fourth paragraph: Arminians would say that potentially all men are included in this category! 3) Concerning your fifth paragraph: According to 2 Cor. 5, all human beings have been reconciled to God at the cross. All that remains is for us to "be reconciled" as God Himself appeals to us through Paul. 4) Concerning your last paragraph: Romans 5:12-20 is the crucial passage for our discussion. Here Paul goes into a detailed explanation of what occurred as a result of Adam’s sin, and what occurred as a result of Christ’s death. You asked if all men condemned until Christ. According to v. 18, they were. You also asked if all men were justified through Christ. According to v. 18, they were. You also commented that Paul isn’t talking about "potential justification." However, isn’t that exactly the point of v. 17? Rom. 5:16 sets up a contrast, not a comparison. Continuing the contrast in v. 17, Paul says that death reigned upon all men through Adam’s sin (we know this from v. 12), but life only reigns in those who receive God’s grace. In light of Rom. 5:16-17, Arminians would say that atonement has been made for all men, but it effects only become active individually upon acceptance of the gift. I really appreciate your interaction. You have laid out a logical case. The only major weakness I can see is in your last sentence. And this is one of the major problems I have with Calvinism. Romans 5:12-20 is obviously dealing with the status of all men. Death came upon all because of Adam. Sin reigns in all because of Adam. Even Calvinists appeal to this passage for Original Sin. So, how can you take "all" in this passage to only mean all kinds of men? To me, this is the major weakness of Calvin, He was unwilling for all to mean all because his doctrine said that all could not mean all. You may have been trying to deal with this question in your last paragraph and I just didn't follow it. Can you provide one example where "all" clearly means "all kinds of men?" Frankly, I don’t buy that argument at all (no pun intended!) In English and in Greek, ‘all’ clearly refers to numerical quantity, not types. Where is there any indication in the verses I quoted in points 2a-c, that Paul is only saying that God only came to save certain kinds of people, and not every individual? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6685 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Morant61 | 6994 | ||
Greetings Hank! Thanks for the input and the blessing! I couldn't agree with you more. I teach a small group Bible study every Wednesday night. My favorite word, which they get tired of hearing, is 'context, context, context.' Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6686 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Morant61 | 6978 | ||
Greetings EdB! There is nothing wrong with taking the Bible literally. The problem is that we often read things into the Bible that aren't there. Taking the Bible literally simply means to take the Bible for what it actally says, not what we think it is saying. For instance, in the current thread, the debate is over the meaning of 1 Tim. 3:2. There is nothing in the verse that says an overseer must be married. The word 'marriage or married' is never used in the passage. However, many have interpreted a phrase that basically means "faithful to his wife" as meaning marriage is a qualification for service. Notice that verse 3 says that he must not be a lover of money. Are we then to say that an overseer must have money? How about v. 4, which deals with children? Must an overseer also have children in order to lead? I agree with one of JVHO212's posts, here he made the case that the issue is not marital status, but the moral conduct of the leaders. I do appreciate the reminder to watch our tone in the debates we engage in. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6687 | 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! |
||||||
6688 | One Source or Several? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 6971 | ||
Thanks for the clarification Rextar! That was my understanding as well. I had just read of few of the posts on this thread and felt that a few of them did give the impression that certain manuscripts relied on only one type. p.s. - I had a thought last night, all three types of text (Majority, TR, and Critical) are technically critical texts, since each of them makes critical decisions with differing methods. Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6689 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6966 | ||
See other post! There is an ammended version of this post! Tim Moran |
||||||
6690 | 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 |
||||||
6691 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6955 | ||
Greetings Joe! Thnanks for the input! I've been busy too, but I'm just putting a transmission in my car! I would much rather be doing what you are doing! Good luck with the trip. 1) Your first question is an easy one. The word for 'receive' is a present active participle. If Paul meant for us to understand that they only received through an act of God, he would have used a middle or a passive voice to express that idea. An active voice indicates that the subject of the sentence or clause did the action. 2) With all due respect, "whosoever" passages only fit into a Calvanistic understanding by deny that 'all' really means all. Every Calvanistic interpretation I have ever read (and there have been many) of the universal passages has went to extreme lengths to say that 'all' only means all elect, not all individuals. There are a few passages were that case might be made from the context, but most of the time it simply doesn't work. For instance, 1 John 2:2 is such a verse. Your main question is a litte more difficult. It is more difficult simply because of the way it is phrased. If you assume that only those who believe will be saved, but God determines who will believe, then you have eliminated every single verse that says "believe and you will receive" as a proof text. However, even with this limitation, I still think there are many passages that make the case that the Gospel must be responded to or received. Let me deal with one in detail. a) 2 Cor. 5:11-21 is a passage where Paul deals with the ministry of reconciliation. Note that Paul states in this passage that Paul that Christ died for all men - 2 Cor. 5:14. He then describes what this truth means for those who "are in Christ" (i.e. - He is a new creation) - 2 Cor. 5:17. He says that all of this a consequence of the reconciliation that Christ accomplished on the cross - 2 Cor. 5:18-19a. However, Paul then goes on to describe his ministry of reconciliation. He says that he is like an ambassador, through whom God is making His appeal - "Be reconciled to God" - 2 Cor. 5:20. He also describes his ministry as one of persuassion (2 Cor. 5:11) motived by the love of Christ, which compels him - 2 Cor. 5:14. This passage cleary teaches an objective accomplished fact (unlimited atonement) which must be responded to. Compare also Romans 10, where the offer of salation is made to all through preaching. 3) I'm not quite sure how to respond to this point. I know that some Calvanists cannot accept an election of grace because their understanding of the nature of God's will does not allow for something that God's wills to not occur. I'm not if that is what you mean or not. My short answer is this: The offer of salvation is a free gift. It is sovereignly extended to "whosoever will", but man must repent from their sins and choose life. I don't see how God could do anything "more" to ensure our acceptance and still make the choice "free." Not to be mean, but why should the fact that some do not respond to the gospel cause you to think that God has somehow failed? Under Calvanism, God actively prevents people from being saved! 4) Concerning your corollary question: Look at Romans 11. Paul describes two classes of Israelites: those who are included in the election of grace and those who have stumbled and have been broken off of the olive tree (Israel). Note however that the reason for their rejection was their unbelief - Rom. 11:20. Paul also says that they can be grafted in again if they do not continue in their unbelief - Rom. 11:23. Salvation is not easy. It requires a choice between slavery to the flesh and slavery to God. Many people do not want to submit to God. They would rather live in, what they think is freedom, and fulfill the desires of their flesh. Thanks for your response Joe! I'll keep your missions trip in prayer. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6692 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6896 | ||
Greetings Ray! Thanks for the input! It takes a little effort to work through these wonderful passages, but when you get to the end it is worth it. I really believe that the best and simplest explanation of election is that God wants to have mercy on all - Rom. 11:32. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6693 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6879 | ||
No offense taken! I had just send the post, when I realized that I was responding to you not Orthodoxy. Then I read my response and realized that I had just agreed with Calvanism. So I just wanted to correct the record. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6694 | Jesus took all the world's sins on Him? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6874 | ||
Greetings TSchwab19! I would like to respond to this question, since this is an issue that I (and others) have been discussing on another thread! In many doctrinal issues, there is more than one way to look at verses. As an Arminian, I would agree that Christ died for everyone and that all who believe shall be saved. However, those who view the Bible from a Calvinist perspective would not agree with that statement. The point of the "scruitny" (as you put it) is to discuss our different views and explain why we interpet the verse or verses in the way that we do. If this is done lovingly, it is a wonderful exchange of ideas and should be encouraged. It is only when the discussion turns personal that I feel it becomes inappropriate for this forum. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6695 | 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 |
||||||
6696 | 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 |
||||||
6697 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6813 | ||
Greetings Joe! Here is the section dealing with Ephesians 1. I do see national destinies dealt with in Ephesians 1 as well. Here is why: 1) There is a "we" (Jews - 1:11) and "you also" (Gentiles - 1:13) relationship that is explored throughout the first three chapters of Ephesians. In these three chapters the relationship is dealt with in the following ways. a) In Eph. 2: 1-10, both Jews and Gentiles were by nature ‘objects of wrath - 2:3’ (Note the similarity to Rom. 9:22). However, God showed His mercy upon both and saved them through faith. b) In Eph. 2:11-22, God has broken down the barriers between the two and made the Gentiles a part of the Spiritual Israel (the Elect.) Just as Eph. 1:10 said it has always been His intention to do. c) In Eph. 3:1-13, Paul explains why he became a missionary to the Gentiles. It is because of the mystery of the Gospel, which God has finally revealed. Eph. 3:6 states it this way: "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." In my way of thinking, this view of Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 makes the best sense of all of the data. I don’t have to explain away why "all" doesn’t really mean ‘all.’ I don’t have to ignore the great doctrine of election. I just see it as corporate, referring primarily to Christ Himself and then to the Spiritual Israel, of which any one can be a part if they will not continue in their unbelief. My fingers are tired now! I must stop! I look forward to your reply, and as always, I enjoy reading your posts! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6698 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6811 | ||
Greetings Joe! You won’t believe this, but I lost enough post! My computer disconnected! From now, I elect to save all of my posts to my word processor first, and the paste them into the forum. :-) I thank you so much for a great response! Your post is a fine example of what a discussion can be - interactive and specific. Calvinists and Arminians can toss Scriptures back and forth all day, but until we really start dealing with how we interpret the various passages, we really aren’t sharing anything meaningful. As I’ve said before, my point in a discussion isn’t necessarily to convert someone else to my view. My point is two-fold: to sharpen my ability to communicate and understand my beliefs, and to expose others on the forum to a reasoned presentation of the evidence from all perspectives. Allow me to respond to your posts in two replies! In this one, I will deal with the Romans questions. In the second one, I will deal with the Ephesians questions. You made two points that you feel mitigate against Romans 9 referring to nations rather than individuals. 1) You felt that God is dealing with Jacob and Esau the individuals, not nations. Notice however, that the context of all the quotes from the Old Testament have to do with national destinies, not individual salvation. Paul introduces Esau and Jacob precisely to prove (as you pointed out in your post) that not all who are physically descended from Israel are Israel. He then refers to God’s choice of Jacob over Esau, not for salvation, but for the working out of His purpose in election. It was through Jacob that the Law came. It was through Jacob that the Messiah was to be born, not Esau. Even Romans 9:13, is a quote from Malachi 1:2-5, describing God’s judgment upon the nation of Edom, not His attitude toward Esau. If I could summarize Paul’s point, Israel has no right to complain about how God determines the nature of the spiritual "Israel." If He wants to open Israel up to those who are "not His people - Rom. 9:25", He can. He can have mercy upon whomever He wants to have mercy - Rom. 9:15. 2) Secondly, you felt that vessels of mercy in Rom. 9:23, referred not to nations, but individual among the Jews and Gentiles. Obviously, I would agree that individuals are included. However, I think that again nations are primarily in view. Why? The vessels are contextually the same vessels described in the quote (Rom. 9:20-21) from the Potter and the Clay (Jer. 18:3-6.) If you look at Jer. 18:3-6, you will find that God is once again dealing with the fate of nations and His right to work or use them as He sees fit. Finally, you must consider Romans 10-11as well, when you interpret Romans 9. Romans 10 extends the gospel invitation to whomsoever will. Romans 11 specifically says that some of those who are not part of the spiritual Israel, can be grafted in again if they do not persist in their unbelief - Rom. 11:23. And, I believe that Romans 11:28-32 is the key to understanding election: "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." What is the purpose of election? - to have mercy on them all! Now you see why I needed two posts! :-) I look forward to your reply! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6699 | When is all not all? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6808 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Everyone is more than welcome to participate! In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6700 | Shamayim - why heavens, not two heavens | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 6791 | ||
Greetings Pom! I don't know. Most of the sources I counslted didn't attach a lot of significance to dual nouns. Although, they also admitted that they didn't know why some nouns were dual. At this point, I would guess that it is just a quirk of the language. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 ] Next > Last [339] >> |