Results 6701 - 6720 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6701 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6784 | ||
Greetings Joe! I had a nice answer to your post and it just got wiped out! :-( Let me respond briefly to your first point. There are two different approaches to election. 1) Calvinist generally see election as the particular, unconditional election to salvation. Under this paradigm, some would have to be set apart and some rejected. 2) Arminians (my version) generally see election as corporate and conditional, in Christ. In other words, Christ is both the Elect and the Elector. It is only in Him that we are elect. From my perspective, this jibe's better with Romans 9-11 than does Calvanism. For the following reasons: a) Romans 9-11 deals primarily with national destinies, not individual destinies. b) Romans 9-11 deals primarily with the issue of why God's forknown people (Israel) have not accepted the Messiah. Paul's answer is that membership in Israel is through faith, not birth. c) Romans 10 specifically extends the gospel to all men. d) Romans 11 says that though some of God's foreknown have rejected Christ, they can be grafted in (into the elect Israel), if they do not continue in their unbelief - Romans 11:23. e) I believe that God's purpose in election is clearly spelled out in Romans 11:32- "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." This approach even makes better sense of the Ephesian 1 passage. What two groups does Paul talk about in Ephesians 1? Jews and Gentiles! What is the mystery that God has revealed concerning His purpose in Ephesians 1? He wants to bring both together into one body in Christ. I feel this view does the best justice to both the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Salvation is only through faith and grace, not works. The offer of salvation is legitimately made to 'whosoever will.' And, our assurance is grounded in the accomplised work of the cross, not human effort. Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6702 | Shamayim - why heavens, not two heavens | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 6774 | ||
Greetings, My Hebrew is very rusty, but from the grammars I consulted I was able to find the following information about dual nouns. Dual nouns usually refer to things like body parts that naturally occur in pairs, and are normally simply translated as plurals. However, there are some nouns which have a dual form without having a dual meaning. For instance, the Hebrew word for 'water' has a dual form, but does not have a dual meaning. The word for 'heavens' seems to be the same kind of word. It has a dual form, but can be translated as either a singular or a plural. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6703 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 6762 | ||
Great question Nolan! The crucial difference between the three texts (Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and the Critical Text) concerns the weight given to different manuscript traditions. Each of them is technically an 'eclectic' text, since we do not posess any of the original autographs. Each of them had to make critical decisions. The basic approach of each is as follows. Textus Receptus: The TR was the first attempt at putting together an 'offical' Greek text. The only problem with it is that there were very few manuscripts available at the time, and they were all comparatively late manuscripts (which allows for possible mistakes). The Majority Text: Is almost identical to the TR, but not quite. It uses the theory that critical decisions must be made on the basis of the number of texts, rather than the quality of the texts (hence the name Majority Text.) It differs from the TR primarily only where the majority of texts differ from the TR. The Critical Text: Usually refers to the Nestle-Aland Text. It primarily gives weight to ealier and higher quality texts, rather than later and more numerous texts. Byzantine does not refer to either the Majority Text or the TR. It refers to a number of texts produced in a certain area at a certain time. The same is true of Alexandrian. The only relevance to these two terms is that the Critical texts usually give more weight to Alexandrian manuscripts, while the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus rely more heavily on others. Other types include: the Western and the Caesarean Texts. In my opinion, the Critical text is better and more reliable! However, let me note that none of them are 'bad' texts. The vast majority of textual decisions have to do with spelling and word order. Though the different texts may disagree on minor points, they all teach the same doctrine. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6704 | Finding God's Will | Col 3:15 | Morant61 | 6759 | ||
Commentary on Colossians 3:15: Col. 3:15 says to let the peace of God rule in our hearts. In Greek, the word for rule is 'brabeuo.' This word only occurs here in the entire New Testament, but has a rich history in secular usage. 'Brabeuo' is a word that was used, among other things, of the decision making role of an umpire in sporting events. Applying this meaning to Col. 3:15, we find a verse dealing with decision making in the church. How do we keep the peace in the body of Christ? We should allow the 'peace of Christ' to be the final arbitrator in any decision that we must make. The text even provides three guidelines to help us find the right decision. 1) Any decision we make, must be motivated by love - Col. 3:14. 2) Any decision we make, must be Biblical - Col. 3:16. 3) Any decision we make, must glorify Christ - Col. 3:17. Tim Moran |
||||||
6705 | 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 |
||||||
6706 | What is meant by this passage? | James 4:5 | Morant61 | 6733 | ||
Greetings JVHP212! I agree that James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has the authority to use a composite. We might even call it a paraphrase. This occurs many times in the New Testament. According to the research I did, the best possibilities seem to be verses like Ex. 20:5 or Gen. 6:3. It is even possible that James is referring forward to the quote he used in James 4:6. Whichever, the meaning of the passage is clear. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6707 | What did women do in the early church? | Rom 16:2 | Morant61 | 6727 | ||
Amen, Charis! Tim Moran |
||||||
6708 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 6726 | ||
Greetings Joe! I would respectfully disagree with you on this point. I understand what you are saying, but I think that even in the extreme case of heresy, more would be accomplished with a 'soft word' than with a 'harsh word.' I think the best pattern for presenting our arguments is found in Col. 4:2-6: "2 Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. 3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. 4 Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. 5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." This doesn't mean that we cannot boldy confront error or heresy! We can and should, but always with the love and grace of Christ in our hearts and on our lips! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6709 | 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 |
||||||
6710 | What is meant by this passage? | James 4:5 | Morant61 | 6722 | ||
Greetings Bleavell! This is a very difficult verse to translate, let alone interpret. Here is the literal reading of the Greek text: "Or do you think that in vain the Scripture says, to/for jealousy he longs for the spirit which he placed in us." The first phrase is fairly clear (Or, do you think that Scripture says in vain...".) However, in the second phrase there are several difficult tranlation decisions which must be made. 1) Is spirit the subject or the object of the clause? In form, spirit could be either. However, I think it is more likely that spirit is the object. For one thing, if spirit is the subject, there is no other object for the verb 'he longs for.' Secondly, the pronoun 'which' would have no antecedent. 2) How should 'for jealousy' be translated? The best option seems to be to treat it as an adverb, even though it is a noun. Based upon these choices, the smoother English translation would read something like this: "Or, Do you think that Scripture says in vain, 'He jealously longs for the spirit which He placed in us.'" Now that we have translated the verse, we still have to interpret it. This is just a difficult task as the tranlation, since it is not clear to what Scripture verse James is referring. 1) Is 'spirit' a reference to the Holy Spirit, or to man's spirit? I believe it is a reference to man's spirit (i.e. - life), since the context deals with man's attitudes towards one another and God. In fact, there is no clear reference in the entire book of James to the Holy Spirit. Consider the logic of the passage, which probably begins at 3:13. Chapter four begins with a discussion of evil desires. James asks in 4:1, "What causes fights and quarrels among you?...." He then answers that they come from our internal desires. We want something, but don't get it. We will kill or fight to get what we want - v. 2. However, we don't ask God. Even when we do ask God, we don't get what we want because we ask with wrong motives- v. 3. We ask for our own pleasure. James 4:4 is the key (I think) to understanding verse 5. This attitude that he has been describing is now equated with spiritual adultery. Rather than loving and longing for God, we are seeking the pleasures of this world. We have become His enemies. In this context, James 4:5 would be saying that God is a jealous God - cf. Exodus 20:5. He wants our worship and love. I hope this helps! Tim Moran |
||||||
6711 | More Info on Beliefs | 3 John 1:11 | Morant61 | 6710 | ||
Greetings Chris! If you read all of my posts, you sure are a glutton for punishment! :-) Thanks for the kind words! The shortest way to list my beliefs would probably be to use common labels: I hold to a: Arminian, Pre-Wrath-Millenial Eschotology, Evangelical Theology. Through the years, I have had contact with many different theological bents (my Father-in-Law is an American Baptist Pastor.) Because of this, I have learned that many good Christian people have differing views on certain topics. I think it was JVHO212, who dealt with the issue of historic Chrisianity in one of his posts. He made an excellent point. There are core beliefs that define Christianity. In those core beliefs, there can be no debate. In all else, we can gracefully agree to disagee. 1a) Rom. 9:19-21: Romans is a wonderful book. From my study of it, I have developed the following interpretive paradigm. The main issue in Romans is this: Why are Gentiles being saved, while Jews are not? The Jewish nation had a tremendous amount of pride in their status as "God's choosen nation." This pride turned into an assumption that they were automatically "right" with God. In Romans, Paul destroys this believe. In chapter one, He argues that God's wrath is revealed against all pagans who have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (1:25). Every Jew reading this would have been saying, "Amen...Paul!" But, in chapter two, Paul includes the Jews under God's wrath for their violation of the Law God had given them. Consequently, according to Romans 3, all have fallen short of the glory of God. He the goes on to argue in chapter 4 through 8 that salvation is obtained only through faith in Christ, not by works. Chapters 9-11, focus specifically on the question of Israel's rejection of Christ. Has God failed in His promises to Israel? Of course not, Paul replies! You haven't understood His promises to begin with: a) Israel is an Israel of promise not of birth - Rom. 9:1-9. b) God has the sovereign right to extend His mercy to whomever His wishes - Rom. 9:10-29. So my short answer concerning Rom. 9:19-21, would be this: Israel (the clay) has no right to complain about how the potter (God) chooses to use them (the nation.) His purpose, according to Rom. 11:32 is clear, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." 1b) In my opinion, the views of people like Robert Shank or Hank Hanagraf(?) are views that do justice to both election and responsibilty. I would highly recommend their writings. 2) I am very familiar with Dr. Zodhites(?). I have the utmost respect for his works. I'm not sure what the best resources are, there are so many. You need a good text (I used the UBS Greek text). You need a good lexicon or dictionary. The best is probably Kittel's, but it is very expensive. Good commentaries, which deal with the orginal text, are also helpful. Someone else might have some helpful suggestions as well. I have never used the Complete WordStudy Bible CD. I currently use the Logos Systems Bible program. 3) I would consider myself conservative, but I do believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers (including the gifts.) Your Brother in Christ |
||||||
6712 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6690 | ||
Greetings Retxar! You make some excellent points. There are many passages where words like (all, the world, every, whosoever, ect...) are used. I think there are a few where the context may indicate a narrower focus, but I think the majority mean exactly what they say. One of my favorites verse combo's is the one you refered to in John 6:44. John 6:44 says, "‘‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." Now compare that verse to John 12:32, which says, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” The word 'draw' in both verses is exactly the same Greek word. I don't see anyway to understand these two verse other than a real offer of salvation to every individual. One good thing though, both Calvanists and Arminians get to the same point through different paths. In the end, God graciously saves. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6713 | 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 |
||||||
6714 | 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. |
||||||
6715 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6604 | ||
Greetings JVHO212! Thank you for the kind words! I always enjoy reading your posts. I noticed that you quoted from John MacArthur. You might be surprised to find out that he is one of my favorite preachers (and me an Arminian!!!). A few years back, I had the chance to attend a pastor's conference and breakfast with Dr. MacArthur in Lima, OH. I'm breaking my own rule here, by getting away from 1 John 2:2 on this thread, but here goes. Allow me to define a few terms from my perspective in order to answer your question. I have been heavily influenced by the writings of Robert Shank ('Life in the Son' and 'Elect in the Son'.) Hence, my understanding of election is that it is primarily corporate and only secondarily inidvidual. The cross is the one electing act of God in history. In the cross, all men find atonement (objectively). However, they only experience atonement (subjectively) in Christ. When someone responds to the gift of salvation, it is at that point that they become part of the Elect body. Predestination refers to the circumstances of election (adoption in Eph.1 and the image of Christ in Rom. 8) and not to the eternal destiny of individuals. So my short answer would be: The atonement is unconditional, but election is conditioned upon acceptance of the atonement. The best Scripture for this view would be 2 Cor. 5:18 "18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 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. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" Note that v. 19 says that Christ was reconciling he world to Himself (unlimited atonement), but v. 20 calls for men to be reconciled to God (conditional election). The result is that 'in Him,' we become the righteousness of Christ. I look forward to your response. I love debate, not for arguments sake, but for the opportunity to sharpen my faith. It is through the questions and challenges of others that I am forced to examine my beliefs (I thought I was wrong once, but I was wrong.) When you reach the point that you can explain your view in a logical and understandable manner to someone who disagrees with you, then you have begun to understand the subject. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran p.s. - Just call me Tim! |
||||||
6716 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6602 | ||
Greetings Ray! I whole heartedly agree with you that we are all sinners. The comparison that I see in 1 John 2:2 is a comparison that explains the extent of the atonement. Writing to Christians, John says that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for their sins (NIV). We all would agree with that statement. However, he goes beyond that and says that Christ is more, He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It was late while I was reading your response, so I'm not sure that I was clear on what you were saying. Would you please summarize your point for me? Thanks, and God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6717 | What is the "eye of the needle"? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6579 | ||
The quote your refer to is found in the "Acts of Peter and Andrew." Here is the text: 13 There was a rich man named Onesiphorus who said: If I believe, shall I be able to do wonders? Andrew said: Yes, if you forsake your wife and all your possessions. He was angry and put his garment about Andrew's neck and began to beat him, saying: You are a wizard, why should I do so? 14 Peter saw it and told him to leave off. He said: I see you are wiser than he. What do you say? Peter said: I tell you this: it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Onesiphorus was yet more angry and took his garment off Andrew's neck and cast it on Peter's and haled him along, saying: You are worse than the other. If you show me this sign, I and the whole city will believe but if not you shall be punished. 15 Peter was troubled and stood and prayed: Lord, help us at this hour, for thou hast entrapped us by thy words. 16 The Saviour appeared in the form of a boy of twelve years, wearing a linen garment 'smooth within and without', and said; Fear not: let the needle and the camel be brought. There was a huckster in the town who had been converted by Philip; and he heard of it, and looked for a needle with a large eye, but Peter said: Nothing is impossible with God rather bring a needle with a small eye. 17 When it was brought, Peter saw a camel coming and stuck the needle in the ground and cried: In the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate I command thee, camel, to go through the eye of the needle. The eye opened like a gate and the camel passed through; and yet again, at Peter's bidding. 18 Onesiphorus said: You are a great sorcerer: but I shall not believe unless I may send for a needle and a camel. And he said secretly to a servant: Bring a camel and a needle, and find a defiled woman and some swine's flesh and bring them too. And Peter heard it in the spirit and said: O slow to believe, bring your camel and woman and needle and flesh. 19 When they were brought Peter stuck the needle in the ground, with the flesh, the woman was on the camel. He commanded it as before, and the camel went through, and back again. 20 Onesiphorus cried out, convinced and said: Listen. I have lands and vinevards and 27 litrae of gold and 50 of silver, and many slaves: I will give my goods to the poor and free my slaves if I may do a wonders like you. Peter said: If you believe, you shall. 21 Yet he was afraid he might not be able, because he was not baptized, but a voice came: Let him do what he will. So Onesiphorus stood before the needle and camel and commanded it to go through and it went as far as the neck and stopped. And he asked why. 'Because you are not yet baptized.' He was content, and the apostles went to his house, and 1,000 souls were baptized that night. 22 Next day the woman that was hung in the air said: Alas that I am not worthy to believe like the rest! I will give all my goods to the poor and my house for a monastery of virgins. Peter heard it and went out to her and at his word she was let down unhurt, and gave him for the poor 4 litrae of gold and much raiment and her house for a monastery of virgins. 23 And the apostles consecrated a church and ordained clergy and committed the people to God. Side Note: You can tell from the quality of story why the Apocraphal writings were never accepted as cannonical. Blessings, Tim Moran |
||||||
6718 | 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 |
||||||
6719 | 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 |
||||||
6720 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 6570 | ||
Greetings Joe! I agree that we face a theological crisis in America because of an unwillingness to deal with theological issues. I also agree that we should "speak the truth in love." However, I think many people forget the "in love" part of that quote. Debate is healthy and promotes growth. However, it can be accomplished without being harsh. I try to always be a gentleman in life and in the forum. And, I think that most of the posters in the forum demonstrate the same kind of spirit. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 ] Next > Last [339] >> |