Subject: why was this epistle written? |
Bible Note: Hello John, From your post, I gathered that you wanted a critique of sorts. I have viewed many of your posts. One thing that I have noticed is that you have a strong background into Doctrine and Scriptural interpretation. This is good. We should all be well versed in the Doctrines and the Scripture. However, there are other areas which would provide helpful insight into the meaning of the Scriptural texts. It is good that you are able to interpret the Sriptural truths into modern thinking through the benefit of the great theologins. However, a good understanding of biblical history is important as well. Remember, the original authors of the Bible weren't writing to the future Church. They were writing to a specified group in a specified time in a specified culture. The main thrust of Hermaneutics is to gain insight into that culture, audience, and time. For example, Let's look at the final point in Calvinism: Preservance of the Saints. From an interpretive view, the proofs for this point are found throughout the New Testament. Take 1 Peter 1:3-7 for instance. In this Passage, Peter clearly say that our inheritance is reserved for us in heaven. He says that it is undefiled, imperishable, and won't fade away. It is clear that while we may back slide into sinful actions, our eternal life inheritance will remain in heaven. Now, from the hermaneutical view, the proofs for this point can be found in the history behind the terms used in the New Testament. Take Romans 8:12-17 for instance. In this passage, Paul says that all who have been saved have also been given a "spirit of adoption". He says here that we have the full right to call God, "Abba, Father", or "Daddy" as it would be more accurate. Now, a look into the Roman and Jewish culture of the first century reveals some interesting views behind "adoption". First, every "legit" child was adopted. Second, an "adopted" child, no matter what the circumstances, could NOT be denied his/her inheritance. Third, The adoption contract was so strong and binding, that not even the courts could nullify or desolve it. The adoption was permanent, even through death. So, with that historical insight, the proofs for the preservance of the Saints is clearly seen. So, you can see that the history and culture pertaining to the Bible is extremely important when interpreting Scripture. As for Limited Atonement, from one perspective, I agree, yet from a different perspective, I disagree. Atonement is for all of those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Any who believes will achieve atonement. Now, From that perspective, I agree that atonement is limited to those who believe and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ. However, there are many Calvinists, especially the more dogmattic ones, who take this a step further and say that Christ died for the elect alone for it is only they who will achieve atonement. I have argued with many of them over the past few years. This perspective I disagree with. I believe that Christ died for the Sins of all mankind, not just those who will be saved. As I said in another thread all together, there are many things in which I agree with Calvinistic Theology. However, there are many places where I disagree as well. So, overall, I would suggest that you do some research into the history and culture of the Bible. As for the Biblical language aspect, which I didn't cover, most commentaries will decifer through most of it for you. A couple good references to look into are: Vincent's word studies of the New Testament, and The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible by Zodhiotes(sp). Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |