Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 3:16 ¶ "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 3:16 ¶ "For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. |
Subject: THE CROSS |
Bible Note: Dear Brad Thanks for the reply. I hope Tim knows that I was not being "hard" on him at all. It's not personal. My last post to him was hastily put together since I was very short on time, hence the slightly to-the-point tone I took. Now, the point of this whole discussion is that Tim will only go as far into the discussion as his traditions allow. But as soon as LOGIC shows the absurdity of the universal atonement position based on Scripture, the head goes in the sand. I'll discuss the issue with anyone, as long as they consider for a few seconds that the interpretation they've had for 30 years just may not be the Law of the Land. THerefore, my challenge stands as is: Show me on what basis anyone is judged for their sin if Christ paid for every sin of every person on the Cross. Right there the Arminian has some serious logical problems in his position. Yet not one word has been said in any attempt to offer a Biblical explanation. I can explain it, but then again, you have to be a big bad Calvinist for the Atonement (THE CORNERSTONE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS!) to be a logical aspect of the faith. Regarding presuppositional philosophy, I respectfully submit to you that it IS the Reformed position that attempts to honestly interpret Scripture using proper hermaneutical methods. If there is anything consistent in Arminian theology, it would be consistent misuse of Scripture context to support--you got it--their own unBiblical presuppositions. Tim thinks that by offering a verse that says Christ died for all without interpreting it in it's own context somehow counts as exegesis and the verse becomes the ABSOLUTE standard by which we should view the atonement. Here's how I see it--I have no problem with someone being in disagreement with me, but at least take the time to explain yourself beyond the quoting of a few proof-texts. These issues are eternally vital! If I'm in error, then please take the time to show me why in an intellectually honest way and--ABOVE ALL--we should ALL keep our minds open and be willing to be taught. Have a good night. In Christ, JIBBS PS You mentioned presuppostional philosophy. Are you into reading Van Til or Bahnsen? |