Featured The Atonement of Christ: What did it REALLY Achieve ?4

In antiquity, the word "world" meant the known world, with inhabitants of that part of the known "world". It did not necessarily mean all men for all time throughout all of history, encompassing all of existence. In other words, it meant a specific group. For example, John 1:10 says, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

Well certainly some people knew who Jesus was. And if you know Jesus, then you too would not be included in the "world" that knew him not. So "world" does not necessarily mean all men for all time throughout all of history, but rather a specific group of people. Agreed?

This leads right back to my original observation and question to you. If both you and the Brightfame52 are using the Scriptures to make your case, what does that say about the ability to resolve exegetical and doctrinal disagreements using Scripture alone?

 

There are three main possibilities.
1) There is what the text says.
2) There is reading into the text, what it does not say.
3) There is disallowing a meaning that is in the text.

It is a matter of placing the two points of disagreement side by side.

 

But everyone who is reading and interpreting the text read it and interpret it according to the tradition of their denomination. This is my point and this thread is a perfect example. Another example is a thread in which I am also participating, where the topic of baptism is being discussed. In that thread, I mentioned that in 1 Peter 3:21, the text explicitly states that baptism saves. Yet some are arguing that it does not really mean baptism saves, despite the text explicitly stating it does. (I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of baptism, but I am just using that as an example.)

My point again is, everyone is using the Scriptures to make your case, what does that say about the ability to resolve exegetical and doctrinal disagreements using Scripture alone?

And once the two points of disagreement are placed side by side, who decides which is the correct position / interpretation? Who is the final arbiter of what is or is not the truth?

 

So truth is not discernible from error? it could be both views are wrong.

 

Actually when you look at any word such as "world" you have to look at context and also setting, time. When Paul wrote and when we read the text we have a different time frame and thus understanding of the word "world" in those verses where it is used, again context considered.

I know , world is one of those words that calvinists love to use as a gotcha, but I do expect more honesty from a person that claims to be a Christian.

And this leads right back to my earlier comment regarding this. If a person is honest with regard to the language and the context in which the language is used then there should be no problem. When someone imports special meaning to words or refuses to understand context then problem arise. What you said here "So "world" does not necessarily mean all men for all time throughout all of history, but rather a specific group of people. Agreed?" is a case in point. You know as well as I do that the word world, depending upon context can mean different things in the bible text. If you are looking for a serious discussion then be serious. I do not have time for silly word games.

 

You are making my point.

Who decides what is the truth? Again, if both are using the same Scripture, how are we to resolve exegetical and doctrinal disagreements to determine who is correct and who is in error?

 

What context do you think precludes "world" from meaning the elect according to the Calvinist understand of the elect?

My posts are hardly silly word games. If you are looking for a convenient excuse to exit the discussion, just say so and don't resort to ad hominems. I put forth a reasonable explanation as well as a reasonable question, which you have failed to address even though I have asked it multiple times.

Here it is again: If both you and the Brightfame52 are using the Scriptures to make your case, what does that say about the ability to resolve exegetical and doctrinal disagreements using Scripture alone?

 

What is agreed on?
What is the disagreement?
Might very well be both are wrong?
Truth corresonds to the evidence.

 

Again, who decides?

If both are using the same Scripture, how are we to resolve exegetical and doctrinal disagreements to determine who is correct and who is in error?

 

The question is really what context would allow for "World" to mean elect according to the calvinist view. They have to read that meaning into world.

Since BF52 is convinced that his calvinist view is correct in spite the fact it does not conform with scripture, I would have to conclude that only God opening his eye and mind to the truth will work.

 

If we could give you a definitive answer then this problem would have been resolved many years ago. But as long as people are willing to twist or torture a text then it will continue to be a problem.

 

I gave it to you in the thread you accused me of using "silly word games." Again, in antiquity, "world" did not necessarily mean all men for all time throughout all of history, encompassing all of existence. In other words, it meant a specific group. (e.g. John 1:10)

Given this understanding of "world", which again does not necessarily include all men for all time throughout all of history, what context do you think precludes "world" from meaning the elect according to the Calvinist understanding of the elect?

 

I think you are presuming that it is others who twist or torture a text.

Again, how can we know if you are right or others are right? How do we know who is twisting or torturing a text and who is not?