1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink

[JonC]

You are now confusing posting scripture which is always fine..contrasted with your ideas, which are foolish and unbiblical.
Allow me to help you .Quoting scripture is good! Your ideas are foolishness to the Max! Is that clearer for you?

Why, because you oppose yourself and the scriptures offered by godly men that you explain away.You try and do it everyday. people have asked you not to do it, yet you persist. You are free to offer your nonsense, we a re free to reject it as nonsense.

You said my stated bekuef was just scripture.
Then you went on to say it was foolishness..

Throughout our interactions you have made it clear that you believe God's Word divorced from what Reformed leaders have said the Bible really teaches is nonsense.

You have made it abundantly clear that God's Word does not make sense to you so you have to instead rely on what men who teach what you like say and confessions that you agree with state.

There is a reason that God's Word is to you "foolishness". There is a reason you cannot test your faith using Scripture but have to trust in Reformed confessions.

 

[JonC]

Well, if nothing else I've got you to read Psalm 7. I don't really expect you to comprehend it.

@Martin Marprelate

Really, if nothing else we have found why we disagree.

As I have been saying, we hold the same passages (it is kinda silly to keep posting passages we both agree with).

But we do not hold the same philosophy of justice.

I agree that God is just, that God judges, that the wicked are storing up wrath for themselves for the Day of Wrath, etc.

But we hold different presuppositions when it comes to a philosophy of justice.

I appreciate that you identified the philosophy that you use. I knew what it was (I held your position years ago). However it was necessary for you to identify the philosophy as well.

I have defended my position and explained why I hold it. You have not. That is really the only thing we can legitimately discuss on this topic. Anything else is just posturing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin Marprelate said:
“No again. God's wrath is not to do with His personal feelings, but with His justice. It is a legal wrath (Psalm 7:11).”

Permit me to jump in here merely to address an issue that I have pondered for years. I used to think the wrath of God was just the absence of God. But now that seems too abstract and definitionally deficient.

God’s wrath, in my view, is very much to do with His personal feelings. A “legal wrath” makes no sense to me. When have you ever seen an angry law? The Bible never states that the law of God is angry, but that God Himself is angry. And that wrath can be full of explosive fury, as seen in the book of Revelation in particular. Thankfully, He is long-suffering and merciful, too.

Being Spirit does not mean completely void of feelings or absolutely unemotional. That concept of “divine impassibility” (unchangeableness) is found only in dusty tomes of over-intellectualized scholastic theologians.

We are created in the image of God, which includes having feelings, as well as reason. God’s personal feelings are not exactly like ours, but are similar. God’s nature never changes, but His feelings can go from being pleased to being perturbed. If He never changes emotionally, is God perpetually in just one emotion, being stuck in wrath or happiness?

Jesus, the perfect expression of God, was emotional, for He felt love, sympathized with sheep who had no shepherd, got angry at Pharisees, went ballistic in cleansing the temple, expressed anguish in the garden of Gethsemani, groaned, and wept.

I said all this because recognizing the emotions of God has made me more careful about doing only what will make God happy and not irritable with me personally. This makes my relationship with God more realistic, and not so theoretical, intellectual, or abstract.

Hello @Ascetic X
The text in question is Psalm 7:11. 'God is a just Judge; and God is angry with the wicked every day.' God is a Judge. A judge must judge according to the law. That is why I said that His wrath or anger is a legal wrath. Moreover, His anger is not a sudden surge of hostile emotion. It is a steady and continuing emotion (if such it may be called). If He is angry with sinners now, He will be angry with them tomorrow, and in fact there was never a time since the Fall when God was not angry with sinners. 'Divine impassibility' does not mean that God has no emotion; it means that His emotions are not swayed by circumstances. He does not wake up with a headache or constipation and take it out upon hapless mortals. The doctrine of Divine simplicity is helpful here. God is not made up of parts; He is pure Spirit (John 4:24).
The Lord Jesus, of course, was true Man as well as true God, and so He felt human emotions, as you rightly mention, though He always felt them righteously.
You need not worry about making God 'irritable,' because God is never irritable. God has loved you with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3) and that will never change. He has drawn you to Him in time and opened your heart to trust in Jesus. He may chastise you as an all-wise Father (as He chastises me from time to time) Heb. 12:5-12), but He will never withdraw His love from His people.

 

[JD731]

1 John 2:2

My opinion on the op:

This is a works based religion that is being presented here. Since there is no proof that can be offered by the ones claiming they are one of the particular elect, to salvation, then it stands that their only proof is their own works. Their salvation is not by faith.

The Jews believed the same thing these Calvinists believe, that salvation was their birth right and God favoured them above all other people. Or rather that Calvinist believes what the Jews believed. Most Calvinists even claim they are the new Israel. Nothing ever changes in the thinking of men. Pride is the ruling principle on the earth.

 

[JonC]

My opinion on the op:

This is a works based religion that is being presented here. Since there is no proof that can be offered by the ones claiming they are one of the particular elect, to salvation, then it stands that their only proof is their own works. Their salvation is not by faith.

The Jews believed the same thing these Calvinists believe, that salvation was their birth right and God favoured them above all other people. Or rather that Calvinist believes what the Jews believed. Most Calvinists even claim they are the new Israel. Nothing ever changes in the thinking of men. Pride is the ruling principle on the earth.

I had not considered that, but you are right. There are many similarities between how Calvininists view salvation and the error Jews made.

Both do view election similarly.
Both view salvation as an issue of the law.
Both misunderstand the sacrifice system.
Both reject the New Covenant as given.

Of the two (Calvinist theology and the theology of the Jewish leaders) I view Calvinism as worse. The reason is Calvinism closes the door to the New Covenant faith. It was there for the Jews (if they accepted it), but Calvinistic theology redefines terms and employs philosophies to prevent Scripture from bleeding through.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My opinion on the op:

This is a works based religion that is being presented here. Since there is no proof that can be offered by the ones claiming they are one of the particular elect, to salvation, then it stands that their only proof is their own works. Their salvation is not by faith.

The Jews believed the same thing these Calvinists believe, that salvation was their birth right and God favoured them above all other people. Or rather that Calvinist believes what the Jews believed. Most Calvinists even claim they are the new Israel. Nothing ever changes in the thinking of men. Pride is the ruling principle on the earth.

According to Reformed theology, a person' warrant to come to Christ is not that he thinks he is one of the elect, but because he is a sinner, and the Lord Jesus came, not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.
I must say that I did not see in the O.P. anything like works religion, nor indeed a belief that salvation is anybody's 'birthright.'. To make such claims without documenting it, is not helpful.

 

[Zaatar71]

You said my stated bekuef was just scripture.

No I did not.

Then you went on to say it was foolishness..

This is a lie. here is what I posted to you, and you quoted it in post 41;
You are now confusing posting scripture which is always fine..

contrasted with your ideas, which are foolish and unbiblical.

Allow me to help you .Quoting scripture is good!

Your ideas are foolishness to the Max! Is that clearer for you?
Maybe it was not clear enough the first time??/

Throughout our interactions you have made it clear that you believe God's Word divorced from what Reformed leaders have said the Bible really teaches is nonsense.

That is your twisted misunderstanding of what I said.

I will say once again....Scripture quoted is wonderful!
Your idea of what scripture actually teaches is a dumpster fire! You are clueless and foolish when you post about them.

What reformed teachers teach on those verses is solid yes, Do you see the difference? Can anyone see what JohnC tries to do?

You have made it abundantly clear that God's Word does not make sense to you

Not at all . God's word makes total sense to me, and it has by passed you.

so you have to instead rely on what men who teach what you like say and confessions that you agree with state.

You repeat your lame accusation once again.This thread was not about my understanding of reformed teachers is it?

There is a reason that God's Word is to you "foolishness".

Here again, JohnC Lies! I never said such a thing, and JohnC tries to imply that we do this. JohnC is a disgruntled person evidently, who tries to disrupt each thread he goes on. He is contentious without any reason for doing this.

There is a reason you cannot test your faith using Scripture but have to trust in Reformed confessions.

Here JohnC does what he does best. Insult and offer nothing of substance....pray for Johnc to get well.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

Really, if nothing else we have found why we disagree.

As I have been saying, we hold the same passages (it is kinda silly to keep posting passages we both agree with).

I don't think it is. If we (you) think we agree on a passage yet we disagree on its meaning, the we don't agree on it qed. We need to tease out where and why we disagree.

But we do not hold the same philosophy of justice.

I agree that God is just, that God judges, that the wicked are storing up wrath for themselves for the Day of Wrath, etc.

But we hold different presuppositions when it comes to a philosophy of justice.

You keep going on about your 'philosophy of justice.' I am not interested in philosophy; I am interested in God's word.

I appreciate that you identified the philosophy that you use.

I don't think I have, for the very good reason that I don't use one.

I knew what it was (I held your position years ago). However it was necessary for you to identify the philosophy as well.

You don't know my position so you can't know if it was the one you held.

I have defended my position and explained why I hold it.

You have done nothing of the sort! For example, you have never told us how you interpret 1 Corinthians 2:2. You have given a very bland list of things you believe and then have not answered the very simple questions I asked about them.

You have not. That is really the only thing we can legitimately discuss on this topic. Anything else is just posturing.

I have no interest in talking philosophy with you. However, if you want to talk about God's law, I'm up for that.
Are you like the blessed man of Psalm 1, whose 'delight is in the law of the LORD' and do you meditate on it dy and night.
Do rivers of waters run down your eyes because men do not keep God's law (Psalm 119:136)?
How do you separate God's word from His law? I posted a thread on Psalm 119, not really to start a debate on it, but to show the different subtle shades of meaning between the eight most used words. If you look at it, you will see that, according to the author, the word usually translated 'law' can actually mean 'teaching' and the word usually rendered 'word' is the one used in Hebrew to describe the Decalogue.
To separate God's word from His law is not as easy as one might suppose. If you really want to discuss something helpful, we might start here.
Over to you.

 

[JonC]

No I did not.

I posted what I believe.
I admit it is Scripture. I believe we stick with Scripture then address questions.

Here is your reply:

Everyone can post scripture quotes. ...

Your stated views are foolishness , yes indeed.

You called God's Word "foolishness". And to you it is foolishness. Reformed confessions are your sacred text. You admitted this when saying that is how you test your faith.

 

[JonC]

I don't think it is. If we (you) think we agree on a passage yet we disagree on its meaning, the we don't agree on it qed. We need to tease out where and why we disagree.

You keep going on about your 'philosophy of justice.' I am not interested in philosophy; I am interested in God's word.

I don't think I have, for the very good reason that I don't use one.

You don't know my position so you can't know if it was the one you held.

You have done nothing of the sort! For example, you have never told us how you interpret 1 Corinthians 2:2. You have given a very bland list of things you believe and then have not answered the very simple questions I asked about them.

I have no interest in talking philosophy with you. However, if you want to talk about God's law, I'm up for that.
Are you like the blessed man of Psalm 1, whose 'delight is in the law of the LORD' and do you meditate on it dy and night.
Do rivers of waters run down your eyes because men do not keep God's law (Psalm 119:136)?
How do you separate God's word from His law? I posted a thread on Psalm 119, not really to start a debate on it, but to show the different subtle shades of meaning between the eight most used words. If you look at it, you will see that, according to the author, the word usually translated 'law' can actually mean 'teaching' and the word usually rendered 'word' is the one used in Hebrew to describe the Decalogue.
To separate God's word from His law is not as easy as one might suppose. If you really want to discuss something helpful, we might start here.
Over to you.

Yes, we need to seek out the source of our disagreements rather than looking at it down the road.

By "philosophy" I am speaking on our understanding of reality. We should be interested because it affects how we understand things. We both hold, for example, a Western worldview.

This is why I believe a source of our disagreement is our philosophy of justice -

You answered by question about what would be lacking if God made us righteous and not-guilty but did not punish our sins on Jesus.

You said God has to punish sin to be just.

That is a philosophy (that is Calvin's philosophy) of justice. It views a crime as a debt that must be paid (the judge will collect this debt). It is kinda like accounting. A sin creates a debt that must be paid in order for justice to be achieved. God must punish sins, either on us or Christ.

I lean towards the Hebrew idea of justice. This allows for forgiveness as the end goal is not satisfying the demands of the law but instead creating a just state.

This means we view divine justice differently.

You seem to view the Atonement as primarily an issue of the law. The problem Atonement addresses is our sins.

I view the Atonement as an issue of the heart. The problem Atonement addresses is that we fall short of the glory of God.

But both of those views center on how we view divine justice (God's righteousness).

 

[JD731]

I had not considered that, but you are right. There are many similarities between how Calvininists view salvation and the error Jews made.

Both do view election similarly.
Both view salvation as an issue of the law.
Both misunderstand the sacrifice system.
Both reject the New Covenant as given.

Of the two (Calvinist theology and the theology of the Jewish leaders) I view Calvinism as worse. The reason is Calvinism closes the door to the New Covenant faith. It was there for the Jews (if they accepted it), but Calvinistic theology redefines terms and employs philosophies to prevent Scripture from bleeding through.

They also make up terms like "sovereign" grace, "Limited" atonement, "total Depravity," "irresistible grace," "the sovereignty of God," to name a few, and they reverse many of the doctrines like faith and grace, making the order or salvation by faith through grace rather than by grace through faith when they redefine faith as the gift of God, thus making faith a grace of God.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom (our Lord Jesus Christ and not the Holy Spirit) also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;

Faith is defined as a grace of God in Calvinism and it must be in order for other doctrines to work.

There are many examples of this practice but one of the worse things that separates Calvinists from other groups is the dictionary they use. Their terms do not have the same meaning as these other Christian groups and their willingness to spiritualize great sections of the Bible is very problematic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, we need to seek out the source of our disagreements rather than looking at it down the road.

By "philosophy" I am speaking on our understanding of reality. We should be interested because it affects how we understand things. We both hold, for example, a Western worldview.

This is why I believe a source of our disagreement is our philosophy of justice -

You answered by question about what would be lacking if God made us righteous and not-guilty but did not punish our sins on Jesus.

You said God has to punish sin to be just.

That is a philosophy (that is Calvin's philosophy) of justice. It views a crime as a debt that must be paid (the judge will collect this debt). It is kinda like accounting. A sin creates a debt that must be paid in order for justice to be achieved. God must punish sins, either on us or Christ.

It has, of course, absolutely sweet nothing to do with philosophy; it has to do with Scripture, specifically Romans 3:25-26. I understand that you are more comfortable talking about philosophy rather than Scripture, but, for the umpteenth time, the Scripture says that God set forth Christ as a propitiation 'by His blood' in order that He might be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' So Christ willingly shed His blood in order to uphold God's justice. I'm not saying that there are not any other reasons, like saving sinners, but that is what Romans 3:25-26 says.
The rest of your post is just blowing bubbles.

 

[JonC]

They also make up terms like "sovereign" grace, "Limited" atonement, "total Depravity," "irresistible grace," "the sovereignty of God," to name a few, and they reverse many of the doctrines like faith and grace, making the order or salvation by faith through grace rather than by grace through faith when they redefine faith as the gift of God, thus making faith a grace of God.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom (our Lord Jesus Christ and not the Holy Spirit) also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;

Faith is defined as a grace of God in Calvinism and it must be in order for other doctrines to work.

There are many examples of this practice but one of the worse things that separates Calvinists from other groups is the dictionary they use. Their terms do not have the same meaning as these other Christian groups and their willingness to spiritualize great sections of the Bible is very problematic.

I studied theology for years. Earned two degrees in theology. Was a Calvinist.

Over the past years I have had a nagging thought that theology (as we use the term) is not Christian. Ultimately they are subjective understandings.

Scripture is not as complicated as some want it to be. It is a narrative of God's work of redemption in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Calvinism takes the most simple concepts in Scripture and turns it into a human stand-alone philosophy.

 

[JonC]

It has, of course, absolutely sweet nothing to do with philosophy;

Our understanding of reality has to have an impact on our understanding of Scripture...unless one just believes Scripture is a mythology book.

You hold a philosophy of divine justice - God has to punish sins even if this is punishing them on Jesus instead of the wicked.

That is a philosophy (that is a legal justice, specifically a 16th century French philosophy....Calvin's philosophy).

I grant you did not study it as a philosophy. You adopted it through your theology. But it is what you believe.


A bonus - NEVER trust a person who denies they have a philosophy when it comes to theology. They are either dishonest or ignorant.

When we study Scripture we have to be aware of our philosophies, our worldviews and ideologies, our cultural influences...anything we could inadvertently bring into Scripture because if we are unaware we are bringing it into Scripture.

 

[JD731]

I studied theology for years. Earned two degrees in theology. Was a Calvinist.

Over the past years I have had a nagging thought that theology (as we use the term) is not Christian. Ultimately they are subjective understandings.

Scripture is not as complicated as some want it to be. It is a narrative of God's work of redemption in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Calvinism takes the most simple concepts in Scripture and turns it into a human stand-alone philosophy.

The key to understanding the scriptures is 1) Believe the words, and 2) honor the context. This is something that Calvinism does not promote. They bow the knee to intellectualism and their philosophy comes from their confessions, it seems to me. They are not critical thinkers inside their box.

Here is the key to understanding, I think.
2 Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

All scripture will teach me but not all scripture was written to me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Our understanding of reality has to have an impact on our understanding of Scripture...unless one just believes Scripture is a mythology book.

You hold a philosophy of divine justice - God has to punish sins even if this is punishing them on Jesus instead of the wicked.

That is a philosophy (that is a legal justice, specifically a 16th century French philosophy....Calvin's philosophy).

I grant you did not study it as a philosophy. You adopted it through your theology. But it is what you believe.


A bonus - NEVER trust a person who denies they have a philosophy when it comes to theology. They are either dishonest or ignorant.

When we study Scripture we have to be aware of our philosophies, our worldviews and ideologies, our cultural influences...anything we could inadvertently bring into Scripture because if we are unaware we are bringing it into Scripture.

This really is delightfully droll! @JonC has been saying for ages that he only looks at Scripture, but when he finds that Scripture does not support him, he has suddenly turned 180 degrees and now only wants to discuss philosophy - Scripture? Forget it! And not only that but he has found a philosophy for me. How kind! So never mind that I have read next to no Calvin: that's my philosophy, whether I agree with it or not!
You couldn't make it up!

 

[JonC]

This really is delightfully droll! @JonC has been saying for ages that he only looks at Scripture, but when he finds that Scripture does not support him, he has suddenly turned 180 degrees and now only wants to discuss philosophy - Scripture? Forget it! And not only that but he has found a philosophy for me. How kind! So never mind that I have read next to no Calvin: that's my philosophy, whether I agree with it or not!
You couldn't make it up!

Now you do not need to start lying.

I told you point blank that I believe God's words but also have an understanding I keep at arms length.

I also have told you for almost two decades that what separates us is the philosophy you hold.

I do hold the Hebrew idea of justice. But this is actually in the biblical text (God forgiving based on repentance, creating a holy people, refining and recreating people, etc.).

Why do you believe thar God has to punish the sins of the "old self" in order to be just since the "old self" will not exist at judgment (we will have already put it to death)?

The answer is that you hold a defunct 16th century French philosophy. The reason you hold it is Calvin held it when he developed the theology you adopted as your faith.

 

[Zaatar71]

I studied theology for years. Earned two degrees in theology. Was a Calvinist.

This is JohnC .s claim, we are skeptical based on his posts and explanations.

Over the past years I have had a nagging thought that theology (as we use the term) is not Christian.

Not Christian

Ultimately they are subjective understandings.

Scripture is not as complicated as some want it to be. It is a narrative of God's work of redemption in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Calvinism takes the most simple concepts in Scripture and turns it into a human stand-alone philosophy.

John offers his private philosophy

 

[JesusFan]

1 John 2:2 speaks of Christ as the Propitiation for all human sin. As such it is neither limited or unlimited in scope.

Claiming universal atonement or limited atonement based on that passage is to change the passage.

@Van is right that the verse tells us that Christ is the means by which men are reconciled to God.

People who remain lost have no effect on Christ being the (and the only) means by which men are reconciled to God.

What does that term mean in the greek text, Propitiation?

 

[JonC]

This is JohnC .s claim, we are skeptical based on his posts and explanations.

Not Christian


John offers his private philosophy

I actually do not care about your skepticism. You are entitled to be wrong.

Yes, I did offer the philosophy I use as divine justice. I believe the Hebrew concept expressed in the Old Testament is correct. I believe that justice is concerned with creating a just outcome (a just community, world, etc). And applied to divine justice this is reconciliation in creating a righteous people. I do not believe Calvin's philosophy is correct.

BUT at least I am able to offer my own philosophy (my understanding of reality). You cannot even explain how you get from the Bible to your conclusions because you are not a Calvinist. You do not understand Calvinism (you only know it's conclusions). You are a reed holding a borrowed faith.

And we can all see this. You called God's Word "foolishness" except it be explained by a Reformed teacher and included in a Reformed confession.