Best One-Volume Systematic Theology?

[John of Japan]

Perhaps that's a transatlantic language thing. To me the passive of sozo is 'is/are saved' (by grace, through faith) and 'get saved' is active, like 'get lunch.'

"I save" is active. "I am saved" or "I got saved" is passive, at least in the US. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise. For "get saved" to be active on either side of the ocean, it would have to take a direct object ("I save myself," or "I save George"), and it doesn't.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"I save" is active. "I am saved" or "I got saved" is passive, at least in the US. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise. For "get saved" to be active on either side of the ocean, it would have to take a direct object ("I save myself," or "I save George"), and it doesn't.

I am saved, I was saved, I have been saved, or, best of all, Christ saved me all work for me. However, I'm happy to accept that you understand "get saved" to be passive, and that's fine.

 

[John of Japan]

I believe that you are misunderstanding me.

I asked you what the Gospel was. You said something about the death of Christ for sins, then directed me to Acts. You missed the Resurrection, which indeed, is preached all through Acts. (You really didn't think I had studied Acts thoroughly, having been a missionary for 33 years???)

This is my last post to you in this thread.

Suit yourself. I have nothing against you--just think you need a lesson in interacting on the Baptist Board. Don't ever go assuming someone is not being spiritual simply because they don't say things like you think they should.

May He always be in the forefront of your mind, sir, and may you always be assured of your deliverance in times of trouble.

Same to you.

 

[John of Japan]

None of you beloved Calvinists have yet figured out the point I've been making about 1 Cor. 15. Your replies have all missed the mark. But that's okay. This is not on the Cal/Arm forum, which I avoid like the plague (), and I have no brief to turn Calvinists into whatever I am.

For the record, I have not been advocating preaching the epistles to lost sinners.

 

[TCassidy]

What did I miss?

 

[John of Japan]

What did I miss?

My point was that in 1 Cor. 15, Paul was teaching what the substance of the Gospel was. So, as the Corinthians reached out with the Gospel, I believe what Paul taught them was what they were to do outreach out with.

I may have made it clumsily, but this is a quite different argument from "Preach 1 Cor. to the lost." I admit that in trying to answer the arguments I may have left the impression that "Let the lost read Corinthians" was my primary point. It was not.

 

[TCassidy]

I believe 1 Corinthians is correctional rather than instructional in its intent.

In chapter 15 Paul is correcting their failure to understand the Resurrection. He states in verse 3 the Gospel he preached to them, making sure to include the Resurrection. But it seems clear to me that the "our" refers to the people of Corinth assembled together in that local church, not the entire population at large.

As his remarks are correctional of the Corinthian Church, I don't see them as instructional as to what they should be preaching to the lost, but rather correctional as to what they themselves believed.

He brings his primary intent into focus in verse 12 when he says "how can some of you say there is no Resurrection?"

His use of the word "our" as being limited to believers here seems, in my opinion, to parallel his remarks in Romans 4:25 where he makes a similar statement when he says "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

If the "our" there is all inclusive, all people everywhere, without exception, rather than just referring to believers then are all people everywhere justified, as he does say He was raised again for "our" justification?

 

[John of Japan]

I believe 1 Corinthians is correctional rather than instructional in its intent.

In chapter 15 Paul is correcting their failure to understand the Resurrection. He states in verse 3 the Gospel he preached to them, making sure to include the Resurrection. But it seems clear to me that the "our" refers to the people of Corinth assembled together in that local church, not the entire population at large.

As his remarks are correctional of the Corinthian Church, I don't see them as instructional as to what they should be preaching to the lost, but rather correctional as to what they themselves believed.

He brings his primary intent into focus in verse 12 when he says "how can some of you say there is no Resurrection?"

His use of the word "our" as being limited to believers here seems, in my opinion, to parallel his remarks in Romans 4:25 where he makes a similar statement when he says "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

If the "our" there is all inclusive, all people everywhere, without exception, rather than just referring to believers then are all people everywhere justified, as he does say He was raised again for "our" justification?

Thanks for considering my point, Doc. And I'm sure if I tried to argue limited atonement with you, you'd walk all over me. But I will say, do you really think that "1 Corinthians is correctional rather than instructional in its intent"? In other words, you've been a prof, right? How is correction not a form of instruction? Is it really "either/or"?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, I tried to read the Institutes once, but found the work to be not only incredibly boring but incredibly mixed up. A theologian I know agreed with me. Calvin wrote it when he was very young, so that explains that.

Get the final revision of his, as that clears things up!

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you tell a lost sinner, "Christ died for our sins," as the Bible says?

I could agree with that Jesus died for our sins, but would not tell them died for your sins, as only God knows that!

 

[John of Japan]

Get the final revision of his, as that clears things up!

Pretty sure that's what I tried to read, unless the "final revision" is a real recent thing.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you had better forbid any lost person from reading 1 Cor., because they'd get the wrong idea. They would read Paul saying, "Christ died for our sins," and might think, "Wow, He died for my sins, since I'm part of 'our,' so I can get saved!"

Here's the logic: We are to give the Gospel to "every creature" in the world. Paul describes the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-8. Therefore, through Paul we know what the Gospel we are to give is. So we tell the world what Paul said is the Gospel. Period, end of story.



No offense, but I've studied and translated all of those verses, and taught most of them in Japan, and don't need to "check it out."

And I've studied and argued about Calvinism since 1972, and have no desire to discuss it here on the BB other than that one point I made to Yeshua1 (and now you). I still find the theology to be unbiblical.

P. S. You are presupposing that all who was allowed to read 1 Cor., 1 Peter, 1 John in the first century were saved. "My, my, we mustn't let any unbeliever read these precious books, lest they think they can get saved." Really? I can't imagine that happening.

I see both Calvinists and non cals trying to get the message of the Cross of Christ out to the lost, so lets not get bogged down into trying to decide if we are doing it the right way, as the Lord Jesus Himself told us to just get that message out to all sinners!

 

[TCassidy]

How is correction not a form of instruction? Is it really "either/or"?

Correction is aimed at those who are wrong. Instruction is for all.

 

[Yeshua1]

My point was that in 1 Cor. 15, Paul was teaching what the substance of the Gospel was. So, as the Corinthians reached out with the Gospel, I believe what Paul taught them was what they were to do outreach out with.

I may have made it clumsily, but this is a quite different argument from "Preach 1 Cor. to the lost." I admit that in trying to answer the arguments I may have left the impression that "Let the lost read Corinthians" was my primary point. It was not.

I am a strong Calvinist, but still do not see the need to be drawn into a contest of if we are teaching the same and right Gospel, as again, both you and I would agree upon what is to be taught and to whom regardless!

 

[TCassidy]

Pretty sure that's what I tried to read, unless the "final revision" is a real recent thing.

Well, the idea of a "final revision" of the Institutes is a myth. Not only did Calvin not write the "final revision" he didn't write all of the earlier versions. Beza, Whittingham (Calvin's brother-in-law), and Knox contributed substantial portions, Beza being the real theologian of the group.

We can see similarities between the latter revisions of the "Institutes" and Beza's "A Brief Declaration of the Chief Points of the Christian Religion Set Forth in a Table" published in 1613, 49 years after Calvin's early death at age 54. (Beza died in 1605, aged 86, but his above work was not published until 8 years later.)

A lot of "Calvin" isn't "Calvin."

 

[John of Japan]

Correction is aimed at those who are wrong. Instruction is for all.

So correction is not a subset of instruction?

 

[TCassidy]

So correction is not a subset of instruction?

Do we correct those who are not wrong?

The bible seems to make a distinction between the two.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Doctrine (teaching) tells us what is right.

Reproof tells us where we are not right.

Correction tells us how to get right.

Instruction tells us how to stay right.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, the idea of a "final revision" of the Institutes is a myth. Not only did Calvin not write the "final revision" he didn't write all of the earlier versions. Beza, Whittingham (Calvin's brother-in-law), and Knox contributed substantial portions, Beza being the real theologian of the group.

We can see similarities between the latter revisions of the "Institutes" and Beza's "A Brief Declaration of the Chief Points of the Christian Religion Set Forth in a Table" published in 1613, 49 years after Calvin's early death at age 54. (Beza died in 1605, aged 86, but his above work was not published until 8 years later.)

A lot of "Calvin" isn't "Calvin."

So Calvin only wrote in full his 1541 edition, and the 1559 was basically revised by others?

 

[The Archangel]

So you had better forbid any lost person from reading 1 Cor., because they'd get the wrong idea. They would read Paul saying, "Christ died for our sins," and might think, "Wow, He died for my sins, since I'm part of 'our,' so I can get saved!"

Here's the logic: We are to give the Gospel to "every creature" in the world. Paul describes the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-8. Therefore, through Paul we know what the Gospel we are to give is. So we tell the world what Paul said is the Gospel. Period, end of story.

Please take this as an honest question: To hang your idea on the "our" of verse three is curious to me as Paul sets the context of the passage in v. 1 by addressing the Corinthians as "Brothers." Wouldn't we, by implication, have to say if the "our" is universal, than the "brothers" has to be as well? Wouldn't that point more to an idea of universalism?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[John of Japan]

Please take this as an honest question: To hang your idea on the "our" of verse three is curious to me as Paul sets the context of the passage in v. 1 by addressing the Corinthians as "Brothers." Wouldn't we, by implication, have to say if the "our" is universal, than the "brothers" has to be as well? Wouldn't that point more to an idea of universalism?

Blessings,

The Archangel

No, I see no universalism in my approach. I see the Gospel presented in 1 Cor. 15 as a unit--a definition, if you will. So then if a Corinthian believer were to witness to someone about the Gospel, surely he would remember how Paul explained it, and explain it the same way, i.e., "Christ died for our sins."

It's as if I said to everyone, "Brothers, in order to get into the room with the fried chicken, the password is "It is everyone's chicken." In that case, "Brothers" and "everyone" are not the same group.