-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.
- Thread starter grateful4grace
- Start date
It’s funny that the non-cals always focus on the use of the word ‘world’ in 1 John 2:2 as if that is supposed to be the nail in the coffin for Particular Redemption. I have always found that strange when you take into account the fact that often times in the New Testament, especially scripture written by John, the word ‘world’ rarely ever refers to every person that has ever lived or ever will live.
Not only that, the same author of 1 John 2:2 is the same author of John 11:49-52 which is a perfect parallel passage. Are the non-cals just going to simply ignore this?
Joh 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Joh 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Joh 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
And last but not least, why is it that the non-cals focus on the word ‘world’ in 1 John 2:2, but they never seem to put much emphasis on the word ‘propitiation’? In order for the word ‘world’ to refer to every single person that has ever lived or ever will live you must completely change the biblical definition of propitiation. Was Christ the propitiation for Hitler’s sin? If so, why is Hitler in hell?
Calvinist’s exegesis of 1 John 2:2 is completely consistent the rest of scripture. We don’t have to change the meaning of ‘propitiation’ and we don’t have to be inconsistent in our exegesis of the word ‘world’. Non-cals have a much bigger problem than the Cals do. They must explain how Christ can be the ‘propitiation’ for the sins of every person in the whole world yet not every person in the whole world is justified. They simply can’t do it without changing the meaning of ‘propitiation’.
Hey Ray, can you provide us with your definition of propitiation?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Good point. The idea of "whole world" really meaning "whole world" works in 1John 2 since Christ's atonement is not limited.
But should we limit the scope of "whole world" in 1John 5? Do we need to do that? In Ephesians 1:1-5 we find that even the saints were dead in transgression and sin and were walking according to the dictates of the "prince of the power of the air".
In John 15:33 we find that "in this world you have trouble".
In chapter 17 we see that we are IN the world - but not "of it".
I think it is safe to leave it as "whole world" even in 1John 5 - showing that the power of the evil one is indeed applied in one manner or the other over all living on earth until the Return of Christ.
But the bigger problem for 5 point Calvinism is that the "we/us/our" 2nd person of 1John 2 - applies to both elect Jews and Gentiles even by Calvinist standards - but "needs to be limited" to just the elect Jews for the sake of Calvinism's model -- ONLY because the text ADDS "not for OUR sins only but for those of the Whole World".
Hard to miss - that the same scope is accepted by Calvinists as being true (if both elect Jew and Gentile confess their sins then both are forgiven 1John 1:9 and in fact both have an advocate with the Father 1John 2:1 etc) - but in 1John 2 they "need" the restriction or else it directly refutes 5-point Calvinism.
In Christ,
Bob
[ September 01, 2002, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
You think this is talking about people?? I don't. I think it is talking about the material world we live in.
You think this is talking about people?? I don't. IT is talking about the material world and its system and worldview. In other words, you have just given two passages that refute your understanding of world as being all people wihtout exception.
"Our" is John and his readers. The world are those believers who are not his readers. It's that simple. The key word that you ignore is propitiation. It means satisfaction. Christ is the satisfaction of God's wrath for teh elect. He is not the satisfaction of God's wrath for the non-elect.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
And again, we have the verbosity you accused me of. Just to point it out. You've provided no proof of such irrational arguments - only stated them as such. Calling an orange an apple doesn't make the orange something it is not.
You stated basically that you needed not to answer them since you feel that wise people - or the majority of people - would agree with you. That is, indeed, argument to the people.
But a quote for the wrong reason is still still wrong - doesn't matter who you're quoting. Even Satan quoted the Lord God...
Anything used to slander or disparage another person is an ad hominem attack. (which is different from an argument ad hominem)
So skipping arguments is disproving it?
Name them.
Again, name it.
Exactly! That's it! It's not a conditional statement. It is an interrogative. Such things mean more in the Greek than you are understanding in the English. By moving it from an "if...then" statement to the interrogative used, it removes the NECCESITY that you are speaking of.
You've been shown the translation, and you've been shown where to look if you care to look at it through the eyes of the original language. Again, ask someone with knowledge in Greek the difference between a conditional statement and an interrogative (there are also four different classes of conditional statements in the language.) In the Greek language, there is no necessity between the first part and the second part. Thus, your argument fails.
You say,
"Throughout your arguments I have shown your logical fallacies, to which you fail to respond. That's okay with me, though - I think it is good that others read this exchange. Perhaps then some may see how much the evidence stacks AGaINST limited atonement."
Read what I said again. I'm not using the power of the people to sway them over to my side. I'm not using any kind of majority to state a claim to my case. I merely state that my position is so clear and meritous that I wish others to examine the evidence so they can conclude what I have. In a debate, it would be similar to the statement, "because of all of the evidence I've shown, it will be evident to the judging panel that a negative vote would be correct." Perfectly in step with classical argumentation and debate.
Examine my posts and you will see that my arguments against you have been strictly on the debate side - not the personal side...and the burden of proof is on you to decide.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
God offers salvation to the group - some take it, some don't.
The burden of proof is on you to provide a workable body of Scripture.
Isaiah 41:8-9. He states that he loves and has chosen the entire nation of Israel here. Were they all saved? Indeed, from Isaiah 41 through the next several chapters, God refers to the nation of Israel as "chosen." Isaiah 45 even says these words, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me." Chosen though they don't acknowledge. Sounds like they're not SAVED!
See above Scripture to the contrary.
ditto.
Haha! You think that Esau is representative of the Jews? Rad Malachi, chapter 1! Galatians 4 is encouraging the Galatians to give up trying to live under the law and live for Christ instead. verse 21 states the audience: "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" The "you" were already saved!
Okay. Can I give you a clue that may completely baffle you? As has often been pointed out by other commentators, it is possible on grammatical grounds to take the perfect passive participle katertismena ["having been prepared," lit., "having been put in order"] in 9:22 in a reflexive sense, "having put themselves in order," in which case the role of these vessels of wrath in determining their own destruction is further highlighted.) A relexive tense in the Greek tense means that the object and the subject are the same - more specifically, the object is doing the action to himself. Sure makes things sound like Jeremiah...
Sounds like a group is elected to being shapen by the potter.
Did you even read Jeremiah 18? "It's not of him that willeth" is EXPRESSLY stated in the 12th verse, where men will say, "It's hopeless!" A great essay on this, and interpretation of the whole chapter can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/bobesay/electionromans4.html
That you fail to answer them is evidence of your own "obduracy" - (which means hardness for those out there without use of a thesaurus.)
KenH
Well-Known Member
Bob,
Unless you are a universalist, you do believe in a limited atonement. Don't you believe that the atonement is only applied, or only effective, if a person comes to Christ? Don't you believe that the effectiveness of the atonement is limited by your free will? Isn't that what your theology teaches?
In 1 John 5:19, there is a contrast so that "world" does not mean everybody. The contrast is between "those of God" and "the whole world" that is under Satan's power. The children of God are no longer under Satan's control. We sin only because we are still in unredeemed fleshly bodies, not because we are still under Satan's control. If you have any doubt that this is so, just read the preceding verse.
(1 John 5:18 NKJV) We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.
Ken
A Spurgeonite
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well I'll grant you that using that definition for the person of the 2nd part in 1John 2 is more defensible. But in John 17 we find that John anticipates "All those who believe through their word" as the "reader".
And so IF you include all believers as 'And not for OUR sins only but for those of the Whole World" - then indeed Whole World DOES mean Whole World - both of those who believe and of those who do not.
The same World that is the "ALL mankind" of Romans 5 upon whom the sentence of death fell through Adam - is the same "ALL" and "everyone" listed in Romans 5 that benefit from the death of Christ. It is to the benefit of all that the Gospel of salvation is offered to all through the blood of Christ's atoning sacrifice. Not for our sins only, but for those of the Whole World.
In Christ,
Bob
[ September 02, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The concept of "limited atonement" is that Christ did NOt pay for ALL the sins of ALL the lost. Rather He paid only for SOME of the lost - and had no concern for the rest.
So no - I do not believe that or any part of it.
But if you are offering to "redefine" limited atonement to mean "paid for all the sins of all the world - but makes acceptance of that payment a condition for being saved" - I am happy to agree that such a "redefinition" is more acceptable and will fit in the 1John 2 text "better" than "Whole world but not the many of Matt 7 who are in another world - and consist of those whom he cared nothing for".
Lets give it the test and see if that redefinition flies. We all agree that "Those of God" go to heaven. Is there any text of scripture saying "The Whole World Godes to Heaven"?
We all agree that "those of God are born again" - do you have text showing that scripture uses your definition for whole world and says "The Whole World is born again"?
We all agree that Christ will come and take the saints up in the air - to heaven with Him - do you have any scripture using your definition of Whole World that says "Christ will come back and take the Whole World to heaven"?
If so -- you have made your point - and I concede it. If not - then we only hvae the "proof" that the Calvinist model "needs" that redefinition - but we have no more support for it than the fact that the model is in need of finding it.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Sorry, Bob, but you lost me in your previous post as I don't understand what you are trying to say about 1 John 5:19.
Are you trying to say that Christians are still under the control and sway of Satan no differently than lost people are? That there is no contrast presented in 1 John 5:19?
Christian regards,
Ken
A Spurgeonite
[ September 01, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
Are you trying to say that Christians are still under the control and sway of Satan no differently than lost people are? That there is no contrast presented in 1 John 5:19?
Christian regards,
Ken
A Spurgeonite
[ September 01, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
Not at all. That is Christ's high priestly prayer in which he prays for all of those who will believe through their (their apostles) word--probably message. Even in this, it is all those that believe, something perfectly consistent with limited atonement.
But Romans 5 never says anything about "offering" but rather about becoming sinners and becomeing righteous. Look up the thread on this topic and review the theology. This passage is about modus operandi of becoming sinners and becoming righteous. It says that all who are in Adam become sinners in the same way that all who are in Christ become righteous -- by imputation.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
Ray,
I John 2:2 has been sufficiently explained. Why do you keep posting the same arguments over and over again? John 11:52 states that Jesus was going to gather ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD who were scattered abroad; same author, same meaning. Since you seem to be having trouble comprehending anyone on this board, I submit you into the hands of A.W. Pink! Here is his interpreation, and the right one, of I John 2:2.
http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/appendix-d.htm
In your own convenience, you may want to check this site out also. It gives the explanation for EVERY Bible text misused by Arminians to support their heresies.
http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/articles.htm
[ September 02, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]
I John 2:2 has been sufficiently explained. Why do you keep posting the same arguments over and over again? John 11:52 states that Jesus was going to gather ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD who were scattered abroad; same author, same meaning. Since you seem to be having trouble comprehending anyone on this board, I submit you into the hands of A.W. Pink! Here is his interpreation, and the right one, of I John 2:2.
http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/appendix-d.htm
In your own convenience, you may want to check this site out also. It gives the explanation for EVERY Bible text misused by Arminians to support their heresies.
http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/articles.htm
[ September 02, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]
ScottEmerson
Active Member
I really wish that an expert on argumentation and debate were to read the link. Pink continually begs the question - assuming his conclusion in the premise. The link is filled with a prioris. I would encourage those of both persuasions to read the essay carefully to see if they can find all of them.
grateful4grace
New Member
Bob Ryan:
"The problem is indeed a sticky one and I appreciate your willingness to go out on a limb in the case of 1John 2 and offer an explanation."
Really Bob, I find your forced, unnatural, and false application of my argument to be past the limb and on thin air. I feel my argument entirely solid, and your argument against it grossly wanting in thoughtfulness.
The basic error that your agrument indulges is that you insert my meaning of "the whole world" into any possible place you can force it, when those WORDS are not used again in the text. You are simply inventing a distinction that does not in any way follow from the argument. For instance...
You say,
"Lets take a look at the "US" definition of "JEws only" in that pasage and see what happens.
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (elect JEWS AND GENTILE ONLY) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
Already the text is made problematic by restricting the promise/scope to "elect Jews only" - elect JEWS ONLY have an ADVOCATE when ANYONE sins."
What will be obvious to the candid mind here is that you have gone WAY beyond what I said as a definition of the word "us", as you said......gone way beyond my definition of the phrase of "the whole world", and invented YOUR OWN definition of the word "anyone", which definition you are happy to impute to my person, and the refute it as though it were not your own invention. The word "anyone" here can, and in my opinion DOES, refer but to "anyone AMONG YOU". You follow this reckless rationale throughout your whole arguemnt.
And what you don't answer is the fact that the word "world" is beyond any contradiction used in a multitude of different ways in the NT, such that looking at CONTEXT is necessary to legitimately understand its meaning, and not just to apply your one meaning where you like it, when you manifestly don't and CAN'T apply that meaning... every single soul... everywhere the word is used. Its really just wishful thinking.
G4G
"The problem is indeed a sticky one and I appreciate your willingness to go out on a limb in the case of 1John 2 and offer an explanation."
Really Bob, I find your forced, unnatural, and false application of my argument to be past the limb and on thin air. I feel my argument entirely solid, and your argument against it grossly wanting in thoughtfulness.
The basic error that your agrument indulges is that you insert my meaning of "the whole world" into any possible place you can force it, when those WORDS are not used again in the text. You are simply inventing a distinction that does not in any way follow from the argument. For instance...
You say,
"Lets take a look at the "US" definition of "JEws only" in that pasage and see what happens.
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (elect JEWS AND GENTILE ONLY) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
Already the text is made problematic by restricting the promise/scope to "elect Jews only" - elect JEWS ONLY have an ADVOCATE when ANYONE sins."
What will be obvious to the candid mind here is that you have gone WAY beyond what I said as a definition of the word "us", as you said......gone way beyond my definition of the phrase of "the whole world", and invented YOUR OWN definition of the word "anyone", which definition you are happy to impute to my person, and the refute it as though it were not your own invention. The word "anyone" here can, and in my opinion DOES, refer but to "anyone AMONG YOU". You follow this reckless rationale throughout your whole arguemnt.
And what you don't answer is the fact that the word "world" is beyond any contradiction used in a multitude of different ways in the NT, such that looking at CONTEXT is necessary to legitimately understand its meaning, and not just to apply your one meaning where you like it, when you manifestly don't and CAN'T apply that meaning... every single soul... everywhere the word is used. Its really just wishful thinking.
G4G
grateful4grace
New Member
Oh... joy....
You said:
"And again, we have the verbosity you accused me of. Just to point it out. You've provided no proof of such irrational arguments - only stated them as such. Calling an orange an apple doesn't make the orange something it is not."
This sort of rhretoric is precisely why I refer the point to your readers. I only need to refute it so many times, whether you get it or not.
You said:
"You stated basically that you needed not to answer them since you feel that wise people - or the majority of people - would agree with you. That is, indeed, argument to the people."
I said that I didn't need to answer you? Or didn't to answer you "ad nauseum"? I did never appeal, per your repeated claim, to a majority of opinion to validate my arguments in the sense that such approval proved them, but only that others less bigoted and more in subjection to the revelation of the bible would validate my arguments which commended themselves on their own intrinsic merits, and that I therefore didn't need to REPEAT THEM .... further. The point was only this: You don't get it. Those who are going to DO. If your heart is closed am I some how obliged to repeat myself to you ad infinitum, so you can continue to accuse me of verbosity?
I had said:
"I mean how long am I obliged to do so before I just have to leave it to the readers? But if its truly an argumentum ad populem, then just remember.. I was quoting the Lord Jesus."
To which you replied:
"But a quote for the wrong reason is still still wrong - doesn't matter who you're quoting. Even Satan quoted the Lord God..."
My point was that your objection could just as much applied to the words of the Lord Jesus, as I used them exactly as He did, and exactly as you yourself commend momentarily. I find this grossly partial, and such partiality is a blinding influence upon your candid assessment of arguments.
You said,
"Anything used to slander or disparage another person is an ad hominem attack. (which is different from an argument ad hominem)"
C'mon... I want chapter and verse from Aristotle. And you are again indulging the same hypocrisy of faulting me for this form of attack, when it is one which you have yourself indulged. I don't fault you for it, however, as you havn't done it as an appeal to prove your arguments... so as far as the point at hand... IT DOESN"T MATTER. And, for the record... neither have I. And if I haven't tried to influence the arguemnt by such means, then I don't know why you really care.
You say,
"So skipping arguments is disproving it?"
So restating an argument is a new argument? When I have answered them three or four times... yes, I reckon they are disproved by then.
You say,
"Name them."
I'll make you a deal..... you go back and real all seventy something posts, and if you can find no disparaging language on your part, then I will concede your perfection of charity... hope you don't have any "post myopia" along the way... lol
I had said:
"Tisk tisk, Mr. Emmerson! That is an arguemntum ad populem by your standards!"
To which you replied:
"Read what I said again. I'm not using the power of the people to sway them over to my side. I'm not using any kind of majority to state a claim to my case. I merely state that my position is so clear and meritous that I wish others to examine the evidence so they can conclude what I have. In a debate, it would be similar to the statement, "because of all of the evidence I've shown, it will be evident to the judging panel that a negative vote would be correct." Perfectly in step with classical argumentation and debate."
This is classical hypocrisy in debate. For here you give my exact definition of why I was NOT going to continue arguing the point with you, and for that which you approve of in yourself, you condemn me, and don't even see how partial you thus prove yourself to be. You are "observing the rules of classical argument, while I am guilty of proposing an argumentum ad populem.... for doing precisely the same thing. Would to God your partiallity only reached thus far, and not to your understanding of the scriptural question itself.
And now that I'm done arguing about our arguing.. lol... I can only say to you AGAIN... that I'm done arguing with you about the scriptural question under discussion. And for the same reason, I likely won't argue with you about THIS much longer. I made my point pefectly clear, and your reply has been but to try to assert that no logical conclusion can be drawn from a rhretorical interogatory. As you don't realize how irrational that is, and no amount of pointing it out matters to you, then I see no point at going into it any further.... sooooooo...... if I use your own words will I STILL be guilty of an argumentum ad populem? "Because of all of the evidence I've shown, it will be evident to the judging panel that a POSITIVE vote would be correct."
G4G
You said:
"And again, we have the verbosity you accused me of. Just to point it out. You've provided no proof of such irrational arguments - only stated them as such. Calling an orange an apple doesn't make the orange something it is not."
This sort of rhretoric is precisely why I refer the point to your readers. I only need to refute it so many times, whether you get it or not.
You said:
"You stated basically that you needed not to answer them since you feel that wise people - or the majority of people - would agree with you. That is, indeed, argument to the people."
I said that I didn't need to answer you? Or didn't to answer you "ad nauseum"? I did never appeal, per your repeated claim, to a majority of opinion to validate my arguments in the sense that such approval proved them, but only that others less bigoted and more in subjection to the revelation of the bible would validate my arguments which commended themselves on their own intrinsic merits, and that I therefore didn't need to REPEAT THEM .... further. The point was only this: You don't get it. Those who are going to DO. If your heart is closed am I some how obliged to repeat myself to you ad infinitum, so you can continue to accuse me of verbosity?
I had said:
"I mean how long am I obliged to do so before I just have to leave it to the readers? But if its truly an argumentum ad populem, then just remember.. I was quoting the Lord Jesus."
To which you replied:
"But a quote for the wrong reason is still still wrong - doesn't matter who you're quoting. Even Satan quoted the Lord God..."
My point was that your objection could just as much applied to the words of the Lord Jesus, as I used them exactly as He did, and exactly as you yourself commend momentarily. I find this grossly partial, and such partiality is a blinding influence upon your candid assessment of arguments.
You said,
"Anything used to slander or disparage another person is an ad hominem attack. (which is different from an argument ad hominem)"
C'mon... I want chapter and verse from Aristotle. And you are again indulging the same hypocrisy of faulting me for this form of attack, when it is one which you have yourself indulged. I don't fault you for it, however, as you havn't done it as an appeal to prove your arguments... so as far as the point at hand... IT DOESN"T MATTER. And, for the record... neither have I. And if I haven't tried to influence the arguemnt by such means, then I don't know why you really care.
You say,
"So skipping arguments is disproving it?"
So restating an argument is a new argument? When I have answered them three or four times... yes, I reckon they are disproved by then.
You say,
"Name them."
I'll make you a deal..... you go back and real all seventy something posts, and if you can find no disparaging language on your part, then I will concede your perfection of charity... hope you don't have any "post myopia" along the way... lol
I had said:
"Tisk tisk, Mr. Emmerson! That is an arguemntum ad populem by your standards!"
To which you replied:
"Read what I said again. I'm not using the power of the people to sway them over to my side. I'm not using any kind of majority to state a claim to my case. I merely state that my position is so clear and meritous that I wish others to examine the evidence so they can conclude what I have. In a debate, it would be similar to the statement, "because of all of the evidence I've shown, it will be evident to the judging panel that a negative vote would be correct." Perfectly in step with classical argumentation and debate."
This is classical hypocrisy in debate. For here you give my exact definition of why I was NOT going to continue arguing the point with you, and for that which you approve of in yourself, you condemn me, and don't even see how partial you thus prove yourself to be. You are "observing the rules of classical argument, while I am guilty of proposing an argumentum ad populem.... for doing precisely the same thing. Would to God your partiallity only reached thus far, and not to your understanding of the scriptural question itself.
And now that I'm done arguing about our arguing.. lol... I can only say to you AGAIN... that I'm done arguing with you about the scriptural question under discussion. And for the same reason, I likely won't argue with you about THIS much longer. I made my point pefectly clear, and your reply has been but to try to assert that no logical conclusion can be drawn from a rhretorical interogatory. As you don't realize how irrational that is, and no amount of pointing it out matters to you, then I see no point at going into it any further.... sooooooo...... if I use your own words will I STILL be guilty of an argumentum ad populem? "Because of all of the evidence I've shown, it will be evident to the judging panel that a POSITIVE vote would be correct."
G4G
grateful4grace
New Member
I had said:
"If this is your explanation of how God chooses a group without choosing an individual, then your only conclusion can be that group chosen is NOT chosen to SALVATION, as you are saying he chooses a group, all of which are NOT saved."
You replied:
"God offers salvation to the group - some take it, some don't."
So God elects people to have a CHANCE at salvation, eh? Who, then are the NON-ELECT, seeing as you believe all have a CHANCE AT SALVATION? I don't reckon you might answer this would you? And furthermore, where do you find such an election IN THE BIBLE? Because the bible ONLY speaks of electing PEOPLE, (not methods), and that to SALVATION, (not chances), this passage being no exception.
I had said:
"But nothing could be more perfectly clear from the text but that the group chosen is chosen to SALVATION, so you whole point is rubbish."
You replied:
The burden of proof is on you to provide a workable body of Scripture."
We were talking about Romans chapter 9
I had said:
The chosen group is defined at the outset, and demonstrated throughout the text.
You replied:
Isaiah 41:8-9. He states that he loves and has chosen the entire nation of Israel here. Were they all saved? Indeed, from Isaiah 41 through the next several chapters, God refers to the nation of Israel as "chosen." Isaiah 45 even says these words, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me." Chosen though they don't acknowledge. Sounds like they're not SAVED!
What would you think if I replied to you, "Romans 9 says the opposite, and therefore, Is. 41:8-9 does not mean that"? Preposterous? Can I agree? It is irrelevant what Is. 41 says. We don't determine what Rom.9 from the context of Is.41! Don'd you reckon we should try and establish the contextual meaning of Romans 9 from .... ROMANS 9?
I had said:
"Paul elaborates upon the GROUNDS upon which THIS group of SAVED people was chosen... the election of God. THESE are the elected ones, and NONE else. The election of God spoken of in this text nowhere respects saved and unsaved Jews, and in fact likens the unsaved Jews to Esau, just as Gal. 4 likens them to Haggar and Ishmael."
To which you replied:
Haha! You think that Esau is representative of the Jews? Rad Malachi, chapter 1! Galatians 4 is encouraging the Galatians to give up trying to live under the law and live for Christ instead. verse 21 states the audience: "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" The "you" were already saved!
1. Careful, Mr. Emerson... "haha" might be construed by some people to be an ad hominem "attack".
2. You don't answer the point, but merely contest one ancillary part of the same.
3. Esau was said to be "born after the flesh", and was compared to those born of promise. These are the elect and non-elect Jews, as this was the subject he plainly developed and elabroated upon. Secondly, you didn't read far enough in Gal.4...
21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
With God's blessing anyone can see that, according to Paul, Hagar is typical of the covenant of the law, and answers in the allegory to "Jerusalem which now is". The unregenerate Jews. The elect Jews were those answering in the allegory to Isaac, and Jerusalem which is above, church made up of Jews and Gentiles. That's why Paul concludes..... to a GENTILE church "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Believers in Jesus, Jews or Gentiles ARE what Issac WAS.... the children of promise.... Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Ha ha Mr. Emerson... (Making shameless ad hominem attack)
I had said:
"This is why the passages ends like this: 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory".
To which you replied:
"Okay. Can I give you a clue that may completely baffle you? As has often been pointed out by other commentators, it is possible on grammatical grounds to take the perfect passive participle katertismena ["having been prepared," lit., "having been put in order"] in 9:22 in a reflexive sense, "having put themselves in order," in which case the role of these vessels of wrath in determining their own destruction is further highlighted.) A relexive tense in the Greek tense means that the object and the subject are the same - more specifically, the object is doing the action to himself. Sure makes things sound like Jeremiah..."
Is this why NOT ONE general translation of the bible has ever concurred with your expert opinion of the Greek here?
I had said, concerning the above verses:
"But that's not talking about a group elected to salvation? Yes or no, please."
To which you replied:
"Sounds like a group is elected to being shapen by the potter."
Yes....... but one to dishonor, and the other to dishonor; one as a vessel of mercy, the other as a vessel of wrath.... according to the text.
G4G
"If this is your explanation of how God chooses a group without choosing an individual, then your only conclusion can be that group chosen is NOT chosen to SALVATION, as you are saying he chooses a group, all of which are NOT saved."
You replied:
"God offers salvation to the group - some take it, some don't."
So God elects people to have a CHANCE at salvation, eh? Who, then are the NON-ELECT, seeing as you believe all have a CHANCE AT SALVATION? I don't reckon you might answer this would you? And furthermore, where do you find such an election IN THE BIBLE? Because the bible ONLY speaks of electing PEOPLE, (not methods), and that to SALVATION, (not chances), this passage being no exception.
I had said:
"But nothing could be more perfectly clear from the text but that the group chosen is chosen to SALVATION, so you whole point is rubbish."
You replied:
The burden of proof is on you to provide a workable body of Scripture."
We were talking about Romans chapter 9
I had said:
The chosen group is defined at the outset, and demonstrated throughout the text.
You replied:
Isaiah 41:8-9. He states that he loves and has chosen the entire nation of Israel here. Were they all saved? Indeed, from Isaiah 41 through the next several chapters, God refers to the nation of Israel as "chosen." Isaiah 45 even says these words, "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me." Chosen though they don't acknowledge. Sounds like they're not SAVED!
What would you think if I replied to you, "Romans 9 says the opposite, and therefore, Is. 41:8-9 does not mean that"? Preposterous? Can I agree? It is irrelevant what Is. 41 says. We don't determine what Rom.9 from the context of Is.41! Don'd you reckon we should try and establish the contextual meaning of Romans 9 from .... ROMANS 9?
I had said:
"Paul elaborates upon the GROUNDS upon which THIS group of SAVED people was chosen... the election of God. THESE are the elected ones, and NONE else. The election of God spoken of in this text nowhere respects saved and unsaved Jews, and in fact likens the unsaved Jews to Esau, just as Gal. 4 likens them to Haggar and Ishmael."
To which you replied:
Haha! You think that Esau is representative of the Jews? Rad Malachi, chapter 1! Galatians 4 is encouraging the Galatians to give up trying to live under the law and live for Christ instead. verse 21 states the audience: "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" The "you" were already saved!
1. Careful, Mr. Emerson... "haha" might be construed by some people to be an ad hominem "attack".
2. You don't answer the point, but merely contest one ancillary part of the same.
3. Esau was said to be "born after the flesh", and was compared to those born of promise. These are the elect and non-elect Jews, as this was the subject he plainly developed and elabroated upon. Secondly, you didn't read far enough in Gal.4...
21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
With God's blessing anyone can see that, according to Paul, Hagar is typical of the covenant of the law, and answers in the allegory to "Jerusalem which now is". The unregenerate Jews. The elect Jews were those answering in the allegory to Isaac, and Jerusalem which is above, church made up of Jews and Gentiles. That's why Paul concludes..... to a GENTILE church "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Believers in Jesus, Jews or Gentiles ARE what Issac WAS.... the children of promise.... Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Ha ha Mr. Emerson... (Making shameless ad hominem attack)
I had said:
"This is why the passages ends like this: 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory".
To which you replied:
"Okay. Can I give you a clue that may completely baffle you? As has often been pointed out by other commentators, it is possible on grammatical grounds to take the perfect passive participle katertismena ["having been prepared," lit., "having been put in order"] in 9:22 in a reflexive sense, "having put themselves in order," in which case the role of these vessels of wrath in determining their own destruction is further highlighted.) A relexive tense in the Greek tense means that the object and the subject are the same - more specifically, the object is doing the action to himself. Sure makes things sound like Jeremiah..."
Is this why NOT ONE general translation of the bible has ever concurred with your expert opinion of the Greek here?
I had said, concerning the above verses:
"But that's not talking about a group elected to salvation? Yes or no, please."
To which you replied:
"Sounds like a group is elected to being shapen by the potter."
Yes....... but one to dishonor, and the other to dishonor; one as a vessel of mercy, the other as a vessel of wrath.... according to the text.
G4G
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I suppose it is possible that your position on Calvinism is forcing you to argue that John could not see that while writing down the words of John 17 He was in fact showing that the words of the Apostles would be read by all Christians in all ages.
But I would say if that is the case - if you are being forced to make that argument - it is unfortunate.
-------------------------------------
Pastor Larry posts
That would be nice as a rewrite of the text - but as it is it says in fact
The redefinition of "all" into "all those that eventually end up being selected out of the many that were under the sentence of death" - is not present in the text.
But I understand why the model of Calvinism "needs" it to be there and I can appreciate the attempt to try to get it in there. I just think the task is a bit daunting given the actual content of the text.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Bob Posts from 1John using the definition that G4G provides such that "you/us/we" refers to elect Jews and "The Whole World" is Paul's way of expanding the scope out to include the elect Gentiles. (At least that "appears" to be what G4G is arguing)
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (among you elect JEWS reading this letter) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
I hope that correction is satisfactory in representing how you "Decode" each of those words in 1 John to get "whole world" to mean 'elect Gentiles' instead of "whole World".
In Christ,
Bob
I stand corrected - my quote above then should have read --
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (among you elect JEWS reading this letter) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
I hope that correction is satisfactory in representing how you "Decode" each of those words in 1 John to get "whole world" to mean 'elect Gentiles' instead of "whole World".
In Christ,
Bob