Theology - Study of God

[Rippon]

We have at least three people who claim they can read between the lines with certainty on this thread. Christ did not die for all, but for all [sorts of men.] Christ did not die for the church, but for the church [only.] Again and again, in order to pour a doctrine into the text, they add to the text, living not by the word of God but by the speculation of men.

Why do you think the Church was the specific locus of Luke and Paul in those references I quoted? Why would anyone extrapolate that Luke and Paul really meant to be all-inclusive despite the stumbling block of "the Church" in those passages? Does it make any sense to reason that :"Well, the Church is mentioned, but it really doesn't mean that it is the only recipient of the Lord's death. He died for His Bride, but He also died for everyone else too."

No Van. That doesn't compute. Christ laid down His life for His sheep only. The sheep of course are the same individuals as the Church,the Bride,the Body, His people, the elect,the called, predestined, justified and the glorified.

 

[Van]

No use discussing it Rippon, you do not believe your Calvinist view has been added to scripture, even with the evidence right before your eyes.

When anyone, myself included, adds to scripture to make it conform with a preconceived notion, they are not studying the God of the Bible, they are studying the agenda driven invention of men.

 

[Yeshua1]

No use discussing it Rippon, you do not believe your Calvinist view has been added to scripture, even with the evidence right before your eyes.

When anyone, myself included, adds to scripture to make it conform with a preconceived notion, they are not studying the God of the Bible, they are studying the agenda driven invention of men.

Calvinism was the theological system that became formally encoded after John Calvin himself presented his systematic theology, but the concepts that he got that from were already held to in the church before Him, as that is the best way to see the theology of jesus and the Apostles!

 

[Rippon]

No use discussing it Rippon,

Of course it is of use in discussing it. The subject is very important.

you do not believe your Calvinist view has been added to scripture,

Of course I don't believe my so-called Calvinistic views have been added to Scripture. You are putting the cart before the horse. Calvinism is already present in the Word of God. And of course that means that it was there long before John Calvin!

even with the evidence right before your eyes.

You have presented no evidence. I have been producing scriptural proof that Christ died for His elect alone.

When anyone, myself included, adds to scripture to make it conform with a preconceived notion, they are not studying the God of the Bible, they are studying the agenda driven invention of men.

The above is mere balderdash.

Christ died for His redeemed. The ransomed of the Lord are the only ones who are recipients of His salvific mercy. No one will lay any charge against the Lord's elect. He died and interceding for us -- no one else. Christ laid down His life for His sheep --not the goats. Sheep can not be turned into goats and goats can't be become sheep. Christ knows only His own --that personal,deep intimacy.

The names of the elect are written in the Lamb's Book of life. They were put there before the foundation of the world. The elect --God's chosen people are the sole beneficiaries of His death. The elect of God are from among every nation,tribe,people and language.

The above is written in capsule form for your convenience. And if you knew the scriptures from which they are based you would not deny that the doctrine is entirely biblical.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course it is of use in discussing it. The subject is very important.


Of course I don't believe my so-called Calvinistic views have been added to Scripture. You are putting the cart before the horse. Calvinism is already present in the Word of God. And of course that means that it was there long before John Calvin!

You have presented no evidence. I have been producing scriptural proof that Christ died for His elect alone.

The above is mere balderdash.

Christ died for His redeemed. The ransomed of the Lord are the only ones who are recipients of His salvific mercy. No one will lay any charge against the Lord's elect. He died and interceding for us -- no one else. Christ laid down His life for His sheep --not the goats. Sheep can not be turned into goats and goats can't be become sheep. Christ knows only His own --that personal,deep intimacy.

The names of the elect are written in the Lamb's Book of life. They were put there before the foundation of the world. The elect --God's chosen people are the sole beneficiaries of His death. The elect of God are from among every nation,tribe,people and language.

The above is written in capsule form for your convenience. And if you knew the scriptures from which they are based you would not deny that the doctrine is entirely biblical.

ALL theology proper is derived from the Bible itself, so the concepts and doctrines were not invented by a calvin or luther or whoever, but was redisovered by them!

 

[JonC]

ALL theology proper is derived from the Bible itself, so the concepts and doctrines were not invented by a calvin or luther or whoever, but was redisovered by them!

All theology incorporates human reasoning, comparisons throughout the biblical text, and interpretation. Calvin and Luther did not rediscover as much as they brought to light by continuing a train of thought and reasoning that had begun before their time (e.g., Calvin and Luther are not theologically identical although both are derived from the same Scripture).

 

[Yeshua1]

All theology incorporates human reasoning, comparisons throughout the biblical text, and interpretation. Calvin and Luther did not rediscover as much as they brought to light by continuing a train of thought and reasoning that had begun before their time (e.g., Calvin and Luther are not theologically identical although both are dere Bible...ived from the same Scripture).

good alalysis!

main point is that neither calvinism/Arminianism, or any other theology that is within orthodoxy is claiming that it comes from new received revelations, but are all found within the scriptures themselves...

Roman catholic ans charasmatic theologies however do claim additional/ongoing revelations to make their cases!

 

[Van]

Lets say a person adds to scripture. Will they say they added? Nope. When shown where they added, will they say oops, I see what you mean? Nope, they will say what evidence, you provided no evidence. Calvinists have a mantra, I found this doctrine in scripture all by myself. It was there before Calvin, and so forth and so on.

1) Scripture, Christ died as a ransom for all. Calvinism, Christ died as a ransom for all sorts of people.

2) Scripture, Christ became the propitiation for the whole world. Calvinism, Christ became the propitiation for the whole elect world.

3) Scripture, no one seeks God. Calvinism, no one seeks God at any time.

Theology 101 says stick with what scripture says, not what it might possibly allow.

 

[Yeshua1]

Lets say a person adds to scripture. Will they say they added? Nope. When shown where they added, will they say oops, I see what you mean? Nope, they will say what evidence, you provided no evidence. Calvinists have a mantra, I found this doctrine in scripture all by myself. It was there before Calvin, and so forth and so on.

1) Scripture, Christ died as a ransom for all. Calvinism, Christ died as a ransom for all sorts of people.

2) Scripture, Christ became the propitiation for the whole world. Calvinism, Christ became the propitiation for the whole elect world.

3) Scripture, no one seeks God. Calvinism, no one seeks God at any time.

Theology 101 says stick with what scripture says, not what it might possibly allow.

Calvinism does, in the doctrine of Sotierology proper, as we must see salvation thru the Fall of Adam and redemption thru second adam jesus!

 

[Rippon]

Lets [sic]say a person adds to scripture. Will they say they added? Nope. When shown where they added, will they say oops, I see what you mean? Nope, they will say what evidence, you provided no evidence.

Talking about yourself I see.

Calvinists have a mantra, I found this doctrine in scripture all by myself. It was there before Calvin, and so forth and so on.

You're calling us all liars then?

1) Scripture, Christ died as a ransom for all.

Hmm...
What about Is. 53:12 : "For he bore the sin of many,and made intercession for the transgressors."

What about Matt. 26:28 : "This is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

What about Mark 10:45 : "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

What about Heb. 9:28 : "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many..."

Hmm...?

Calvinism, Christ died as a ransom for all sorts of people.

Of course He laid down His life as a will sacrifice for all kinds of people? You doubt that? He died for the rich,poor and in between, male and female,ugly and good-looking,educated and illiterate etc, etc.

You want to deny the obvious?

2) Scripture, Christ became the propitiation for the whole world. Calvinism, Christ became the propitiation for the whole elect world.

You do realize that propitiation removes God's actual anger against sinners, do you not? If he doesn't punish anyone for their sin then all are saved -- i.e. universalism. Do you really want to go that route?

3) Scripture, no one seeks God. Calvinism, no one seeks God at any time.

What,pray tell, is the difference?

 

[Rippon]

Praise God!

I want to say more about 1 John 2:2.

It's directly linked with John 11:51,52. The same author is writing on the same theme.

I will quote the latter. :

"He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one."

Christ's atoning sacrifice was international in scope. See Rev. 5:9 :

"You were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."

See Rev. 7:9 :

"After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb."

Christ died for everyone without distinction, not everyone without exception.

 

[Van]

As I said, those that embrace additions to scripture claim they do not. There is no commitment to stick to what scripture actually says.

It is all this means that and that means some other things, and using that method, you can claim the opposite of what it says.

Logically to die for all sorts of people might include all people. Everyone is one sort or another, free or slave, male or female, Jew or non-Jew.

Next we get "many" redefined to mean something other that everyone except Christ.

So the additions and word redefinitions continue unabated.

And finally, the same fiction is repeated, to die for the church means to die for the church only, an exclusion added to twist scripture into Calvinist doctrine. They are remorseless in making scripture say what it does not say.

Instead of the study of God, it becomes a study in how to abuse God's word.

They claim "no one seeks God at any time" is the only meaning for no one seeks God. How about no one seeks God all the time, or no one seeks God when they are volitionally sinning. There is a whole range of possible meanings. But the Calvinist will say no, it can only mean what they claim.

At the end of the day, such a methodology results in worshiping in part the creation of men.

 

[Rippon]

It is all this means that and that means some other things, and using that method, you can claim the opposite of what it says.

Please rephrase that "sentence" please. I have no idea what you meant.

Logically to die for all sorts of people might include all people.

No, only in Vanology. Christ died for all sorts of people means all categories --all kinds of folks. Simple and straightforward really.

Next we get "many" redefined to mean something other that everyone except Christ.

You need an editor Van. Your lack of plain-speak is not helping you.

And finally, the same fiction is repeated, to die for the church means to die for the church only, an exclusion added to twist scripture into Calvinist doctrine. They are remorseless in making scripture say what it does not say.

Since you insist that the word Church is superfluous in those passages I quoted why not come out with a Van-translation where such problematic words are deleted and you can insert your own theology in the text? For instance, you can redo Ephesians 5:25 to read :"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved each and every member of the human race, of which he is the Savior."

 

[Yeshua1]

The Author of Hebrews stated that Christ died in order to provide salvation for the many, not all, and that he was the high priest appointed unto them who would inherit salvation, so was he wrong?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The Author of Hebrews stated that Christ died in order to provide salvation for the many, not all, and that he was the high priest appointed unto them who would inherit salvation, so was he wrong?

No, but your interpretation is. The word translated "many" is the Greek polus and does mean "all." The reason it is translated "many" In Hebrews 2:10 and in 9:28 is not because He has chosen against some for salvation, but because not all will be saved. That is a finite but significant distinction. It has nothing to do with God's choice for some and against others. It has everything to do with man's will to reject God.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, but your interpretation is. The word translated "many" is the Greek polus and does mean "all." The reason it is translated "many" In Hebrews 2:10 and in 9:28 is not because He has chosen against some for salvation, but because not all will be saved. That is a finite but significant distinction. It has nothing to do with God's choice for some and against others. It has everything to do with man's will to reject God.

The m as the messiah/High priest was towards the many who received Him and were saved, so his death/resurrection covered just those peoples, not ALL others. correct?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The m as the messiah/High priest was towards the many who received Him and were saved, so his death/resurrection covered just those peoples, not ALL others. correct?

Incorrect. Jesus' death was sufficient for "all" the world. But not "all" the world will believe on Him for salvation. Atonement is not limited by God, but by those who rebel against Him.

 

[Van]

The study of Theology requires sticking with what God revealed in scripture. When so called theologians add to scripture, i.e. Christ died for the church being altered to read Christ died for the church only, we have a form of idolatry, worshiping a god man invented by altering the revelation found in scripture.

Jesus revealed God in all His glory.

 

[Yeshua1]

Incorrect. Jesus' death was sufficient for "all" the world. But not "all" the world will believe on Him for salvation. Atonement is not limited by God, but by those who rebel against Him.

God Himself was the One to limit how many were to be saved by the death of jesus, as he atoned for a specific group of sinners, those whom his death wewre intended to be covered by!

 

[Yeshua1]

The study of Theology requires sticking with what God revealed in scripture. When so called theologians add to scripture, i.e. Christ died for the church being altered to read Christ died for the church only, we have a form of idolatry, worshiping a god man invented by altering the revelation found in scripture.

Jesus revealed God in all His glory.

Could also state though that those who try to get human free will and response into being equal to the Will of God to save us, that is also "adding to the scriptures!"