Unorthodox TheologyA forum to discuss/debate theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Full Preterism, Unitarianism)
"for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure."- Philippians 2:13
He's wholly Sovereign and does as He pleases. Thus He doesn't make all sinners willing.
Let us not forget that Paul also writes that He [God] wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. The first part of your comment would be correct but the second part would seem to contradict the book.
__________________ "What does God need with a starship?" - James T. Kirk
Hmm. This interprets many texts allegorically, which works if you have a long tradition behind you. Do you feel like you have a long tradition behind you?
What do you mean by a long tradition?
Interesting solution. If you had told me this a month ago, I would have ignored it, but since then I've read some interesting material on allegorical interpretation.....
By "allegory," by the way, I mean to say that you are using an overarching theological framework to interpret and thus unify the entire canon. It's not something promulgated by modern scholarship but it's highly attested to outside of and before it.
Yeah, I'm not sure I like modern scholarship..
This is why it's so easy to see the ultimate salvation of all. Because when you see that Jesus is speaking to the inward man and the two natures, the one being hostile to God, then you can see that it's the flesh nature that will be destroyed by the Second Death and not the man himself. THAT is what must die (take up my cross and die daily), and it must begin now in this life for those who are of Christ.. judgment must begin at the house of God, of which we are.
Was the interesting reading about allegorical interpretation online?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The Bible shows that only few are chosen. One verse that I believe has been overlooked by both camps is Acts 13:48, "And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
That verse alone, I believe, is evidence enough of showing only the elect of God shall see Heaven.
The fact of the matter is this, God, the ultimate standard, can not be accused of unjustice. I like the way Matthew 20:15 puts it, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?"
"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.] This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God's decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever tetagmenoi may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither protetagmenoi nor proorismenoi which the apostle uses, but simply tetagmenoi, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word tetagmenov mean? The verb tattw or tassw signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned ver. 43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, ver. 45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predetermined to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it. Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively, and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed, through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others, destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others; kindle their own fire, compass themselves with sparks, and walk in the light of their own fire, and of the sparks which they have kindled; and, in consequence, lie down in sorrow, having bidden adieu to the true meaning of a passage so very simple, taken in its connection, that one must wonder how it ever came to be misunderstood and misapplied. Those who wish to see more on this verse may consult Hammond, Whitby, Schoettgen, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Sir Norton Knatchbull, and Dodd." - Adam Clarke (1760-1832)
I can't say that I am in agreement with all that Adam Clarke supported in his commentary on the whole of the scriptures, but that does not prevent me from taking advantage of his expertise in the Greek, and several other languages. And if I would assume to add anything at all to this good commentary, it would be, that there is no way that Luke, who is the purported author of the book of Acts, could have known but what some of those Gentiles who were present at this gathering would not have again heard the Gospel at a later date and believed. For after all, Luke was just an ordinary man, not a prophet, nor is there any evidence to support that he was possessed with the ability to see into the future, or to be able to know who were the "elect" and who were not.
This is why it's so easy to see the ultimate salvation of all. Because when you see that Jesus is speaking to the inward man and the two natures, the one being hostile to God, then you can see that it's the flesh nature that will be destroyed by the Second Death and not the man himself. THAT is what must die (take up my cross and die daily), and it must begin now in this life for those who are of Christ..
The 'flesh nature' is destroyed when the flesh dies. And that the flesh and blood bodies of anyone will ever be resurrected is not scriptural. For scripture teaches that the dead shall be raised incorruptible . 1Corinthians 15: 42. " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
judgment must begin at the house of God, of which we are.
But we are not of the 'house of God' which was spoken of in 1 Peter 4:17. That 'house of God' was none other than the literal house of Israel upon which God's judgement was about to descend. (that judgement occured in A.D. 70 - the destruction of Jerusalem)
I mean, do you feel like you have received the truth from a long line of faithful vessels, or have you dug up "buried" truth that has been hidden for centuries or millenia? I ask because I believe that only long traditions can legitimately interpret scripture allegorically. The rest of us have to go with the "intent" or "message" of each local text as determined by linguistic and literary interpretation.
Yeah, I'm not sure I like modern scholarship..
This is why it's so easy to see the ultimate salvation of all. Because when you see that Jesus is speaking to the inward man and the two natures, the one being hostile to God, then you can see that it's the flesh nature that will be destroyed by the Second Death and not the man himself. THAT is what must die (take up my cross and die daily), and it must begin now in this life for those who are of Christ.. judgment must begin at the house of God, of which we are.
Hmm. Pretty highly individualized for my tastes. I think Jesus' message was not just about the division within, but the social division at large.
At the same time...... boy it's frighteningly close to my personal spiritual framework I've believed for many years that all human beings share the same nature -- there isn't a light/dark division between two groups of humans, but rather in ourselves. I just don't believe that Jesus agrees with me, that's all
Was the interesting reading about allegorical interpretation online?
It wasn't online, it was a book by Andrew Louth called Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Eastern Orthodox persuasion).
__________________
...Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
The 'flesh nature' is destroyed when the flesh dies. And that the flesh and blood bodies of anyone will ever be resurrected is not scriptural. For scripture teaches that the dead shall be raised incorruptible . 1Corinthians 15: 42. " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
I don't disagree with you, as I don't see the LOF as a literal lake of real fire or that it necessarily happens after physical death.
But we are not of the 'house of God' which was spoken of in 1 Peter 4:17. That 'house of God' was none other than the literal house of Israel upon which God's judgement was about to descend. (that judgement occured in A.D. 70 - the destruction of Jerusalem)
Well no, the whole passage is speaking about suffering as a christian for the gospel, suffering as in participation in the sufferings of Christ:
1Pe 4:12 Dear friends, do not be surprised by the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.
1Pe 4:13 Instead, because you are participating in the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that you may be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed.
1Pe 4:14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the glorious Spirit of God is resting on you.
1Pe 4:15 Of course, none of you should suffer for being a murderer, thief, criminal, or troublemaker.
1Pe 4:16 But if you suffer for being a Christian, do not feel ashamed, but glorify God with that name.
1Pe 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God. And if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who refuse to obey the gospel of God?
1Pe 4:18 "If it is hard for the righteous person to be saved, what will happen to the ungodly and sinful person?"
1Pe 4:19 So then (or, therefore: this is what the passage is there for), those who suffer according to God's will should entrust their souls to a faithful Creator and continue to do what is good.
God took His name from the old Temple and put it in the new which is Christ when He was risen from the dead:
Joh 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Joh 2:20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
Joh 2:21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
So that...
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
Heb 10:21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
All this took place before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Tavita; 6th October 2009 at 12:55 AM.
I mean, do you feel like you have received the truth from a long line of faithful vessels, or have you dug up "buried" truth that has been hidden for centuries or millenia? I ask because I believe that only long traditions can legitimately interpret scripture allegorically. The rest of us have to go with the "intent" or "message" of each local text as determined by linguistic and literary interpretation.
I guess it's been gained over thirty years and being involved with Church as an Anglican, Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal. I like a bit of ritual have preached on street corners, driven out demons and swung on chandeliers..lol! I started to question the beliefs of orthodox christianity several years ago and finally left... before I came to realize UR. And another thing I realized was that I don't have to obey church laws rules and regulations. I don't have to go along with the intent or message of each local text as determined by linguistic and literary interpretation. I don't have to interpret anything according to what man says.
Hmm. Pretty highly individualized for my tastes. I think Jesus' message was not just about the division within, but the social division at large.
Yes, it is also about social division, but it begins with us first.
At the same time...... boy it's frighteningly close to my personal spiritual framework I've believed for many years that all human beings share the same nature -- there isn't a light/dark division between two groups of humans, but rather in ourselves. I just don't believe that Jesus agrees with me, that's all
The nature of the man within must be addressed on an individual level before it can make an impact socially. I think He'd agree with you.
It wasn't online, it was a book by Andrew Louth called Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Eastern Orthodox persuasion).
Hmm.. I'll see if I can find it. I do like the way Eastern Orthodox think..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I guess it's been gained over thirty years and being involved with Church as an Anglican, Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal. I like a bit of ritual have preached on street corners, driven out demons and swung on chandeliers..lol! I started to question the beliefs of orthodox christianity several years ago and finally left... before I came to realize UR. And another thing I realized was that I don't have to obey church laws rules and regulations. I don't have to go along with the intent or message of each local text as determined by linguistic and literary interpretation. I don't have to interpret anything according to what man says.
It sounds as if you no longer locate yourself within a tradition per se.
Yes, it is also about social division, but it begins with us first.
The nature of the man within must be addressed on an individual level before it can make an impact socially. I think He'd agree with you.
Hmm. You see the social division as ultimately ending because all are "converted," but you see the internal division as ultimately ending because the evil is destroyed. Annihilationism, then, draws a stronger allegorical interpretation than UR because in both cases one party is destroyed and the "remnant" is preserved.
Thoughts?
Hmm.. I'll see if I can find it. I do like the way Eastern Orthodox think..
It's a good read. The first few chapters focus on the epistemological division between the sciences and the humanities, then tries to find a principle that unites the two together (primarily residing in the humanities), then talks about the unifying principle of allegorical interpretation of the scriptures.
I like the framing of TAW, too. Haven't yet decided if I'm going to commit myself or not, though.
__________________
...Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
Hmm. You see the social division as ultimately ending because all are "converted," but you see the internal division as ultimately ending because the evil is destroyed. Annihilationism, then, draws a stronger allegorical interpretation than UR because in both cases one party is destroyed and the "remnant" is preserved.
Thoughts?
Consider that all of us have both good and evil within, the good will endure the evil will perish but the person is saved in all cases.
__________________ "What does God need with a starship?" - James T. Kirk
Consider that all of us have both good and evil within, the good will endure the evil will perish but the person is saved in all cases.
Exactly. So with respect to the social division, the righteous are saved, the wicked perish, and the whole world is renewed in a second creation.
__________________
...Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
I've believed for many years that all human beings share the same nature -- there isn't a light/dark division between two groups of humans, but rather in ourselves. I just don't believe that Jesus agrees with me, that's all 
Linear Mode
