- Jun 10, 2010
- 7,562
- 55
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
I'd reread that.
Thanks for correcting me. However, it makes no difference.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'd reread that.
1. Christ did not die for all men. Yes/no?
2. Those he did not die for, like all men, will not fulfill the law. Yes/no?
3. The only option for reprobates is faith in a Christ. Yes/no?
4. Whether faith in Christ for reprobates is possible or not is an academic exercise - Christ did not die for them. Yes/no?
5. The reprobates are without access to salvation. Yes/no?
I'll try again... What do you mean by access?
Not sure I can explain it any better. The 5 points should cover it.
Describe the way in which a reprobate gets saved. If you can't do so, then reprobates have no access. If you can, then...well, you would have to change your theology.
I'll try it this way. In my theology, those whom God knows won't be saved, won't be saved. How is that different than in your theology?
I'll try it this way. In my theology, those whom God knows won't be saved, won't be saved. How is that different than in your theology?
What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?
Corinthians gives me a pretty good idea. Jus' sayin![]()
Justify this claim.
A direct quotation uses the form "A said 'X.'" An indirect quotation uses the form "A said that X." You're writing "A said that 'X,'" which is not a legitimate way of rendering quotation. If Paul said to the Corinthians that Paul said "Christ died for our sins," an inclusive "our" would indeed be understood as you would have us understand this passage. If, rather, Paul said that Paul said that Christ died for our sins, the inclusive "our" is only inclusive of Paul and the Corinthian church. An "our" which is inclusive of the audience is only inclusive of the actual audience of the statement it presently occurs in, which in this case is the Corinthian church. It isn't inclusive of other audiences of earlier statements which are being indirectly quoted within the present statement.
Hence, when I say to my wife "I told your sister that our children are at school," even though "our" is contextually inclusive, it is only inclusive of my wife. She is the only second person in the statement which I am presently making, and her sister is the third person, and thus not included in my inclusive "our," even though her sister was the second person of the previous statement which I am indirectly quoting.
Paul may have allowed for that possibility, but that doesn't mean he addressed the letter to these people. "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God in Corinth" are how the book begins.Paul reminds them of what he had preached to them. If it is the case that Paul did not consider that Christ died for all men, then it would have been misleading to use the words he did in his letter: 'Christ died for our sins'. Don't forget that he allows for the possibility that some who read his letter might not be true believers.
You make valid points about direct and indirect quotations. However, in your example, it is obvious that he never meant to include his sister when he first said 'our'. You understand the detail and nuances very well indeed, but aren't you missing the bigger contextual picture? Paul simply allows for the assumption that he did not exclude any man from the benefits of Christ's death. To do so, when the reality was not so would be reprehensible. Indeed, it would make the inspirational guidance of 2 Timothy 3:16 seem pretty sloppy.
Paul may have allowed for that possibility, but that doesn't mean he addressed the letter to these people. "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God in Corinth" are how the book begins.
In any event, you still need to justify why it would be misleading for Paul to write in the manner I suggest he did. Indo-European languages don't mark clusivity one way or another, so there isn't a default inclusivity inherent in the use of the word which can be assumed until explicitly contradicted by the text.
Clusivity is signified in context, which we don't have for the original message being recalled in this passage. We can't even be sure Paul used the words "Christ died for our sins" at any point in that message. We only know that the word "our" occurred in his letter to the Corinthians, and contextually the only parties mentioned in the book who could be antecedent to "our" are Paul and the church of God in Corinth.
I think I've made the case above that nothing in the text suggests we can make that assumption. However, it is basic to Christian doctrine that there is a group of people excluded from the benefits of Christ's death, namely, the group of people who will not ultimately be saved. That theological context, instead of textual context, allows me to assume that Paul did not include the damned among those redeemed in Christ's death. Likewise, it sounds as if it is your commitment to the notion that Christ's death was provisional which you are using to determine the clusivity of the pronoun, and not anything in the passage itself.
I'll try it this way. In my theology, those whom God knows won't be saved, won't be saved. How is that different than in your theology?
If you change the first occurrence of 'won't be saved' to 'won't believe', then our positions are identical.
I'm not sure that you are following the theology you say you espouse. Not sure you would agree with A. W. Pink regarding salvation. If you don't agree with him, then good for you.
I think you are wavering over the doctrine of election and reprobation. Are you?
Now, as to access.
I do not have a desire to go inside Buckingham Palace, or Windsor Castle. Does that mean that I don't have access? No. I will never be denied access to those places because I do not even wish to go inside.
Don't take this analogy further than intended. I only want to demonstrate that access isn't denied to someone who doesn't want to even get in. So to say that access is denied the reprobate who has no desire for God is a false dilemma.
I would just be repeating myself if I were to respond.
Which would be different how?
There wouldn't be a difference. I would be repeating myself.
Fair enough. But when you say access to salvation, and I respond that those who want access will get it, and the rest don't care, just think of my analogy.