Faith Movement

[Outspoken]

"Ananais was not a believer"

Really? How do you know this? Where is it in the text?

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Dear Andrew,

I'm curious what you mean by "we're on this side of the cross."  It seems to make an implication that God has changed after Jesus' death.

Also, I want to ask you this: Did Jesus die for the all the sins of all people?

/p

p.s. is a discussion on dispensationalism appropriate for this board?

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Oh yea, I was wondering something else, too.  By "permissive," you mean to say that a literal interpretation of those passages would be something like:

"he himself also hastened to get out because the LORD had allowed him to be smitten"

or

"While the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD allowed the people to be struck with a very severe plague."

Maybe I should stop trusting the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV (never totally trusted it), and the KJV... They ALL express the agent as the LORD, and the act as smite or strike.  Maybe this is too far a stretch from the text, but I would expect that the striking was done  by the one who was angry, i.e. God.

Hit me back on this one.  I am actually really curious about the Hebrew and how it works.  Maybe you can give a short explanation of the Hebrew and how "permissive" verbs (vicarious verbs?) differ from verbs of direct action by the subject.

/p

 

[Andrew]

Dear Andrew,
I'm curious what you mean by "we're on this side of the cross."Ê It seems to make an implication that God has changed after Jesus' death.

God has not changed but the covenant certainly has. So we should not mixed the terms and conditions of 2 covenants. This is simply called rightly dividing the Word, which Jesus himself practised:

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Both principles/teachings are in the Bible. Has God changed?

Again, when reading the Bible, a simple rule of thumb is to interpret verses in light of the cross. Then things wont get so confusing. So the thing is to find out for yourself what happened at the cross with regard to sickness and healing. If God has changed the order of certain things, then we should get updated and follow it.

For eg, when someone asks you how to get saved, you dont give him the 10 commandments, but tell him abt Jesus and the cross.

Also, I want to ask you this: Did Jesus die for the all the sins of all people?

Yes He did. Of course, the Calvinist who believe in Limited Atonement will disagree and argue that Jesus did not shed his blood for all but only the elect. But that to me is heresy.

Oh yea, I was wondering something else, too.Ê By "permissive," you mean to say that a literal interpretation of those passages would be something like:

yes basically. I'm no Hebrew scholar but it is quite well-known that the Hebrew language has the permissive tense which the English lang does not. Hence it is simply translated as "God smite" instead of "God allowed xx to be smitten". Again, this Bible study principle is quite well-known.

NASB, KJV, NIV etc? There's nothing wrong with having different Bible translations but it is best to trust the Holy Spirit for guidance.

 

[Outspoken]

"God has not changed but the covenant certainly has. So we should not mixed the terms and conditions of 2 covenants. This is simply called rightly dividing the Word, which Jesus himself practised:"

the covenant hasn't changed. the thing you're referencing to here is the spirit of the law. it has not changed, but humans couldn't quite come to grips to what the law was for, thus Jesus clarified it for us. The covenant hasn't changed at all.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

There was a great book written in the 1640's called "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," by John Owen.  If you have patience, and quite a bit of time on your hands, I would suggest it as a great read on the problem of limited atonement vs. universal redemtion ("heresy" is a VERY strong word).  Interestingly enough, he gives a great summary of the problem in Book I, Chapter III.  Here is the most relevant part, happy reading!

"To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:--God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: " If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" Ps.130:3. We might all go to cast all that we have " to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty," Isa. 2:20, 21. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, " Because of their unbelief, they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will."

 

[Andrew]

" I would suggest it as a great read on the problem of limited atonement vs. universal redemtion ("heresy" is a VERY strong word)."

I believe what the scriptures say: That Christ shed his blood for all. This was already discussed on an old thread some time ago. You might want to look it up. Yes, I'd still call it heresy (the teaching that Christ only died for some) -- and you are free to disagree.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Yea, I think I do have to disagree. We can pray for each other
I'll try to find some of the old threads.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Ok, after some searching, I will say that Reformationist has articulated more clearly and fully, in a number of threads, the same thoughts I have on this subject. I will hold my peace, and point anyone who is interested to the thread, "Is Owen Right?"

/p

 

[Andrew]

ThatOneGuy,

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that all men have sinned?

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Andrew, aside from Jesus, yes.

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"God has not changed but the covenant certainly has. So we should not mixed the terms and conditions of 2 covenants. This is simply called rightly dividing the Word, which Jesus himself practised:"

the covenant hasn't changed. the thing you're referencing to here is the spirit of the law. it has not changed, but humans couldn't quite come to grips to what the law was for, thus Jesus clarified it for us. The covenant hasn't changed at all.

Luke 22:
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

2 Corinthians 3:
6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew, aside from Jesus, yes.

So you believe that all men have sinned (thanks to Adam) but that redemption (thanks to Christ) is only for some. That wld make Adam's work superior to Christ since it affects everybody whereas Christ's work only affects a select group. Yet Rom 5 is crystal clear that Christ's work is a much more.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Slow down. I did not say, "I 'believe that all men have sinned (thanks to Adam) but that redemtion (thanks to Christ) is only for some.'" I will try to do most of my thinking for myself Actually, I DO agree that redemption is only for SOME and that MANY will not be redeemed (isn't that obvious??? Rev. 20:15, Matt. 25:41, Mark 4:14-20).

As for whether or not Adam's work was superior to Christ's:

"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

So, the "free gift," or "Christ's work" (as you call it), is different from the sin of Adam (transgression and judgement). They are not the same because:

1. Adam's sin brought death (condemnation), but the gift brought grace (justification).
2. The judgement came from one transgression, but the gift came from many transgressions.
3. Death reigned through Adam, but we* reign through Jesus.
4. Adam's disobedience led to many sinners, but Jesus' obedience led to many righteous people.

Do you agree or disagree with 1-4?

/p

* or, "those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness"

 

[Andrew]

Actually, I DO agree that redemption is only for SOME and that MANY will not be redeemed (isn't that obvious??? Rev. 20:15, Matt. 25:41, Mark 4:14-20).

The difference is this:

1. Limited Atonement preachers say that redemption is not offered to all, becos Jesus only bore the sins of the elect on the cross, not the sins of the entire world. So redemption cannot be offered to all simply cos Christ did not die for all. His work was only partially effective.

2. The truth is that Christ bore all sins for all men, therefore redemption is OFFERED to all, but not all will accept, IOW there will be those who reject Christ.

No. 2 is very obvious to me (not 1), and is the traditional view held by most Christians, and which supports Rom 5, which says Christ work is a much more in every sense of the word.

 

[Outspoken]

"Luke 22:
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

2 Corinthians 3:
6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

You misunderstand. This is the same conventant promised long ago even to Adam when Eve was cursed. It is the fufillment of the old coventant That is why the law is not thrown away but made into what it was ment to be all along, our guide.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Where do i begin? I guess with Deuteronomy 28. You choose one verse. Just one out of this chapter. Did you read the whole thing? This is a chapter that focuses on the Jewish people as a whole. Not an individual.

Deut starts by saying, "If you fully obey the LORD your God by keeping all the commands I am giving you today, the LORD your God will exalt you above all the nations of the world".

I believe this even could be viewed on the USA. But however, I believe this. It goes on and demonstrates that God cares about his people. He wants to bless his people. He wants them to be blessed so that the world can look at them and see that their God is real and a loving God. And wants to draw the world to Him. Even then.

Then in verse 15, the reality struck the Israel people. "But if you refuse to listen to the LORD your God and do not obey all the commands and laws I am giving you today, all these curses will come and overwhelm you:"

Curse, after Curse after Curse. You seem to want to look at this one verse, 61, but yet don't want to also mention other verses like 18 which says your field will be barren and you will have few children.

Now add Isaiah 53:4 into the equation. "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted."

What grief did he bear? What sorrow did he carry? And go on to verse 5, "...And by His scourging we are healed". What are we healed of?

Deut 28 has nothing to do with Isaiah 53, in the way of healing. Deut dealt with obedience of his people. Isaiah dealt with what Christ did on the cross. By Christ stripes we are healed of our sins. He didn't die so that we might be healed of illnesses, though God can heal even a lost person. He didnt die so we might have our sorrows carried away from us, though God is the great comforter.

I just find that its odd that some people don't take personal responsibility but are definitely willing to blame Satan for their own iniquities and transgressions. People are certainly willling to try to pull out verses that tell how God wants you to be healed from an accident and go to God to pray that he would heal you, but those same people don't want to take the verse that says you reap what you sew. That is exactly what Deut is about. Reaping what you sew.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Drew,

Actually, the way I wrote it, 1 and 2 are exactly the same. 1) Only some will be redeemed, and 2) Many will not be redeemed. Perhaps my English wasn't clear.

As for Jesus dying for "all sins of all men," maybe I should ask you this: Did Christ die for sins, or for men? That seems to be the real issue here. I encourage you to read Romans 3:21-26:

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

God is "just" when he punishes sins (just as a government is just/fair when it punishes criminals). But, God has been passing over sins (letting them go) and continues to. How can he not punish all those sins and still be just? Sinners deserve death. God is righteous (just) because He punished Jesus for sins. What sins? The sins of "those who have faith in Jesus." How could He punish Jesus for sins, then later convict sinners for the sins that have already received punishment?! Is that justice? No, God only punished Jesus for the sins that God looked over. Whose sins did God look over? The sins of those who had/have/will have faith in Him.

/p

 

[Andrew]

Did Christ die for sins, or for men?

Obviously both. You cant sep them. ie sins of men = sinners

1 Tim cleary says Christ shed his blood for sinners, not the elect. Who are sinners? ALL men! Its that simple.

1Ti 1:15 -- This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

now does it say a group of speciallu selected sinners? No. Where does the Bible talk abt 2 classes of sinners -- one covered by Christ's work, the other, too bad?

How could He punish Jesus for sins, then later convict sinners for the sins that have already received punishment?!

that's simple. a pardon must be received. the fact that Christ died for all sins of all men, gives God all the more the 'right' to place in hell those who reject. that said it is already understd that all of us by default, deserve hell.

"all" means "all".

Roms 5:18 -- Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Now all Christians believe that ALL men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we cant even agree on this simple truth, then no point carrying on.

v12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [dont tell me you guys believe "all" here means "some"!]

So the first part of verse 18 says Adam's sin brought condemnation to ALL men. The second part says God's free gift of salvation was offered to ALL men.

Now, I dont see why Limited Atonement preachers (the ones I've spoken to) should interpret the first ALL as ALL but then in the same immed context/same breath, interpret the second ALL to mean "some". There's just no consistency in that. I'm no Bible scholar but I know that's basic in Bible study.

Secondly, as I've said many times, how can the last Adam's work be a much more when it only extends to some, whereas the first Adam's work/sin affects all. IOW, Christ work does not 'overide-over and above' Adam's sin effect if he only shed his blood for some. This simply contradict's Roms 5's point the Christ's work is a much more.

this will be my last post on this topic. as this thread is not appropriate.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

where is the "appropriate" thread?

i yield to the more experienced "veteran"