If faith is a gift from God...

[OzSpen]

I guess you missed my point.

No! You don't like the fact that I nailed your deconstruction as a demonstration of what you do with words to make non-Calvinist words mean Calvinist words. I find it to be a marvellous example of postmodern deconstruction right on CF.

 

[OzSpen]

The centurion and the woman were Israelites. The woman was an Israelite of the Diaspora. They were also called "Gentiles."

You do not understand the implications of your false theology. If Jesus went to Gentiles when He was not sent to them, then He was disobedient to God. How could He be a Savior to any man if He was disobedient to God?

You are promoting falsehood. You create your own idiosyncratic definitions and hope that I'll swallow them. I'm not foolhardly like that.

Jesus is the Saviour of the world because he makes his salvation to all of the people of the world, His propitiation is for 'the sins of the whole world'. It does not say 'the whole world who are Gentile Israelites in the Diaspora. Talk about deconstructionism. It's alive and well in your definitions. Have you been studying under Derrida, Rorty, Fish, Foucault, Crossan and Funk?

 

[OzSpen]

Nope! (a) 'our sins' (sins of us Jews), and (b) Gentiles too.

Your syntax is off here. The preceding verse indicates that the term "all men" are those who HAVE the promise of eternal life. The expression "especially to those who believe" identifies the condition by which God IS their Savior.

The plain fact is that God is NOT Savior to the unbelieving. He is judge to them.

It does NOT say that God provides salvation. You cleverly slipped the word "provides" into the text. It says that He IS the Savior of all men, that is, those who have eternal life through faith. God is NOT Savior to the unbelieving. He is their judge.

You have abandoned common sense.

You are into postmodern deconstructionism again. Not once does 'our sins' mean 'sins of us Jews' in the context of 1 John. That's your invention.

Nice try, but no cigars!

 

[OzSpen]

I guess you don't realize it, then.

Thanks for confirming your contrariness. When will you put on the garment of humility and engage in constructive conversation instead of your one-liners?

 

[OzSpen]

Mark 7:26
The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

So Gentiles does not mean non-Israelites?

Jesus came to the Jews, but it didn't prevent him from healing Gentiles if the occasion arose. His focus was on Israel and then, through them, all people.

Do you see how impossible it is to engage in discussion with a postmodern deconstructionist who provides his own meaning for words? For Gentiles to be made to refer to some Israelites defies logical engagement.

 

[TannarDarr]

You are into postmodern deconstructionism again. Not once does 'our sins' mean 'sins of us Jews' in the context of 1 John. That's your invention.

Nice try, but no cigars!

Christ all but admitted He was akin to Melchizedek.

Melchizedek is who Christ's church is founded after. Mel was King of peace,
Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
Both are High Priests to God Most High.
Both have a church that has neither Jew nor Gentile.

Christ came and addressed the Jews because the Messiah was for the Jews, but the Jews were made a special, set apart, holy, sanctified people for a reason. Before they were set apart from the rest of the nationalities, they were same as all of us. Jews didn't live from Adam, Noah, etc....

The Jews were to be the example of holy.

The Messiah was the Holy of Holies.

Without the law, the messiah could not be identified from the holy people. Indeed the people could not be identified as holy as there was no standard to judge them by.

Mel was before there was such thing as a Jew.

For someone to claim Jesus was only here for the Jews in a salvific sense, is the utter example of ..... well I can't say that.

The Samaritan woman was a Gentile. She was in fact more unclean than a Gentile was as it has been described to me.

 

[shturt678]

Christ all but admitted He was akin to Melchizedek.

Melchizedek is who Christ's church is founded after. Mel was King of peace,
Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
Both are High Priests to God Most High.
Both have a church that has neither Jew nor Gentile.

Christ came and addressed the Jews because the Messiah was for the Jews, but the Jews were made a special, set apart, holy, sanctified people for a reason. Before they were set apart from the rest of the nationalities, they were same as all of us. Jews didn't live from Adam, Noah, etc....

The Jews were to be the example of holy.

The Messiah was the Holy of Holies.

Without the law, the messiah could not be identified from the holy people. Indeed the people could not be identified as holy as there was no standard to judge them by.

Mel was before there was such thing as a Jew.

For someone to claim Jesus was only here for the Jews in a salvific sense, is the utter example of ..... well I can't say that.

The Samaritan woman was a Gentile. She was in fact more unclean than a Gentile was as it has been described to me.

Jesus was commissioned to work out the redemption of the Jewish nation, ie, Matt.15:24, however, loosely speaking - not commissioned, obviously the Gentiles included.

Just ol' old Jack

 

[OzSpen]

Christ all but admitted He was akin to Melchizedek.

Melchizedek is who Christ's church is founded after. Mel was King of peace,
Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
Both are High Priests to God Most High.
Both have a church that has neither Jew nor Gentile.

Christ came and addressed the Jews because the Messiah was for the Jews, but the Jews were made a special, set apart, holy, sanctified people for a reason. Before they were set apart from the rest of the nationalities, they were same as all of us. Jews didn't live from Adam, Noah, etc....

The Jews were to be the example of holy.

The Messiah was the Holy of Holies.

Without the law, the messiah could not be identified from the holy people. Indeed the people could not be identified as holy as there was no standard to judge them by.

Mel was before there was such thing as a Jew.

For someone to claim Jesus was only here for the Jews in a salvific sense, is the utter example of ..... well I can't say that.

The Samaritan woman was a Gentile. She was in fact more unclean than a Gentile was as it has been described to me.

TD,

You've got a bit too much extraneous material here and I don't want to get into that as I don't have the time. I would not use the reasoning you have as it does seem to introduce some additional (eisegetical) material, which is what I've been challenging the Calvinists for doing. I urge you not to go down that track.

There is nothing that I read in 1 John that states that Jesus' propitiation for 'the whole world' deals only with the Jews.

Oz

 

[TannarDarr]

TD,

You've got a bit too much extraneous material here and I don't want to get into that as I don't have the time. I would not use the reasoning you have as it does seem to introduce some additional (eisegetical) material, which is what I've been challenging the Calvinists for doing. I urge you not to go down that track.

There is nothing that I read in 1 John that states that Jesus' propitiation for 'the whole world' deals only with the Jews.

Oz

You mean, there is much that you haven't looked into exegetically and tested the waters on.

I'll defend the position.

There was no jew or gentile.

I'm accepting psa 110 as commenting about Jesus, but I know it's arguable either way.
However in the gospel where Christ draws comparison to Mel, I feel that justifies it.

So, I won't go on, as you didn't want to, but if His priesthood is like MEl's and there is no Jew nor Gentile in Christ's church, And yet MEL had no jew nor gentile either, because they didn't exist..... I have a tough time even imagining the argument for eisegesis.

But, maybe you'll get bored someday and throw me a bone. Not here, don't wanna interrupt.
I guess I missed the 1 john part... I run between threads too much.

Why not make a 1 john thread!

 

[OzSpen]

You mean, there is much that you haven't looked into exegetically and tested the waters on.

I'll defend the position.

There was no jew or gentile.

I'm accepting psa 110 as commenting about Jesus, but I know it's arguable either way.
However in the gospel where Christ draws comparison to Mel, I feel that justifies it.

So, I won't go on, as you didn't want to, but if His priesthood is like MEl's and there is no Jew nor Gentile in Christ's church, And yet MEL had no jew nor gentile either, because they didn't exist..... I have a tough time even imagining the argument for eisegesis.

But, maybe you'll get bored someday and throw me a bone. Not here, don't wanna interrupt.
I guess I missed the 1 john part... I run between threads too much.

Why not make a 1 john thread!

No, it was not what I had not looked into exegetically.

A problem I found with your mentioning Melchizedek, was that you
introduced material for which you provided no references. I want to encourage you to provide references for your sources. I was not seeing your connection with the Mel material in relation to the content of the thread. It seemed to be tangental in my understanding.

Oz

 

[TannarDarr]

No, it was not what I had not looked into exegetically.

A problem I found with your mentioning Melchizedek, was that you
introduced material for which you provided no references. I want to encourage you to provide references for your sources. I was not seeing your connection with the Mel material in relation to the content of the thread. It seemed to be tangental in my understanding.

Oz

The smile had a reason.

I did misss a 1 john connection in there somewhere, so it was totally off kilter. I just saw a topic that bugs me sometimes and assumed. And we ALL know how well that works out.

I quit giving scripture here, because about twice, people have addressed it. Even though I paraphrase scripture in nearly every comment I make. I just don't give the addresses for all of it.

enjoy.

 

[OzSpen]

The smile had a reason.

I did misss a 1 john connection in there somewhere, so it was totally off kilter. I just saw a topic that bugs me sometimes and assumed. And we ALL know how well that works out.

I quit giving scripture here, because about twice, people have addressed it. Even though I paraphrase scripture in nearly every comment I make. I just don't give the addresses for all of it.

enjoy.

TD,

I want to encourage you not to give up giving a biblical reference and quote. It is so easy to do by going to a site like Biblegateway and there are so many modern and older translations available for use and you can find the exact Bible reference so quickly.

Just because another ignores your scriptural quotes, I do not believe that that should discourage you from using them.

Oz

 

[janxharris]

Do you see how impossible it is to engage in discussion with a postmodern deconstructionist who provides his own meaning for words? For Gentiles to be made to refer to some Israelites defies logical engagement.

I have asked The Boxer how it is that 'Gentiles' can include Israelites of the Diaspora.

 

[OzSpen]

I have asked The Boxer how it is that 'Gentiles' can include Israelites of the Diaspora.

And you are still waiting for an explanation of the illogical???

 

[janxharris]

Hellenist Jews were called "Greeks" and also "Gentiles."

There were TWO classes of Gentiles in new Testament times. There were ethnic born Gentiles (non-Israelites). And there were Israelites of the Diaspora. They were also called "Gentiles."

Prove it! If Hellenist Jews were called "Greeks," and Gentiles," and if Jews of the Diaspora were called "Gentiles," then how do you know that the "Gentiles" Jesus healed were ethnic Gentiles?

Paul told the Gentiles at Ephesus that Christ "CAME and preached to YOU" (Ephesians 3:17). By your own admission these would NOT have been ethnic Gentiles for you said that Christ "CAME to the Jews."

Matthew 15:21-28
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.​

Jesus certainly considered this woman not to be of the lost sheep of Israel. Surely this settles it?

 

[Hammster]

No! You don't like the fact that I nailed your deconstruction as a demonstration of what you do with words to make non-Calvinist words mean Calvinist words. I find it to be a marvellous example of postmodern deconstruction right on CF.

I'll prove my point


"No matter how many verses OT or NT we muster to show that atonement was limited, for God's chosen people, for the elect, those who have a presupposition that requires unlimited atonement, will constantly make world = every single person who ever lived; world does mean everyone; everyone = all; all = all; you don't have a single verse, etcetera.

I cannot see any way through. When there is a presuppositional bias towards a certain theology, it is very difficult to move, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. This is what you and I have found in this discussion with Arminians, and others sympathetic to synergistic unlimited atonement advocates.

I think you are wasting your keyboard skills and breath trying to convince unlimited atonement folks of limited atonement as I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:14, 15 NASB). Or "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 NASB)

Thanks so much for trying, but the resistance will continue."

I'm bowing out of this discussion in this thread.

Oz

We know that didn't happen.

 

[OzSpen]

I think you are wasting your keyboard skills and breath trying to convince unlimited atonement folks of limited atonement as I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:14, 15 NASB). Or "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44 NASB)

You have committed another logical fallacy when you try to demonstrate that because Christ died for believers that he did not die for the ungodly (the reprobate, unbelievers, etc).

While the texts you have given demonstrate that Jesus laid down his life for the sheep, I found nothing in your two texts to confirm that Jesus died only and exclusively for those who are believers in the church.

We have examples of how this happens on a human level. I love my friend John whom I have known for 30 years. When I say that I love John, it does not say that I don't love Monty whom I have known since 1978 and is a close friend.

We know that the NT teaches that God loved the world and gave his one and only Son for it, but the Scriptures also stated that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins for the whole world (1 John 2:2); God our Saviour wants all people to be saved; and Jesus tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9). It also teaches that he gave his life for the church - the sheep (John 10:15).

So I don't fall for your line that Jesus died for the church so he cannot have died for all of humanity. Why? Because what you are perpetrating is a misleading logical fallacy that is called a fallacy of a biased sample. Jesus' death for the church and for all of humanity are solid biblical teachings. Your teaching on limited atonement denies one of these biblical emphases.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

You have committed another logical fallacy when you try to demonstrate that because Christ died for believers that he did not die for the ungodly (the reprobate, unbelievers, etc).

While the texts you have given demonstrate that Jesus laid down his life for the sheep, I found nothing in your two texts to confirm that Jesus died only and exclusively for those who are believers in the church.

We have examples of how this happens on a human level. I love my friend John whom I have known for 30 years. When I say that I love John, it does not say that I don't love Monty whom I have known since 1978 and is a close friend.

We know that the NT teaches that God loved the world and gave his one and only Son for it, but the Scriptures also stated that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins for the whole world (1 John 2:2); God our Saviour wants all people to be saved; and Jesus tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9). It also teaches that he gave his life for the church - the sheep (John 10:15).

So I don't fall for your line that Jesus died for the church so he cannot have died for all of humanity. Why? Because what you are perpetrating is a misleading logical fallacy that is called a fallacy of a biased sample. Jesus' death for the church and for all of humanity are solid biblical teachings. Your teaching on limited atonement denies one of these biblical emphases.

Oz

And....you still completely missed the point of my post. Hopefully it wasn't deliberate.

 

[OzSpen]

And....you still completely missed the point of my post. Hopefully it wasn't deliberate.

You have committed a red herring logical fallacy with your response. Your comment did not address the content of my post and your committing a fallacy of biased sample in the previous post.

I directly dealt with the content of your post from John's gospel, dealing with Jesus dying for his sheep and for the whole world, and demonstrated how you committed another fallacy.

You can't tolerate it when I call you for your use of a fallacy of biased sample. So what do you do? Give me another logical fallacy - a red herring.

When will you quit your use of logical fallacies so that we can have a rational conversation?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

You have committed red herring logical fallacy. Your comment did not address the content of my post and your committing a fallacy of biased sample.

I directly dealt with the content of your post from John's gospel, dealing with Jesus dying for his sheep and demonstrated how you committed another fallacy.

You can't tolerate it when I call you for your use of a fallacy of biased sample. So what do you do? Give me another logical fallacy - a red herring.

When will you quit your use of logical fallacies so that we can have a rational conversation?

Oz

Actually, you committed the red herring. Your post I responded to did not address what I posted. You took a section out of context and responded to it.