It fits in with his general philosophy. He was the first existential novelist of note, but as you say, we should get back on topic...
Quickly then so we get back on topic existentialism is a philosophy from the 40's and 50's that basically said that existence preceded essence, i.e. we find ourselves thrown into existence and then create our own 'essense': the qualities we have that makes us human. It's an atheist philosophy and main figures were Sarte and Camus.
He is the Savior in standing for all mankind, but is the Savior in actuality of the redeemed.
I think she meant the Lord of the latter.any Scriptures for this, or another make up?
Are you not aware of NT teaching that the gospel call is to all, but salvation is only to those who believe?any Scriptures for this, or another make up?
Clare73 said:Are you not aware of NT teaching that the gospel call is to all, but
salvation is only to those who believe?
That would be the Lord of salvation, as opposed to the Lord of the condemned.I think she meant the Lord of the latter.
Are you not aware of NT teaching that the gospel call is to all, but salvation is only to those who believe?
That the gospel call is given to all does not mean all are saved.Which means that Jesus died for the entire human race
That the gospel call is given to all does not mean all are saved.
God knows no impotency.
For whomever he died, their sin is forgiven them, no ands or buts.
The death of the Son of God is not wasted on any who finally reject him.
You make God impotent.
That is never the way God's justice or economy ever works.
That the gospel call is given to all does not mean all are saved.
God knows no impotency.
For whomever he died, their sin is forgiven them, no ands or buts.
The death of the Son of God is not wasted on any who finally reject him.
You make God impotent.
That is never the way God's justice or economy ever works.
Which means that Jesus died for the entire human race
Yes, Jesus did not expose Judas until after he had shared the bread with him (Jn 13:21-30) in order "to fulfill the Scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.' " -- Ps 41:9.The account of the Lord's Supper in the Gospel of Luke 22 is very clear that Judas was given the bread and wine and told by Jesus that His blood was to be shed for his sins. If Jesus did not die for Judas then surely He would have waited till Judas had left the room and then given the Supper and said what He did. Jesus' timing is very important here so to tell us that He died for the entire human race even those who sadly will end up in hell.
"The time has come. The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mk 1:14-15)What is the Gospel call?
I am curious how those who hold to a strong notion of divine sovereignty, i.e. God pre-determines all aspects of an individual, would explain the following situation:
"He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief. (Mark 6:1-6).
I would say a prima facie reading of the text indicates that Jesus could not heal many because of their lack of faith. These are people who knew Jesus well and simply could not believe he was anything except the hometown boy they always knew.
More to the point, the implication is that Jesus could not heal without some faith on the part of the one being healed. Why could he do only a few "deeds of power" there? Well, because of their unbelief. Is there another reading of this text that eliminates this implication? If not, how does one square this passage with a strong notion of divine sovereignty?
So, what aspects of this issue do you think we haven't yet covered, PH ???
I think it's all been covered.I learned a lot, made a moron of myself, and had to make a public apology. So, I'm definitely good to move on.
Right. From the text you posted..
"The providence of God embraces all events, past, present, and future, and applies to the evil as much as to the good, to sinful acts as much as to the holy acts of men and angels..."
Perhaps it's divine love and justice that need to be studied.It's not mere permission, but by eternal decree. How one reconciles that with divine love and justice is beyond me, but that is the basic sense of sovereignty I'm referencing.
And an elaboration on my thought that it's like "shake the dust off your feet" (Matthew 10:14).I am curious how those who hold to a strong notion of divine sovereignty, i.e. God pre-determines all aspects of an individual, would explain the following situation:
"He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief. (Mark 6:1-6).
I would say a prima facie reading of the text indicates that Jesus could not heal many because of their lack of faith. These are people who knew Jesus well and simply could not believe he was anything except the hometown boy they always knew.
More to the point, the implication is that Jesus could not heal without some faith on the part of the one being healed. Why could he do only a few "deeds of power" there? Well, because of their unbelief. Is there another reading of this text that eliminates this implication? If not, how does one square this passage with a strong notion of divine sovereignty?
And an elaboration on my thought that it's like "shake the dust off your feet" (Mt 10:14):
Where is the power? It is of the Holy Spirit.
Nazareth was notorious and despised for its ungodliness (Jn 1:46).
The Holy Spirit was not at work in Nazareth to complete a work of faith, which was the purpose of his miracles (signs--Jn 2:11, 23, etc., showing the nature of gospel grace/salvation), and corresponds to his instructions to his apostles in like situations (Mt 10:14).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?