- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,056
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Christ was only crucified onceYes, unbelievers have not been crucified with Christ. You have been crucified with Christ first when you have faith.
Well, Paul thought he was talking about salvation, why would we understand it differently? Did Paul get it wrong?I will concede for sake of argument that he was actually talking of salvation. Let’s presuppose that God gives him a new heart. That new heart doesn’t give him all knowledge of the gospel. So asking how one gets saved is a reasonable question.
Yes?Christ was only crucified once
How do you know Paul thought he was talking about salvation? Where does it say that?Well, Paul thought he was talking about salvation, why would we understand it differently? Did Paul get it wrong?
He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.Yes?
The context of the passage and Paul's response to the jailer's question strongly imply he understood it as pertaining to salvation. The jailer most likely understood something supernatural had taken place. All the chains were broken and the doors open, to not mention the earthquake. That even strengthens the argument the jailer asked about eternal salvation, and not only how to get away from being punished by superiors. Your question is much in the line with "How do you know he got baptized to Jesus? Maybe he got baptized to something else. The text doesn't say." Well, because it's the most plausible understanding. The text doesn't need to literally say it.How do you know Paul thought he was talking about salvation? Where does it say that?
Yes? You haven't presented any argument. What is it you want me to respond to and how does it pertain to Rom 8?He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
— Hebrews 7:27
It doesn’t imply that at all. Paul may have just given him the better answer. Much like Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus. The fact is, still, that the text doesn’t say, and you are reading your presuppositions into the text. You wouldn’t accept it if I did so.The context of the passage and Paul's response to the jailer's question strongly imply he understood it as pertaining to salvation. The jailer most likely understood something supernatural had taken place. All the chains were broken and the doors open, to not mention the earthquake. That even strengthens the argument the jailer asked about eternal salvation, and not only how to get away from being punished by superiors. Your question is much in the line with "How do you know he got baptized to Jesus? Maybe he got baptized to something else. The text doesn't say." Well, because it's the most plausible understanding. The text doesn't need to literally say it.
It has nothing to do with Romans 8. It has to do with the rabbit trail we are on while not actually discussing Romans 8.Yes? You haven't presented any argument. What is it you want me to respond to and how does it pertain to Rom 8?
I had a point by bringing up Rom 7, how to understand Rom 8 with the help of Rom 7.It has nothing to do with Romans 8. It has to do with the rabbit trail we are on while not actually discussing Romans 8.
Ok!It doesn’t imply that at all. Paul may have just given him the better answer. Much like Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus. The fact is, still, that the text doesn’t say, and you are reading your presuppositions into the text. You wouldn’t accept it if I did so.
From your presuppositions, yes.Ok!
Of course, you don't have to agree with my view on Ac 16, but I think you should agree there are reasonable arguments for my position.
I think I have made a good case from the evidence within the passage. That you can't agree to that I think says more about your perspectives, than about my arguments. Christ love! ✝️From your presuppositions, yes.
I agree that you started off with your presupposition and your evidence followed.I think I have made a good case from the evidence within the passage. That you can't agree to that I think says more about your perspectives, than about my arguments. Christ love! ✝️
Go right ahead.Do you want to hear my arguments from Rom 7 and 8 why you get Rom 8:5-8 wrong? Or I'm not allowed to use other texts than Rom 8:5-8 to prove my point?
Ask 100 unbelievers who only know the basic doctrine that Christ died for the sins of the world. Let them read Ac 16 and you will find all (at least the vast majority) will agree with my understanding (that the Jailer wasn't saved when he asked how to be saved and that his question was about eternal salvation, not escaping Earthly punishment). The only reason you will get a different understanding is if you have studied Calvinistic doctrine.I agree that you started off with your presupposition and your evidence followed.
Cool! I'll get to it when I got more time.Go right ahead.
So our source of verification is unlearned new believers? Is that the best way to go about it? If so, I’ll stop catechizing my children.Ask 100 unbelievers who only know the basic doctrine that Christ died for the sins of the world. Let them read Ac 16 and you will find all (at least the vast majority) will agree with my understanding (that the Jailer wasn't saved when he asked how to be saved and that his question was about eternal salvation, not escaping Earthly punishment). The only reason you will get a different understanding is if you have studied Calvinistic doctrine.
There are a lot of doctrines that don’t come naturally. The incarnation, the Trinity, etc.And you will probably ask how I can know. Because I know what a straightforward, unbiased reading in this case gives you. How? The understanding you suggest does not come naturally. It has to be imposed unto the text. If you don't believe me, ask a few unbelievers and you will see.
Cool! I'll get to it when I got more time.
I think Acts and the Gospels (and maybe many more books) are written for everyday man to understand, not to learned scholars. Actually a strong theological stance can be a hindrance from getting the meaning right. Because of, you named it, presuppositions.So our source of verification is unlearned new believers? Is that the best way to go about it? If so, I’ll stop catechizing my children.
There are a lot of doctrines that don’t come naturally. The incarnation, the Trinity, etc.
Question theological positions? What about ones that are developed by just reading at face value?I think Acts and the Gospels (and maybe many more books) are written for everyday man to understand, not to learned scholars. Actually a strong theological stance can be a hindrance from getting the meaning right. Because of, you named it, presuppositions.
If you are concerned about your children, teach them how to read with open eyes, teach them to question theological positions and help them seek the truth, whatever it leads to. Whatever you do, don't only feed them Calvinism.
Nope. We all have them.Btw, do you think it's possible to read a Biblical text without any presuppositions?
How do you read a text at face value? Is it even possible?Question theological positions? What about ones that are developed by just reading at face value?
Happy to agree.Nope. We all have them.
You said we could. That’s your whole argument about Acts 16.How do you read a text at face value? Is it even possible?
Happy to agree.
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?