• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Wider-Hope Theories

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by ilgwamh, Feb 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    I just wrote something on Wider-Hope Theiories. Its short and only a few pages long. I'd love to discuss the issue. I'd repost the comments here but I have too much trouble formatting pre-formatted text to work on this site.

    http://www.acfaith.com/widerhope.html

    The over-riding principle which I argue is that explicit faith in the work of Jesus is not necessary for salvation in this life. I'm not sure if this officially an unorthodox view but I know its not as common as some other views so I put it here here.

     

    Vinnie
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Job_38

    Job_38 <font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

    +1
    Hmm. I have some thoughts on it. It goes back to God's sovereignty. He will save who He will save. In Romans, it says God has revealed Himself through His creation and that no man has an excuse. But it also seems that it might be unjust, but as it also says in Romans that we do not decide what is just.
     
  3. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    What do you mean by "God will save who he will save?" Is salvation totally random and completely arbitrary?

    Vinnie
     
  4. Job_38

    Job_38 <font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

    +1
    No, instead I say the opposite. God has those He will save. what I mean is those He wants will be saved. It seems like that to us, but that is because His ways are higher(Isaiah.)
     
  5. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    Are all people (Christians!) with explicit conscious faith in the power of Jesus' sacrificial in this life those whom God has saved? Are they the only ones? And for what reason does God choose some people over others?

    Thanks for the response,
    Vinnie
     
  6. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    I'm sure you could find scripture supporting this (e.g. I will have mercy on whom ... ) but I think I could raise scriptures that would also imply something very different from that view. I do not wish to caricature what you are saying but I see hints of the "you may already be a winner" Ed McMahan soteriology breaking through.

    Vinnie
     
  7. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +384
    Christian
    Hi, Vinnie. With respect to Job, his view is called, "PREDESTINED-ELECTION". Or "Unconditional Election". Or "Irresistible Grace". Or "Limited Atonement". Or "Reformed Theology". Or just "Calvinism".

    I've argued long and hard against this, actually am writing a text on the subject (if it God grants it be published). I just posted today on the subject, click here to read it.

    Salvation is not random, and it not arbitrary nor capricious---and not God's choice at all---salvation is for ALL who WILL believe. Scriptures cheerfully provided on request...
    I would be interested in what you call, "SALVATION". Do you believe in Heaven? And Hell? Would you call "salvation", entering Heaven rather than condemned to Hell? (Just seeing where our common ground is.)

    Two verses:
    "Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.' " Jn14:6

    "Jesus ...is the stone which was rejected ...but became the very corner stone, There is salvation in NO ONE ELSE; for there is no other name under Heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." Acts4:8-12


    This leaves you with only three choices:
    3. Decide the Bible is NOT TRUE.
    2. Conclude Jesus was a LIAR (or lunatic).
    1. Believe that Jesus is the only salvation for mankind.

    John chapter 1 (and so many other passages) declares that Jesus is God-became-man; so it very much stands to reason that denying JESUS, is identical to denying GOD.

    Besides, there is a foundational difference between Christianity and religion; all religion (Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Judaeism, Shinto, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, ALL) are based on DEEDS; Chistianity is based on undeserved GRACE.

    Religion: "You are what you DO."
    Christianity: "You DO what you ARE."

    A Christian does not hold to a dogma, does not practice a belief, does not follow a paradigm of rules; a CHRISTIAN, fellowships with a real GOD. We inherit a sinful rebellious nature from our ancestor Adam---and tend towards sin; becoming Chrstian means we surrender our control to HIM-WHO-MADE-US, placing Him as Lord and Master of our lives. And it is far more than that----Jesus, a real person, indwells the believer; the 2nd person of God, the Holy Spirit, also indwells the believer. There is no need to tell a new believer that fornication or drunkenness or cursing is wrong---GOD tells him or her through that fellowship-that-is-salvation.

    "I have been CRUCIFIED with Christ, it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the One who LOVED me and delivered Himself up for me." Gal2:20

    That's salvation. Fellowship with Christ. We receive Him of our own volition, we believe---and He does the work of salvation IN us.

    Clear and simple!

    :)
     
  8. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    I&nbsp;figured that and that was the reasoning behind my questions. Like you, I'm not too keen on that view.

    Not exactly a simple word to define. I wouldn't necessarily equate "salvation with heaven". The point of my paper is that explicit faith in&nbsp;the historical work of Christ is not a&nbsp;requirement for entering heaven in this life. But Christians have tied heaven and salvation so close together today its hard to separate the terms. Saolvation has largely become "entering heaven". I may engage in minor equivocations because of this in my paper but that would not change the focus or impact of my arguments at all.&nbsp;

    The Bible cannot be true in all details regarding this. Why do you think Job 38 supports limited atonement whereas you don't? Its not a misunderstanding of a verse. Its the fact that the&nbsp;Bible on the whole teaches both free will and predestinaion. I can cite numerous proof-texts in favor of both. Many Christians may try to harmonize them but I see them as diversity within the canon.

    Also, I could look at this scripturwe which "could" affirm part of my thesis: 1 Tim 4:10 "that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

    A natural reading of the text implies a universalism of sorts. Christians will explain this away but why? Its not because a non-universal reading is the natural one, its because it conflicts with some of their views and they feel the Bible must be absolutely perfect in all respects so it couldn't be saying what the plain sense of these words indicate. Maybe if studied in depth in the original languagee or whatever the verse would not&nbsp;imply universalism but on face value, God cannot be the savior of all men and especially those who believe&nbsp;unless he actually saves them from something.

    Or conclude that he did not say what John (not the eyewitness apostle John) claims he said. Very few scholars reconstruct the historical Jesus using the gospel of John. The "I am" sayings reflect the voice of the community rather than the actual words of Jesus. They could, however, extend from his own words.&nbsp;But what happens if we take this literally? The 5 objections in my paper become true. How do we respond to them? But this is minor to my point here. I do not need to argue this because I do not have to disagree with the notion that Jesus is the only way (I do given my atonement theory but we should take baby steps here) for the purposes of my wider hope theory. My argument is that historical knowledge of the incarnation is not necessary. In the end it talks about how Jesus could be the only way but that knowledge of the historical Jesus is not necessary for experiencing God/salvation/entering heaven or whatever in this life. I know&nbsp;I may be equivocating somewhat but this does note bare on my overall argument. If we go into a detailed discussion I'll do my best to keep my terms separated though.


    Yes, that can be true but that doesn't mean historical knowledge of the incarnation and Jesus' work on the cross is necessary for going to heaven in this life. My wider hope theory can be true under the framework of Jesus being the only way. That is what I argued at the end.


    The pious woman who prays to God does NOT deny God. She loves and worships God! That is one of my major points. How do you explain that?

    I argued against this as well: I said, "when a person hears the good news and rejects it are they rejecting the veracity of the news itself from a fallible messenger or are they rejecting Jesus himself?" Many might find the notion of a God-man and/or Christian doctrine untenable or as "problematic" from their perspective. I have no reason to assume the pious Jewish woman (WHO LOVES GOD) is rejecting God here. She is merely rejecting historical knowledge or claims about Jesus. That does not necessarily mean she is denying Jesus himself whom it can be argued that she already loves as Jesus is the living and transforming cross-cultural Son of God.&nbsp;So when she prays to God and asks for forgiveness she could be asking Jesus (though&nbsp;she is not conscious that this is the transforming and living Jesus weho was crucified and raised 2000 years ago).&nbsp;You could clal them anonymous Christians. people who are saved through Jesus without&nbsp;ever accepting historical information about him in this life.

    Christianity is not the only releigion of grace. I think you are wrong there,&nbsp;And I do believe other faiths have "repentence and forgiveness". The Christian faith has its own elements of works as well. The harmonizations of literalists not-withstanding, reading James will tell anyone that. There is nothing wrong with works. Doing good works is a great thing. Could repentence itself&nbsp;be considered a "work"? Don't Christians "who repent" perform a work in one sense at least?


    So does the Jewish woman who prays. That is my whole point. Christians cannot claim to have the "God-market" cornered.

    Traducianism? There is no evidence that tainted souls are passed along and even if there were, it means the game is rigged. We don't blame a raindrop for falling. Thats how the laws work.&nbsp;If we are naturally inclined to sin how can we be held acountable for this by God? I believe the Christian system is, when properly understood, probably one of the, if not the best on earth. It allows&nbsp;for grace to be bestowed&nbsp;and&nbsp;for strong fellowship with God than some other systems. But this is not exclusive to Christianity nor&nbsp;can it be clearly seen as ffruit in all Christians!&nbsp;Further, I would call inferior systems the long way around, not roads to hell. That is what I am saying. I am NOT NOT NOT saying historical knoweldge of what jesus did on the cross and during the incarnation is not important. it is very important! but knowledge of these events and/or acceptance of them in this life is NOT strcitly necessary for entering heaven or experiencing God. It might be hard to experience the "fullness" of God in some systems but that just makes them inferior, not roads to hell.

    Many non-Christians do not experience the fruit of knowing Jesus (about his historical deeds ) personally in this life and they do lose something because of this but I would not say that&nbsp;historical awareness&nbsp;of the incarnation&nbsp;is necessary in this life for a person to go to heaven.

    I tried my best at the end to make sure I didn't equivocate any words.

    Vinnie


    &nbsp;
     
  9. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +384
    Christian
    Technically you are correct. Yet this does not contradict "Jesus is the ONLY SAVIOR". What of those who have never HEARD of Jesus? Romans 1:19-20 applies---God reveals Himself to ALL, especially through His Creation; they are without excuse. So while Jesus is THE SAVIOR, Rom2:14-16 plainly says "the one who has never HEARD of Jesus can still have Jesus in their HEART." Each person is held to his or her own level of knowledge. A Jew, a Moslem, a Buddhist---can be saved, one can have Jesus in his/her heart to the level he/she understands. But a Jew, or Moslem, or Buddhist who has HEARD of Christ, HEARD that He is the Messiah, "Immanuel-GOD-WITH-US", and knowingly rejects Christ, has the understanding that would condemn...
    One of the best passages in the Bible that succinctly sums us up, and salvation, is Romans 5:17-18; and it completely destroys the argument of "LIMITED ATONEMENT":

    "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 shall reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then, as through one transgression came condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness came justifiction of life to all men."

    First we see that condemnation came by Adam to ALL MEN. We inherit that inclination towards sin. Second, we see that the abundance of grace and the abundance of the gift of righteousness must be received. Third we see that justification CAME to ALL MEN, in exactly the same measure as came condemnation; the equality is specifically presented as "SO THEN", "EVEN SO". Yet not all men are justified---only those who RECEIVE the gift! "Limited Atonement" fails completely; there is no way to (undeniably) understand that PAS ANTHROPOS EVERY HUMAN has inherited Adam's nature, and then refuse to hear the clear words that "justification came to PAS ANTHROPOS EVERY HUMAN". Atonement is universal, salvation is by volition.
    Ok, name another religion that does not say "salvation/nirvanah/God's-pleasure/whaddever" is by DEEDS. I'm not aware of any...
    Being saved FROM SOMETHING---does seem to be the definition of "SAVED".

    "Universalism" seems suddenly an exploding cult. As you say, "exploring the original language" is critical. In 1Thess4:10, "ESPECIALLY" in the Greek, is "MALISTA"; which means, "especially, above all". This harmonizes perfectly with the Rom5:17-18 passage I cited earlier---He IS the Savior of all mankind, salvation is offered UNIVERSALLY; yet it does not contradict the reality that atonement must be RECEIVED. Received in the person of Christ, receiving His Lordship, becoming "born again" (do you know fully what "Born Again" means?)

    Same thing as in 1Jn2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours, but also for those of the WHOLE WORLD ("holos kosmos")". In this time the Jews believed they were "chosen" and Gentiles were outta luck; so it was surprising for them to learn salvation was offered to the WHOLE WORLD. This passage does not contradict the understanding that "salvation is UNIVERSALLY OFFERED, but only EFFECTS for those who BELIEVE." Just as Rom5:17-18 says...
    Contextually, James is only saying, "Faith that PRODUCES no good works, can NOT save you, CAN it!" (1:14---"Me Dunamai") This mirrors perfectly what Jesus said in Matt7:16-21: "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can the bad tree bear good fruit. ...Not everyone who says to Me 'Lord! Lord!' will enter Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven."

    Unlike all other religions, works have no part in our salvation; but works are the CONSEQUENCE of a saved heart. "Why is that" you may ask? Because of the "born again nature" of our salvation. We are indwelt by the real person of the Holy Spirit, and by the real person of Jesus; see Gal2:20. Thus, the WORKS we DO, are really, GOD doing the works THROUGH US! "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is GOD who is at work IN you, both to will and to work according to His good purpose." Philip2:12-13
    Because of the nature of our Universe. We cannot, of ourselves, choose not to sin; each creation must follow its own nature. Yet, depraved as we are, God brings each person to the point where he/she CAN receive Christ (see Jn12:32---it uses "helkuo-draw-drag"). In receiving Christ, we receive a new nature---and can walk "in the Spirit", righteously. While we live the flesh exists---and the sin nature, though dead, also exists; in our frailty even the best can stumble, and walk in the flesh---thus still sinning though saved. What separates the SAVED from the UNSAVED, is that sin is not PRACTICED; we walk in repentance and strive NOT to sin.

    "If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we CONFESS our sin (repent), He is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1Jn1:8-9

    :)
     
  10. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    I think you've engaged in a bit of eisegesis here. The Gentiles Paul is speaking of who did not have the law could STILL HAVE BEEN AWARE of the law the Jews held without actually HAVING it. The text doesn't seem too clear on this point either way so you might be assuming something the text does not explictly state.

    That text does not say plainly anything like that. You are inferring it. The text actually says, "14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) " Further, see my above comments on having/hearing of the law.

    You contradict yourself here. Just because you have HEARD of Jesus does not mean you understand him. You can hear of Jesus and still be judged according to your level of understanding (which may not have fully appreciated Jesus!) Besides, the pious Jewish woman already loves God. Do you ddispute this? A yes or no will do. If she truly understood that the God whom she prays to and loves is Jesus, why would she reject him? If she did it would seem to indicate that she headr the message about Jesus but didn't fully understand or appreciate it. That changed the WHOLE ballgame as she can still be judged according to her level of understanding. I also pointed out problems with your view in that article there.

    A friend of mine posted this information from a site called Answering Christianit:

    I am not an expert on the Islamic faith but I have no reason to doubt this.

    The text does not say that, you are assuming it in light of beliefs about other texts. "Especially those who believe" could apply to this life as those of us who believe are empowered by the spirit and experience the fruits of fellowshiping with God and salvation IN THIS LIFETIME while those who do not believe do not IN THIS LIFE. I am not saying I am a universalist but this is one of those passaged a few people would like to see go away. Its Timothy, not Thess.

    Repentance can be deemed a "work". So can "accepting Jesus". The limited atonement view above escapes this charge a little easier than does your view or mine because God selects who get saved. In that sense its pure grace and completely a gift that we have no choice of accepting or rejecting. In our view we have to do something (e.g. believe something about Jesus and repent both of which are "actions" or "works"!) Maybe the real context is "works of the law" that do not save??? That would change both our arguments though ;)

    That makes the game rigged. God would be unjust to punish me for sinning here. It would be pretty&nbsp;silly for me to be mad at a raindrop for falling wouldn't it? It had no choice in the matter just as you are saying we don't. That is NOT free will.

    As stated earlier, I do not accept John in my Jesus recontruction unless it can be shown that a source predates the material cited but I will not pursue that argument here.

    I will say that your interpretation of this text seems to be guided by a wooden literalism which can only impoverish the&nbsp;true meaning of the text. Since he fact of Jesus being raised not everyone has heard of him. As I stated in my paper, should I believe that no one of those who have never heard of Jesus would&nbsp;have believed in him? Is this why he didn't draw them in or make himself known to them? I can affirm that the risen Jesus draws all men to him but not with a wooden literalism. We see that Judaism was now including Gentiles. A climactic moment occured in Israel's history. God was drawing all the world to him. This does not mean that everyone has a sufficient chance to&nbsp;know about the historical work of&nbsp;Jesus in this life (including aborted babies, those who have never heard the good news and others) and those who do not express faith in those historical events are condemned to hell! if you are saying this you are contradicting your above comments where you would agree that there are some people who have never heard the good news.

    Reading the text that literally is like saying that when God said mans days will be 120 years it means every man would live to exactly that age (seeGen 6:3).

    I don't think you've provided any good reasons not to accept my wider hope theory and also, none of what you said explains any of my objections on the page--some of which were against very things that you've said.

    Is p necessary for q? What about for children who are young and die?

    Vinnie
     
  11. Job_38

    Job_38 <font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

    +1
    s p necessary for q? What about for children who are young and die?

    We do not know. As far as we know, they go to Hell. But as it says in Romans, God will have mercy on whom he shall have mercy. God is also loving and just, so I leave it to Him. Ultimately, I have no idea who is saved. Pray you remember that to the end.
     
  12. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single

    Why don't we know? If we know that knowledge of and conscious faith in the historical work of Jesus in this life is necessary foe salvation and sharing eternity with God then the answer is clear: Those who have never heard, those people of other faiths who love God&nbsp;and those aborted babies who die are all&nbsp;going to&nbsp;hell.

    So are you saying that we don't know if knowledge of and faith in the historical work of Jesus in this life is strictly necessary for going to heaven? That seems to be the only option here. You are saying P leads to&nbsp;Q but you are not sure if p is required for getting to q. Am I correct in my understanding of your view?
     
  13. Job_38

    Job_38 <font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

    +1
    No, P(faith) is required. And it is God that gives that faith. He gives to whom he pleases. Romans...forgot the verse. I gotta go now, sorry. I will be back on later.
     
  14. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +384
    Christian
    This denies the personality of God. Specificaly, Jeremiah 29:11-13: "I know the plans I have for you, (declares the Lord), plans for your welfare and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. And I will be found by you." This applied then, and it applies now. You make the case that it is possible to truly seek God but never understand who He is---I submit, that if you SEARCH for God, you will find Him---and He will FIND YOU. Because God is REAL, he-who-searches, will FIND the person of God.
    We can go once again to John 6 (which is mirrored to a lesser extent in Jn17); in this passage (where Jesus asserts His equailty with God), there is ONE GROUP that Jesus will "RAISE UP THE LAST DAY". This ONE GROUP is described in a couple of different ways:

    "This is the will (thelema-desire) of My Father, that EVERYONE who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (Notice no LIMITED ATONEMENT here?)

    "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that all He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." Jn6:40,39


    Jesus is the MESSIAH; Jesus is God-became-man. Jesus in this passage asserts that "He who TRULY comes to God, God gives to Jesus; perfectly embodying John14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." Jesus is the Messiah, equal to God---the NEW COVENANT. By remaining in a NON-JESUS-BUT-GOD-BELIEF, a person is rejecting the paradigm of God. Because God is a PERSON, he or she who truly seeks God will find God---AND GOD WILL GIVE HIM/HER TO JESUS!!! Thus it is not possible to remain "believing in God but disbelieving Jesus"---the only way THAT can happen, is to deny God.

    So, to answer your question---the pious Jewish woman who refuses to receive Jesus, denies God; you say "...who loves God"? She loves God on HER terms, not on GOD'S. Because God has promised to ANSWER those who seek, because God has promised to GIVE SEEKERS to JESUS, then the answer must be "NO"---she doesn't truly love God.

    God is a PERSON; salvation is not a belief---it is fellowship with the real person of God; it is not what you know, it is WHO you know... (...and who knows you... Matt7:23)
    Beliefs about other texts? The other Scriptures say what they say; either they harmonize, or they do not. Once you decide there is ERROR in the Bible, what standard or measure allows you to separate fact from fiction, gospel from falsity? Who possesses the power and authority to decide that? How can "Gospel Doctrine" be anything but subject to whim and fancy?
    I think you meant to say, "they can be deemed OUR work." But not according to Scripture: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." Jn6:29 Receiving the Gift changes nothing of the gift---the gift is still ENTIRELY OF THE GIVER. The WORK of GOD, is our receiving the gift of grace; all of Him, none of us; but all of our receiving.

    However many times someone says "RECEIVING/BELIEVING is OUR WORK"---it does not make it so; Scripture says "it is the WORK OF GOD".
    To believe in the converse, that we DO have a choice in sinful living (apart from and before coming to God), embraces "PELAGIANISM". There is a vast difference between "having the ability to not-sin", and "having the ability to receive CHRIST. Our rebellious nature can receive Christ---for He brings each of us to that point; and because of Christ-IN-US, we have the ability to resist sin. Only in Him.

    And, for the record, sins do not condemn us to Hell, sinlessness does not direct us to Heaven; salvation is FELLOWSHIP; "He who HAS Christ HAS ETERNAL LIFE" (1Jn5). And he who has God, does not practice sin; by this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed (1Jn3).
    Jesus Himself answered that: "Let the children come, and do not hinder them; for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these." Matt19:14
     
  15. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    Ben Johnson, in case you haven't guessed, we tend to see scripture somewhat differently (not just interpret differently!) so we may have to agree to disagree on this in the end. but i am doing my best to offer alternative understandings of things.

    Honestly, I don't see the Bible as being inerrant and infallible and look at the forest of the bible (the overall pictue) rather than the trees (proof-text hunting isolated passages). I have tried my best to stay away from that though thus far.

    But my thoughts on biblical inspiration can be found here:
    http://www.acfaith.com/qualitative.html

    Thanks for all the responses thus far :)

    Vinnie
     
  16. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +384
    Christian
    Vinnie, I have enjoyed conversing with you; I hope you see my posts as respectful to you.

    Truth is a strong thing; it doesn't need you. And it doesn't need me. Truth stands very well all by itself. You say, "some people think atonement is LIMITED"---so I have shown you, Scripturally, how it is not. It is unlimited. You say "the text does not say that, only your belief about other texts"; well, lifted from context, clearly He chose us WE DID NOT CHOOSE HIM (Jn15:16); and yet in the same CHAPTER, "if anyone does NOT abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up, and is gathered and cast into the fire." Jn15:6

    In Matthew 22:2-14, Jesus parables about Heaven; everyone in the parable is CALLED, but EACH has the CHOICE to come or NOT; at the end, there ARE people who are chosen by GOd---who are they? They who CAME, and clothed themselves with RIGHTEOUSNESS! Please think about verse 14: "For many are called but few are chosen. " What could Jesus possibly have meant by that? IN the parable, ALL were called the SAME; only those who CHOSE TO COME became the chosen.

    We have two choices---to say that "God is INSINCERE in SOME (or most) He calls", and that there are two DIFFERENT calls (a sincere and an insincere; are you willing to call God insincere?)---or we can understand the clear words of the parable that those who RECEIVE the invitation BECOME THE CHOSEN! Eisegesis? Then deal with verse 14---what is the exegesis? Jesus says many called are NOT CHOSEN. Contextually, the CHOSEN are those who CAME. There is no eisegesis possible---it is clear and beyond interpretation. Thus this verse IS used to explain the Jn15 one; and it also explains the Eph1 ("You were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world"), not-contradicting our part in RECEIVING the gift. Not contradicting Eph1:13 waying having believed, sealed with the Spirit. 2Thess2:13 also says "you were chosen from the beginning through your own faith; and contextually, saving faith comes from us, not unilaterally from God. Rom10:9-10, 17. Context, exegesis---not eisegesis.

    Rather than "agreeing to disagree", which in many cases is fine, can we deal with the Scriptures? If what I say is in error, Scripturally, please show me. If I engage in "eisegesis" rather than "exegesis", show me.
     
  17. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +384
    Christian
    Hey PasterTom (Job38)---in the text I'm writing on OSAS, I have a couple paragraphs dealing with Romans 9; if you're interested, I would be happy to send it to you in a PM. Or, if Vinnie is willing, I can simply post it here on his thread...

    :)
     
  18. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    All this conservative proof-text hunting is becoming tedious to me but I'll play a long for a little while longer:

    The pious Jewish woman who prays has found God. Further, she understands who God is in a sense. I would make the case that perfect or infallible beliefs about God's nature and activity are not a salvific criterion.

    Also, children who die in infancy do not understand the historical events of Jesus and neither could those who never hear God. So if P is necessary for q then all children who die in infancy and all those who have never heard do go to hell. That could be plainly taught in the Bible but its too grossly immoral for me to accept it. Babies and those who have never heard suffering eternity in hell through no fault of their own would make God a cruel and heartless monster. Further, others misunderstand rather than reject Jesus himself.

    I'm not going along with the proof-text hunting anymore. I do not think Jesus ever said that. GJohn is not a good source for reconstructing the historical Jesus. It simply much to different from the synoptics. Jesus' short ministry cannot be reconciled with the drastically different pictures produced when comparing the synoptics with GJohn. The Gospel of john reflects later theological developments.

    Unfortunately for your argument, "finding God" does not equate to "learning facts about what the historical Jesus did 2,000 years ago". As I said, one disagrees with facts rather than rejects Jesus himself. The Jewish woman could be considered an anonymous Christian. She prays to the risen Jesus who died on a Roman Cross 2,000 years ago whether she knows it or not. She has found God in her heart and in here experiences and fellowship regardless of whether or not she believes or lacks belief in a few "facts".

    I find that notion to be untenable. It virtually says, "Only my religious experiences are valid" and it seems highly insensitive and equivalent to a slap in the face to those of other faiths.

    God may have promised to be found by those who seek him but a peson finding God deals with them experiencing God as opposed to believing historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth. You are equating believing certain facts about the historical Jesus with "finding God".

    Read the article I linked.

    I'm not sure what that has to do with my points. If we are inclined to sin and incapable of not sinning then the game is rigged and it would be unjust for us to be punished for "sinning" here. Free will is lost in all this. And the garden story has been demonstrated to be mythical by science. Furthermore, sin nature being passed on makes no sense whatsoever. Sin is an "action" that is "performed", not a "thing" that can be "passed on" like money or genetic traits. The tainted souls (traducianism) argument won't get one far either.

    Unfortunately Jesus' concession shows that you do not believe p is strictly necessary for q and that undercuts much of what you have argued.

    Vinnie
     
  19. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    &nbsp;

    We see the "scriptures" differently though so we can't see eye to eye on this. You accept the veracity of the exclusive passages in GJohn whereas, I do not. Further, your understanding here is guided mostly by select&nbsp;biblical verses. Mine is guided through the overall picture painted in the Bible (Jesus' death reconciles us to God) and cross-cultural religous experiences. I don't accept the validity of "proof-text hunting". We see Biblical inspiration in different respects. With our sources being so different, its hard to see us talking to one another for too long rather than past one another. I personally don't see, logically, how we can make the distiniction that p is necessary for q for some people but not all. I don't. That is another large difference betwen our views.

    I repsect&nbsp;your views&nbsp;and think you&nbsp;have argued them validly. I don't think we will get much further here though. We see too many key issues differently. Anyways, thanks for the discussion (not saying I'm leaving it).

    Vinnie
     
  20. ilgwamh

    ilgwamh Member

    221
    +4
    Seeker
    Single
    &nbsp;

    Posting it here would be fine by me :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...