SovereignGrace
Well-known member
#FIFYIt’sprobablynot what he wanted to hear.
#FIFYIt’sprobablynot what he wanted to hear.
Sorry but you didn'tTom, when we started to discuss these things, you did not accept anything I said, you just kept shoving the same cut and pastes over and over with out considering anything. How long do you expect people to play your game?
Your not going to find many who will continue with you. Not until you learn how to reason with others.
call it ignoring or whatever you like.
But your the one who actually ignores but expects people to answer you. Kinda one sided.
Don’t complain about what you created.
Me too starting a new study group tonight at my friends house. My wife wants to go and she is the bossI'll be back tomorrow, I am out to Thursday night Meeting...
I don't believe we have ever had a discussion on the word word in the context of John 12:47I answered you on the word "WORLD" and will also answer you on PAS....
Sorry but I did.Sorry but you didn't
There is your first problemHow so? How are they compatible? If expiation and propitiation are for the whole world, covering everybody w/o exception, then 1) ppl’s guilt have been taken away and 2) their sin debt has been paid in full. Then why are ppl going to stand before Him condemned in their sins, when their guilt has been taken away and also paid in full?
I do not, for one second, believe Calvin was expressing what the OP thought he did.
Show where you answered my specific questionsSorry but I did.
Show where you answered my specific questions
John 12:47 (KJV)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
according to the text why does Jesus not judge any who do not believe ?
Based on that what is the relation of the unbeliever to the world ?
and originally who did Jesus come to save in the world (according to the text)
and then compare
John 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Dont ask " Common sense " questions
So far I’m undecided of the limited/unlimited debate because I can see both sides . Can it be a paradox and both somehow are true and valid kind of like the Jesus two nature that se like a paradox but both are true?First of all, I think you should show this post to Seth (after he comes back from "vacation") to show you're not a Calvinist, as he falsely claimed.
Of the five points, Limited Atonement (or particular redemption) seems to be the most difficult to accept, but both sides seem to agree that the 5 points either stand together, or fall together.
I refer you back to my post about "all men" and "world", and the fact that the ancients didn't so much think in terms of "individuals", but in people "groups" (eg. JEWS, and GENTILES).
Refer back to Rev. 5:9, and ask yourself whether the "every" (a form of "all") refers to the individuals, or to the people GROUPS:
Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed
people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
"ransomed people FROM each of these groups...
While we should recognize the wisdom of Godly men before us, we can't be afraid to disagree with them when we think they're wrong. I'm sure we could find other scholars who studied the Greek directly, who you disagree with. So with scholars on both sides, what do we do? We have to disagree with SOMEONE, no matter what.
Let me ask you.... What is your position on water baptism?:
a) paedo-baptism (infant baptism);
b) credo-baptism (believer's baptism)?
I am thoroughly convinced from Scripture that credo-baptism is the Biblical way. They have to believe in Christ before they can confess Him as their Saviour. Yet Calvin was a believer in paedo-baptism, and Barnes, a Presbyterian, presumably also believed in paedo-baptism.
Do you agree with them on this point as well, or do you disagree?
Thank you it’s a very complex idea to resolve for me. I’m going to kept my mind open for the time being and not make any haste decisions one way or the other until I have given it more time studying this in depth.One the points I was trying to make was that there are reasonable interpretations to these passages by Calvinists as well.
Again, "world" in some instances simply means, "not just Jews (as a group), but Gentiles (as a group) as well. Not that everyone in each group was atoned for, but there are those in all groups (Rev. 5:9) who will be ransomed.
That is interesting thank you .Actually your whole world works from 1 John but not the gospel since he only used that phrase in his epistle . Just posting to be fair here and being objective as possible![]()
Exactly
Reference John 12:47That is interesting thank you .
Rather a record you don't want to hearIt’s a broken record with him.
#WashRinseRepeat
First of all, I think you should show this post to Seth (after he comes back from "vacation") to show you're not a Calvinist, as he falsely claimed.
Of the five points, Limited Atonement (or particular redemption) seems to be the most difficult to accept, but both sides seem to agree that the 5 points either stand together, or fall together.
I refer you back to my post about "all men" and "world", and the fact that the ancients didn't so much think in terms of "individuals", but in people "groups" (eg. JEWS, and GENTILES).
Refer back to Rev. 5:9, and ask yourself whether the "every" (a form of "all") refers to the individuals, or to the people GROUPS:
Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed
people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
"ransomed people FROM each of these groups...
So far I’m undecided of the limited/unlimited debate because I can see both sides . Can it be a paradox and both somehow are true and valid kind of like the Jesus two nature that se like a paradox but both are true?
So in Romans 1:8 does world there mean every last single person who has ever lived? Had every last person heard of their faith?Exactly
you can't
Show where you answered my specific questions
John 12:47 (KJV)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
according to the text why does Jesus not judge any who do not believe ?
Based on that what is the relation of the unbeliever to the world ?
and originally who did Jesus come to save in the world (according to the text)
and then compare
John 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Why are you divertingSo in Romans 1:8 does world there mean every last single person who has ever lived? Had every last person heard of their faith?