# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Jesus Mediates Only For The Elect

## Sola_Fide

_Why_ does Jesus mediate the New Covenant?   The Bible tells us why:




> *Hebrews 9:15
> 
> For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
> *


The blood is only for the elect, the intercession is only for the elect, and the _mediation_ is only for the elect.  He mediates the New Covenant _in order that_ the elect may be saved.  Mediation must be salvific.

I can't be a Presbyterian because what they believe about the New Covenant isn't biblical.

----------


## PierzStyx

That interpretation only works if you pre-define "those who are called" as meaning a smaller group within the human family. Not given such a bias, your interpretation is not evident. If "those who are called" means everyone, because all people are called to Christ, then Paul is saying everyone may receive eternal life. In short, the scripture doesn't say what you claim it does, you've just gone looking for your own preconceived doctrines and, unsurprisingly, found them.

----------


## jmdrake

> That interpretation only works if you pre-define "those who are called" as meaning a smaller group within the human family. Not given such a bias, your interpretation is not evident. If "those who are called" means everyone, because all people are called to Christ, then Paul is saying everyone may receive eternal life. In short, the scripture doesn't say what you claim it does, you've just gone looking for your own preconceived doctrines and, unsurprisingly, found them.


Exactly.

_1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world._

Every verse on this subject can be interpreted more than one way.  But SF choose (even though he falsely believes he doesn't have free will) to interpret them only in a way that fits his theology.  So when John says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world", SF not only has to reinterpret the meaning of the term "whole world" to mean "the elect" but he has to reinterpret the meaning of the word "our" as well.  Last time we debated this I think he said "our" meant only the specific church John was writing too even though 1 - 3 John are general epistles.  If you explain this to someone like SF, he just says "bad hermeneutics" or "bad exegesis".  In other words "You disagree with me so you must be wrong."  It's funny to see him and HU argue with each other and throw the same non sequiturs at each other that they both hurl at everyone else.  Instead of the "blind leading the blind" it's the "blind fighting the blind."

----------


## Sola_Fide

Arminians and cultists have a hard time dealing with the Bible, especially the book of Hebrews, because the atonement and covenant language is so rich in the doctrines of election and particular redemption.  This is an example.

Notice in both of the above responses, the unbiblical idea that Jesus died for every human being cannot fit with the text.  Especially in the book of Hebrews, which talks about the surety and power of what Jesus accomplished.  If Jesus died for every man, and He mediates for every man, then Hebrews 9:15 would have to mean that every man will be saved.




> *Hebrews 9:15
> 
> For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.*


If Jesus died as a ransom for every man, then every man is set free from sin and will receive the promised eternal inheritance.  That is ridiculous.

All throughout the book of Hebrews, there is the clear teaching of limited atonement:



> *Hebrews 10:14
> 
> For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*


If the one sacrifice of Jesus is what makes a person "perfect forever", how is not every person saved?  You see, these verses cannot mean what universal atonement advocates think they mean, or else the Bible teaches universalism (which it can't, because it speaks of the multitudes going to Hell).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


Here is another verse that makes no sense with an unbiblical, Arminian interpretation.  If _every man's_ sin is atoned for, then every man would be saved.  When your sins are atoned for, you cannot be charged with sin anymore...you are saved.

Instead of positing conditionality in regards to salvation, the Bible boldy asserts that Christ's atonement powerfully saves His people, and His people alone. This verse speaks to the fact that God saves not only Jews, but also Gentiles (the "whole world", not just Jews).

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## ReformedObserver

> _Why_ does Jesus mediate the New Covenant?   The Bible tells us why:
> 
> 
> 
> The blood is only for the elect, the intercession is only for the elect, and the _mediation_ is only for the elect.  He mediates the New Covenant _in order that_ the elect may be saved.  Mediation must be salvific.


Agreed.  God's grace is only and always salvific.  It is not commonly known or even offered to all men.




> I can't be a Presbyterian because what they believe about the New Covenant isn't biblical.


Most Presbyterians suggest a "Common Grace," but not all.  A (minority) of us Presbys, who believe the new Covenant promises, hold that God's grace is particular and bestowed upon the Elect only, as you have presented.

I do not know if you are making a connection between the Presbyterian practice of infant baptism with this OP or not.

??

----------


## erowe1

> That interpretation only works if you pre-define "those who are called" as meaning a smaller group within the human family. Not given such a bias, your interpretation is not evident. If "those who are called" means everyone, because all people are called to Christ, then Paul is saying everyone may receive eternal life. In short, the scripture doesn't say what you claim it does, you've just gone looking for your own preconceived doctrines and, unsurprisingly, found them.


I don't see any possible way to interpret "those who are called" in Hebrews 9:15 as all humanity. Where do you get that idea?

----------


## jmdrake

> Arminians and cultists have a hard time dealing with the Bible, especially the book of Hebrews, because the atonement and covenant language is so rich in the doctrines of election and particular redemption.  This is an example.


See what I mean?  Sola_Fide cannot actually argue his point.  All he has is dishonesty and ad hominems.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't see any possible way to interpret "those who are called" in Hebrews 9:15 as all humanity. Where do you get that idea?


There is no possible way to interpret 1 John 2:2 as anything but the whole world.  But let's get back to Hebrews 9:15.  First off you have to understand that not everyone who is called is saved.  Jesus said "For many are called *but few are chosen*."  So here's the problem for Sola_Fide and you.  If Jesus the elect are "those who are called" and Jesus mediates only for "the elect" then what's the difference between the "elect" and the "chosen?"  Because certainly there is a difference between the called and the chosen.

----------


## erowe1

> There is no possible way to interpret 1 John 2:2 as anything but the whole world.  But let's get back to Hebrews 9:15.  First off you have to understand that not everyone who is called is saved.  Jesus said "For many are called *but few are chosen*."  So here's the problem for Sola_Fide and you.  If Jesus the elect are "those who are called" and Jesus mediates only for "the elect" then what's the difference between the "elect" and the "chosen?"  Because certainly there is a difference between the called and the chosen.


You're mixing together different verses and books here. All I said was that "those who are called" in Hebrews 9:15 can't mean the whole world. You don't disagree with me about that do you?

Matthew 20:16 and 1 John 2:2 have nothing to do with that.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Most Presbyterians suggest a "Common Grace," but not all.  A (minority) of us Presbys, who believe the new Covenant promises, hold that God's grace is particular and bestowed upon the Elect only, as you have presented.


Common Grace does not pertain to salvation, it is tied in with God's providential relationship with all of creation. People who conflate the doctrine of Common Grace with Justifying Grace through Christ are overreacting to the Arminian objection and gutting the WCF of its comprehensive character in the process.




> I do not know if you are making a connection between the Presbyterian practice of infant baptism with this OP or not.


It is connected, Sola started this thread because I've challenged his argument that Christ's role as Mediation (which you seem to share) is solely tied to his elect and his church and that it has no bearing on his role in judge of the world. Crack open the WCF Chapter VIII and read all of the relevant scriptures. Christ is the mediator through which all of God The Father's decrees come to being, be it the salvation of the elect, and  the punishment of the reprobate.

Sola's problem is that he is not making a distinction between the visible and invisible church. This is primarily because Baptists, like Congregationalists, don't properly understand how the outward signs of the New Covenant relate to the Old, and consequently, that there is a national character to particular churches, and consequently, a national and familial character to the sacrament of baptism. Baptists don't believe in sacraments because they have this bizarre aversion to anything that their own private judgments tell them looks like Roman Catholicism.

----------


## jmdrake

> You're mixing together different verses and books here. All I said was that "those who are called" in Hebrews 9:15 can't mean the whole world. You don't disagree with me about that do you?


Are you limiting the study of doctrine of the elect to only one book?  That seems silly.  To understand what the writer of Hebrews meant by "called" you have to understand what Jesus meant by "called".  After all Christianity is based on Jesus.  All of the Bible writers in the OT point forward to Jesus and all of the writers of the NT point back to Him.  So called != chosen and thus called != elect.




> Matthew 20:16 and 1 John 2:2 have nothing to do with that.


1 John 2:2 is important for understanding who Jesus died for.  Jesus died for the entire world.

----------


## ReformedObserver

> Common Grace does not pertain to salvation, it is tied in with God's providential relationship with all of creation. People who conflate the doctrine of Common Grace with Justifying Grace through Christ are overreacting to the Arminian objection and gutting the WCF of its comprehensive character in the process.


Agreed.

"Common Grace" should only be termed "Providence."






> It is connected, Sola started this thread because I've challenged his argument that Christ's role as Mediation (which you seem to share) is solely tied to his elect and his church and that it has no bearing on his role in judge of the world. Crack open the WCF Chapter VIII and read all of the relevant scriptures. Christ is the mediator through which all of God The Father's decrees come to being, be it the salvation of the elect, and  the punishment of the reprobate.


This has more to do with whether a saint holds to "Double Predestination" or not (which I do!)




> Sola's problem is that he is not making a distinction between the visible and invisible church.


This is a vital distinction for any theologian, of any stripe, to make.  Foundational importance, agreed.





> This is primarily because Baptists, like Congregationalists, don't properly understand how the outward signs of the New Covenant relate to the Old, and consequently, that there is a national character to particular churches, and consequently, a national and familial character to the sacrament of baptism. Baptists don't believe in sacraments because they have this bizarre aversion to anything that their own private judgments tell them looks like Roman Catholicism.


Well, I sheltered the Reformed Baptist saints and their beliefs for several years, and much was preached about the continuity of the new Covenant of grace versus the condemnation the old Covenant of works, which began in Genesis and is universally applied.  I found that baptism comes down much to more a matter of circumstance, than anything else.

Our Reformed Baptist church was provided for college age students, who were coming to faith in Jesus Christ, and it seemed silly to get bogged down in arguments about credo vs infant baptisms, when they as young adults desired to obey and be baptized into the Christian faith.  Performing these blessed rites, never touched upon denying parents of new-borns the right and joy of baptizing their babies.

The devil seems to always have a field day in causing trouble within the visible churches with these "sacramental" disagreements.  

Ugh.

Jim

----------


## erowe1

> Are you limiting the study of doctrine of the elect to only one book?


No. Of course not. But the question I asked wasn't about doctrine. It was about the meaning of a particular phrase in a particular verse. Those other verses you mentioned don't have any bearing on that.

Just because Jesus once used the words called and chosen about two distinct things doesn't mean that every time everyone who ever wrote a book that we have in the Bible used either of those words they meant the same thing Jesus did. When Hebrews 9:15 uses the word "called," is it talking about the people that Jesus called the called in Matthew 20:16 (or 22:14)? Or is it talking about the ones he called the chosen? Or is it talking about neither? To answer that you can't just put the two verses side-by-side and say the same word has to mean the same thing in both places. Human language doesn't work like that.

And you say 1 John 2:2 says Jesus died for the whole world. OK. How does that tell us anything about who the author of Hebrews means by "those who are called" in Hebrews 9:15?

----------


## erowe1

> Our Reformed Baptist church was provided for college age students, who were coming to faith in Jesus Christ, and it seemed silly to get bogged down in arguments about credo vs infant baptisms, when they as young adults desired to obey and be baptized into the Christian faith.


It seems to me that you wouldn't be able to avoid the question so easily. I assume some of these college students had been baptized as infants. So many people are. If you believe in infant baptism, shouldn't you feel obligated to ask them about that, so as not to let them get baptized again if they were?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Agreed.
> 
> "Common Grace" should only be termed "Providence."


Why? The term doesn't only deal providential matters, but also in deeper dynamics of conscience that tie in with the outworking of providence, and it likewise underscores the gratuitous nature of God's providence. This objection actually is somewhat reminiscent of the Eastern Orthodox's objection to the doctrine of Original Sin. It's largely a matter of being averse to a certain wording into what is actually being signified by the words themselves.




> This has more to do with whether a saint holds to "Double Predestination" or not (which I do!)


I'd assume Sola would assert he holds to Double Predestination, that's not so much at issue as the question of how a church is constituted.




> Well, I sheltered the Reformed Baptist saints and their beliefs for several years, and much was preached about the continuity of the new Covenant of grace versus the condemnation the old Covenant of works, which began in Genesis and is universally applied.  I found that baptism comes down much to more a matter of circumstance, than anything else.


I wouldn't disqualify being dipped as not being baptized provided that the words and elements were correct, but I would object to requiring that particular method given all the references to sprinkling and pouring in both the OT and the NT. One point, however, where I think there is no legitimate debate is over the matter of covenant children, and I can't qualify as church that doesn't disciple their children through baptism as being in a state of well being.




> Our Reformed Baptist church was provided for college age students, who were coming to faith in Jesus Christ, and it seemed silly to get bogged down in arguments about credo vs infant baptisms, when they as young adults desired to obey and be baptized into the Christian faith.  Performing these blessed rites, never touched upon denying parents of new-borns the right and joy of baptizing their babies.


How is your church Baptist again? Your system seems closer to a Congregationalist model, unless you've been trying to form a relief presbytery with no success.




> The devil seems to always have a field day in causing trouble within the visible churches with these "sacramental" disagreements.


Some of these disagreements are very relevant because they speak to whether or not a church is glorifying God through their worship. This is a major sticking point for Steelites, particularly on the matter of whether or not anything pertaining to OT ceremonial practice has managed to creep back into worship. But that's another discussion for another thread.

----------


## ReformedObserver

> It seems to me that you wouldn't be able to avoid the question so easily. I assume some of these college students had been baptized as infants. So many people are. If you believe in infant baptism, shouldn't you feel obligated to ask them about that, so as not to let them get baptized again if they were?


None that I baptized upon confession of faith had previously been baptized as infants.

Therefore, I cannot incorporate your disapprovals into my testimony.

----------


## ReformedObserver

> Why? The term doesn't only deal providential matters, but also in deeper dynamics of conscience that tie in with the outworking of providence, and it likewise underscores the gratuitous nature of God's providence.



Well, this is the core disagreement of many against the teaching of a "Common Grace."

Those who hold to a belief in a particular Grace, believe that all temporal blessings received by reprobate mankind, are simply matters of divine providence.  Not saving grace at all.




> This objection actually is somewhat reminiscent of the Eastern Orthodox's objection to the doctrine of Original Sin. It's largely a matter of being averse to a certain wording into what is actually being signified by the words themselves.


Not hardly.




> I wouldn't disqualify being dipped as not being baptized provided that the words and elements were correct, but I would object to requiring that particular method given all the references to sprinkling and pouring in both the OT and the NT. One point, however, where I think there is no legitimate debate is over the matter of covenant children, and I can't qualify as church that doesn't disciple their children through baptism as being in a state of well being.


In what way do you consider infants' baptized as being in a "state of well being?"

That is the ultimate question, is it not?






> How is your church Baptist again? Your system seems closer to a Congregationalist model, unless you've been trying to form a relief presbytery with no success.


I cannot speak for other Reformed Baptist churches, but ours was founded on the WCF with a fellowship of established "presbyterian" oversight from a neighboring classis of other established pastors and elders in the Reformed faith.






> Some of these disagreements are very relevant because they speak to whether or not a church is glorifying God through their worship. This is a major sticking point for Steelites, particularly on the matter of whether or not anything pertaining to OT ceremonial practice has managed to creep back into worship. But that's another discussion for another thread.


Christians are to worship in Godly Spirit and in Biblical Truth.  That is the guideline for any visible church claiming faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation.

IMO.

----------


## erowe1

> None that I baptized upon confession of faith had previously been baptized as infants.
> 
> Therefore, I cannot incorporate your disapprovals into my testimony.


For the record, it wasn't disapproval.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> See what I mean?  Sola_Fide cannot actually argue his point.  All he has is dishonesty and ad hominems.


"Dishonesty"? 

Who is "the called" in this verse who "receive the promise of eternal redemption" because of Christ's mediation? 



> *
> Hebrews 9:15
> 
> For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
> *

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Agreed.  God's grace is only and always salvific.  It is not commonly known or even offered to all men.


Agreed.  God's grace is _always_ and _only_ salvific.  Common grace is a heresy, and has been the seed for a number of other heresies.  





> Most Presbyterians suggest a "Common Grace," but not all.  A (minority) of us Presbys, who believe the new Covenant promises, hold that God's grace is particular and bestowed upon the Elect only, as you have presented.
> 
> I do not know if you are making a connection between the Presbyterian practice of infant baptism with this OP or not.
> 
> ??


I do acknowledge that a minority of even "Reformed" people truly believe particular redemption, and I appreciate you mentioning it. If Presbyterians have an issue with this, Baptists are even worse, as I'm sure you well know.

As it relates to baptism, I do have a conviction that a misunderstanding of the covenant signs could lead one down the road of misunderstanding God's purposes in the New Covenant, but I'm just positing it as a suggestion at this point.

Reformed soteriological thought has been plagued by conditional atonement, the free offer, common grace, etc. and I see it mostly when I talk to "Reformed" people who have probably not done a deeper study of these important issues.  I'm glad to see you have.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Common Grace does not pertain to salvation, it is tied in with God's providential relationship with all of creation. People who conflate the doctrine of Common Grace with Justifying Grace through Christ are overreacting to the Arminian objection and gutting the WCF of its comprehensive character in the process.


Well, then it can't be called "grace".  Providence is not grace to reprobates, it is a curse, because they have not been reconciled to God who is their enemy (in this life and in the next).





> It is connected, Sola started this thread because I've challenged his argument that Christ's role as Mediation (which you seem to share) is solely tied to his elect and his church and that it has no bearing on his role in judge of the world. Crack open the WCF Chapter VIII and read all of the relevant scriptures. Christ is the mediator through which all of God The Father's decrees come to being, be it the salvation of the elect, and  the punishment of the reprobate.


Where in the New Testament is Christ mediating wrath?  It's not there.  Jesus does not mediate wrath, He mediates on behalf of the elect to ensure that they receive the promises of the blessings of grace. 




> Sola's problem is that he is not making a distinction between the visible and invisible church.


No.  I most certainly make that distinction.




> This is primarily because Baptists, like Congregationalists, don't properly understand how the outward signs of the New Covenant relate to the Old,


I know how they parallel, and I know how they are different.  




> and consequently, that there is a national character to particular churches,


Where is this in the Bible?




> and consequently, a national and familial character to the sacrament of baptism.


Where are either of these in the Bible?




> Baptists don't believe in sacraments because they have this bizarre aversion to anything that their own private judgments tell them looks like Roman Catholicism.


I don't see how you make that connection.  I don't even consider most Baptists today Christians.  Most have already gone to Rome theologically.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're mixing together different verses and books here.* All I said was that "those who are called" in Hebrews 9:15 can't mean the whole world. You don't disagree with me about that do you?*
> 
> Matthew 20:16 and 1 John 2:2 have nothing to do with that.





> Are you limiting the study of doctrine of the elect to only one book?  That seems silly.  To understand what the writer of Hebrews meant by "called" you have to understand what Jesus meant by "called".  After all Christianity is based on Jesus.  All of the Bible writers in the OT point forward to Jesus and all of the writers of the NT point back to Him.  So called != chosen and thus called != elect.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 John 2:2 is important for understanding who Jesus died for.  Jesus died for the entire world.


What is your answer to Erowe's question about Hebrews 9:15?

----------


## euphemia

Systematic theology is simply that.  It takes God's character and behavior and puts them into a framework so we can understand them.  God is beyond our understanding.  We can know him now, but we will never know him in his fullness until we are with him in eternity.  The limited human mind cannot understand a limitless God.  To say anything he says or does has limits is to deny the very essence and character of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Systematic theology is simply that.  It takes God's character and behavior and puts them into a framework so we can understand them.


Kind of.  Systematic theology is the attempt to condense what the Bible teaches.  




> God is beyond our understanding.


That can't be the case.  He has condescended to reveal Himself to men.




> We can know him now, but we will never know him in his fullness until we are with him in eternity.


That's true, but God has revealed His purposes in the salvation of the elect, so that is something that every Christian can understand (and believes).




> The limited human mind cannot understand a limitless God.


That's not the case.  




> To say anything he says or does has limits is to deny the very essence and character of God.


If God reveals that He says or does something, then it puts no limit on His essence or character.  But I agree that men put limitations on God all the time (because they reject the God of the Bible).  Most people who call themselves Christians today limit the freedom of God to save who He chooses by saying that salvation is dependent on man's choice instead of God's electing grace.

----------


## euphemia

God has revealed himself to be who he says he is. The fullness of his essence and character cannot be known.  We know what God has laid out for us, but we cannot know the entirety of God. It is in the nature and flesh of man to have limited understanding.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't see how you make that connection. I don't even consider most Baptists today Christians. Most have already gone to Rome theologically.


Thing is, you're going down a road that leads to accusing everyone other than yourself of being neo-romanist.

I think that's dangerous.

You're accusing not only most baptists, but also THE ENTIRE Magisterial Reformation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't think systematic theology claims "full understanding"

----------


## euphemia

> Kind of.  Systematic theology is the attempt to condense what the Bible teaches.


I don't think this is possible and still understand that God is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, and immutable.  God cannot be condensed.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think this is possible and still understand that God is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, and immutable.  God cannot be condensed.


Why not? A Christian must understand and believe all those things about God.

----------


## acptulsa

> I can't be a Presbyterian because what they believe about the New Covenant isn't biblical.





> Arminians and cultists have a hard time dealing with the Bible, especially the book of Hebrews, because the atonement and covenant language is so rich in the doctrines of election and particular redemption.  This is an example.
> 
> Notice in both of the above responses, the unbiblical idea that Jesus died for every human being cannot fit with the text.  Especially in the book of Hebrews, which talks about the surety and power of what Jesus accomplished.  If Jesus died for every man, and He mediates for every man, then Hebrews 9:15 would have to mean that every man will be saved.





> 44Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And 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. 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.


The reason you cannot be a Presbyterian is because you call Jesus a liar at the drop of a hat.  Every time Paul blathers something vague, you turn around and accuse my Lord and Savior of falsehoods.

You are trying to reconcile a bunch of cult garbage and ignoring Jesus to do it.  You say if Jesus came to save everyone, then He would have done it.  You are wrong.  Jesus came to offer salvation to everyone, not to shove it down any throats.  Salvation is an offer.  Take His teachings to heart and you can have it too.  Reject the teachings of the Lord and you lose.  You are so desperate to deny that you need to put some effort into your own election that's you'll deny the Lord three times before the cock crows in a heartbeat.  How obvious does it actually have to be before you grow eyes to see?

You raise an interesting question.  Does baptism do any good at all if someone insists on being baptized in that river called denial?

----------


## euphemia

> Why not? A Christian must understand and believe all those things about God.


I know what all those things mean, and I understand God is all those things and more.  But I do not think the finite human mind is capable of understanding the fullness of God's essence and character.  We know how to define the words, but we cannot make it small enough for our minds to understand unless we also take something away from Him.  

Moses was told that no man can see God's face and live.  When Moses saw the hinder parts of God, his own face was transformed to a brightness that could not be looked at by other people.  Moses had to wear a veil.  And if you notice, Moses never once tried to make God understandable to anyone.  He simply put out the standard of God's righteousness, as it was given to him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You say if Jesus came to save everyone, then He would have done it.  You are wrong.  Jesus came to offer salvation to everyone, not to shove it down any throats.  Salvation is an offer.


Does this sound like an offer?



> *Hebrews 10:14
> 
> For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*





> * Hebrews 9:12
> 
> He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.*





> *Hebrews 9:15
> 
> For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.*





> * Hebrews 9:25-28
> 
> But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.*


No offense, but you aren't a Christian, you don't know or believe in what Jesus accomplished, and you probably have never even read the book of Hebrews.  Sometimes it's better to just sit on the sidelines and read.

----------


## jmdrake

> "Dishonesty"?


Maybe not dishonest.  Maybe just not very bright.




> Who is "the called" in this verse who "receive the promise of eternal redemption" because of Christ's mediation?


And that's an example of the dishonesty'and/or lack of brightness.  And honest intelligent Biblical debate doesn't just focus on the verses that appear to support ones position but also simultaneously considers the verses that go against ones position.

----------


## erowe1

> Why not? A Christian must understand and believe all those things about God.


Why do you believe that?

----------


## jmdrake

> Does this sound like an offer?


You just proved acptulsa's point for him.  He quoted Jesus and you just ignored everything Jesus said and went back to quoting Hebrews.  To understand Hebrews you have to understand Jesus.  Again Jesus said "Many are called but few are chosen."  So called != chosen != elect.






> No offense, but you aren't a Christian


No offense but your method of biblical interpretation goes against the very meaning of the word Christian.  A Christian is primarily focused on following Christ.  The epistles are only to help us better follow Christ.  Thus when the epistles use words that Christ used, like chosen, a Christian should refer to the words of Christ to understand what the epistle meant by the word rather than the other way around.

Also, this is more proof of what I said before.  Since your argument is weak you must rely on ad hominems to bolster it.  You are unable to dispassionately argue your points using the Bible.  Your hero James White doesn't call the people he is debating un Christian.  You really really need to learn from him.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## RJB

> And honest intelligent Biblical debate doesn't just focus on the verses that appear to support ones position but also simultaneously considers the verses that go against ones position.


That's why I've scaled back on my debates in this forum.  I found myself slinging too many Bible one liners, or reading it strictly for trying to defeat an opponent rather than inspiration.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I guess I keep wandering by gawking at what goes on in this forum like how a rubbernecker stares at a car crash.

----------


## TER

> Systematic theology is simply that.  It takes God's character and behavior and puts them into a framework so we can understand them.  God is beyond our understanding.  We can know him now, but we will never know him in his fullness until we are with him in eternity.  The limited human mind cannot understand a limitless God.  To say anything he says or does has limits is to deny the very essence and character of God.


Hi euphemia.  Great post!

This quote is from a great book from a prominent Orthodox Bishop alluding to your point.  Here is a link to the chapter online http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Care.htm


...Since theology is the voice and faith of the Church, it follows that what has been said about the Church so far applies to theology too. We will attempt to discuss this particular subject a little more to see the way orthodox theology is secularised in more detail.

Theology is the logos (Word) of God (theo-logia in Greek). It is assumed that someone who talks about God must know God. In the Orthodox Church we know that the knowledge of God is not intellectual but spiritual, that is, it is connected to man's communion with God. In St. Gregory Palamas' teaching, the vision of the Uncreated Light is closely connected to man's divinization, to man's communion with God, and the knowledge of God. That is why theology is identical to the vision of God and the theologian is identical to the God-seer. Someone who talks about God, even reflectively can be called theologian, and this is why the Fathers attribute the term theologian to the philosophers too. Eventually, though, from an Orthodox standpoint a theologian is someone who witnessed the glory of God or, at least, accepts the experience of those who reached divinization.

In this sense theologians are the God-seers, those who achieved divinization and received the Revelation of God. St. Paul is one such theologian. He went up to the third heaven and on several occasions he reveals and describes his apocalyptic experiences. This occurs to such an extent that St. John Chrysostom talking about St. Paul and about the fact that his Epistles generally describe greater mysteries than in the Gospels, argues that "Christ declared more important and unspoken things through St. Paul than through Himself".

St. Paul, as he himself says in the third person, was captured "up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). At this point I would like to remind you of St. Maximos the Confessor's interpretation, according to which the three heavens are in reality the three stages of spiritual life. The first heaven is the end of practical philosophy, which is the purification of the heart, i.e. the expulsion of all thoughts other than the Trinity from the heart. The second heaven is the natural theoria, that is, the knowledge of the inner essences of beings, when man through God's Grace becomes worthy of knowing the inner essences of beings and to have ceaseless inner prayer. The third heaven is theoria, theology through which, and by Divine Grace and the capture of the nous, one reaches, as is possible, the knowledge of God's mysteries and knows all the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. This is "the ignorance superior to knowledge" according to a characteristic saying by St. Isaac the Syrian. This ignorance relative to human knowledge, is the true knowledge of God. Therefore, theology is the third heaven which is a fruit, an outcome of the purification of the heart and the illumination of the nous.

All these are related to another teaching by St. Maximos the Confessor. According to it, all that is seen needs to be crucified and all thoughts to be buried, and then the logos rises within ourselves, man ascends to theoria and becomes a true theologian. This means that orthodox theology is closely tied to orthodox ascesis and cannot be conceive of outside orthodox ascesis...

...When theology is not a part of this framework, as presented by all the holy Fathers, then it is not orthodox but secular. *This secular theology is found in the West, for there they analyse and interpret the Holy Scripture through their own human and impure intellect, outside the correct prerequisites presented by the holy Fathers.* Unfortunately, in some cases this has also affected our own place.

*A typical example of secular theology, functioning outside the traditional patristic framework, is the so-called scholastic theology which developed in the West between the 11th and 15th centuries. It was termed scholastic from the various schools cultivating it. Its chief characteristic was that it relied a lot on philosophy, particularly that of Aristotle, and it attempted to 'rationally' explain everything related to God.*

*Scholastic theology tried to rationally comprehend God's Revelation and to harmonise theology and philosophy. It is characteristic that Anselm of Canterbury, a founder of scholasticism in 11th century England, used to say: "I believe in order to comprehend". The scholastics started by a priori accepting God and then tried to prove His existence by rational arguments and logical categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the holy Fathers, we state that faith is God's Revelation to man. We accept faith from hearsay not to comprehend it later, but to purify the heart, achieve faith through theoria, and to experience Revelation. Scholastic theology, on the other hand, accepted something a priori and then struggled to comprehend it by rational arguments.*

Scholastic theology attained its peak with Thomas Aquinas, who is considered a saint by the Latin Church. He claimed that Christian truths are divided into natural and supernatural. Natural truths, such as the truth of God's existence, can be proved philosophically; supernatural truths, such as the trinity of God, the incarnation of the Logos and the resurrection of bodies, cannot be proved philosophically but can be shown to be not irrational. *Scholasticism tightly connected theology with philosophy, and in particular metaphysics; as a result, faith was adulterated, and scholastic theology itself was completely discredited when the model of metaphysics prevailing in the West collapsed. Scholasticism should not be acquitted of the tragedy of the West regarding faith in our days. The holy Fathers teach that there is no distinction between natural and metaphysical - only between created and uncreated.* The holy Fathers never accepted Aristotle's metaphysics, but this is beyond our present topic and it will not be developed further.

Scholastic theologians of the West's Middle Ages considered Scholastic theology to be a development that surpassed Patristic theology. Frankish teaching on the superiority of Scholastic over Patristic theology originates from this point. Thus scholastics, who deal with reason, consider themselves superior to the holy Fathers of the Church, and consider human knowledge, a product of reason, higher than Revelation and experience.

It is from this angle that we should view the conflict between St. Gregory Palamas and Varlaam. Varlaam was essentially a scholastic theologian who attempted to bring scholastic theology to the Orthodox East. His views were of the scholastic theology which in reality constituted a secular theology. Varlaam believed that we cannot exactly know what the Holy Spirit is, thus ending in agnosticism; that ancient Greek philosophers were above the Prophets and the Apostles, since reason is higher than the Apostles' theoria; that the Light of the Transfiguration is something which is done and undone; that the hesychastic way of life, that is, the purification of the heart and the ceaseless noetic prayer are not necessary, etc. St. Gregory Palamas foresaw this danger to Orthodoxy and with the power and energy of the Holy Spirit, besides the experience he personally had obtained as bearer and continuator of the holy Fathers, he confronted this grave danger and preserved the unadulterated Orthodox faith and Orthodox Tradition.

Unfortunately, Varlaamism, which is an expression of scholastic theology in the West and definitely constitutes secular theology, has infiltrated the Orthodox East in other ways. We observe that scholasticism or Varlaamism permeates manifestations of modern church and theological life. Of course, in recent years there is an effort to cleanse our theology from its 'Babylonian' captivity in Western scholasticism; there is a great effort to break the orthodox theology's encirclement by the prison of scholastic theology. Moreover we must simultaneously move on to experience orthodox theology. Orthodox theology is not an intellectual knowledge but rather an experience and style of life, and is closely connected to the so-call hesychasm.

Secular theology, which is a function of scholasticism, manifests itself in several ways today. I would like to point out a few.

One is the way we base the entire mode of theology on reason and thought. We think about the orthodox faith, we rationalise about the truths of faith or we simply form a history of theology. We have almost reached the point of viewing theology as a philosophy about God, ignoring the whole therapeutic method of our Church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The reason you cannot be a Presbyterian is because you call Jesus a liar at the drop of a hat.  Every time Paul blathers something vague, you turn around and accuse my Lord and Savior of falsehoods.
> 
> You are trying to reconcile a bunch of cult garbage and ignoring Jesus to do it.  You say if Jesus came to save everyone, then He would have done it.  You are wrong.  Jesus came to offer salvation to everyone, not to shove it down any throats.  Salvation is an offer.  Take His teachings to heart and you can have it too.  Reject the teachings of the Lord and you lose.  You are so desperate to deny that you need to put some effort into your own election that's you'll deny the Lord three times before the cock crows in a heartbeat.  How obvious does it actually have to be before you grow eyes to see?
> 
> You raise an interesting question.  Does baptism do any good at all if someone insists on being baptized in that river called denial?


*sigh* how is actpulsa a Presbyterian?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> *sigh* how is actpulsa a Presbyterian?


PCUSA?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you limiting the study of doctrine of the elect to only one book?  That seems silly.  To understand what the writer of Hebrews meant by "called" you have to understand what Jesus meant by "called".  After all Christianity is based on Jesus.  All of the Bible writers in the OT point forward to Jesus and all of the writers of the NT point back to Him.  So called != chosen and thus called != elect.



Hebrews 7:25



> Therefore he is able to save completely *those* who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for *them.*


Who are the "them" in this passage?  How can it be all people?

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


Thanks.  That's real clever.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hebrews 7:25
> 
> 
> Who are the "them" in this passage?  How can it be all people?


Once again proof texting is dishonest debate.  As long as you keep doing it I will keep calling you out on it.  Learn to debate like your hero James White.  While he's often wrong, he is at least honest unlike you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Once again proof texting is dishonest debate.  As long as you keep doing it I will keep calling you out on it.  Learn to debate like your hero James White.  While he's often wrong, he is at least honest unlike you.


Proof texting is dishonest?   But it's not dishonest when you do it for the verse in 1st John 2? How about this, no one is being dishonest.  We are trying to find out what the Bible teaches.

I told you why 1st John 2:2 can't mean what you think it means.  It says Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice for the world.  Not that he "might be", He IS.  That can't mean every person head to head, because if your sins are a toned for, you are saved.  And not everyone will be saved.

Hebrews 7:25



> Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.


Who are the "them" in this passage that Jesus saves completely and intercedes for?  How can it be all people?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> PCUSA?


Probably...

Also, can you please delete the 2nd commandment violation @Videodrome?  a few of us are offended by trying to image God.  For some reason SF isn't bothering to call you out on it but you really should delete it anyway.  Thanks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Jmdrake,




> *Hebrews 10:14
> 
> For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*


How could the sacrifice of Jesus be for all people since it is His sacrifice that makes a person "perfect forever"?

----------


## jmdrake

> Proof texting is dishonest?   But it's not dishonest when you do it for the verse in 1st John 2? How about this, no one is being dishonest.  We are trying to find out what the Bible teaches.
> 
> I told you why 1st John 2:2 can't mean what you think it means.  It says Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice for the world.  Not that he "might be", He IS.  That can't mean every person head to head, because if your sins are a toned for, you are saved.  And not everyone will be saved.
> 
> Hebrews 7:25
> 
> 
> Who are the "them" in this passage that Jesus saves completely and intercedes for?  How can it be all people?





> Jmdrake,
> 
> 
> 
> How could the sacrifice of Jesus be for all people since it is His sacrifice that makes a person "perfect forever"?


Once again proof texting is dishonest debate. As long as you keep doing it I will keep calling you out on it. Learn to debate like your hero James White. While he's often wrong, he is at least honest unlike you.

Edit: And your dismissal of 1 John 2:2 is more proof of your dishonesty.  Here's how your dishonest gambit works.  You will use other verses to "explain" how 1 John 2:2 supposedly doesn't mean what it clearly means, but you refuse to consider versus which prove that the word "called" used in Hebrews can't mean what you think it means.  You are dishonest in trying to have it both ways.  You will use parallel verses to try to disprove verses that dispute your viewpoint while refusing to consider parallel verses that weaken the interpretation of verses that you believe support your point of view.  You don't fool anyone but yourself by your dishonesty.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Once again proof texting is dishonest debate. As long as you keep doing it I will keep calling you out on it. Learn to debate like your hero James White. While he's often wrong, he is at least honest unlike you.
> 
> Edit: And your dismissal of 1 John 2:2 is more proof of your dishonesty.  *Here's how your dishonest gambit works.  You will use other verses to "explain" how 1 John 2:2 supposedly doesn't mean what it clearly means, but you refuse to consider versus which prove that the word "called" used in Hebrews can't mean what you think it means.*  You are dishonest in trying to have it both ways.  You will use parallel verses to try to disprove verses that dispute your viewpoint while refusing to consider parallel verses that weaken the interpretation of verses that you believe support your point of view.  You don't fool anyone but yourself by your dishonesty.


1. I believe 1st John 2:2 really says what it really says.  Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice,  not only for Jews, but for the "world" (gentiles).  YOU are the one who says it doesn't mean what it says.  You are saying it says that He "might" be the atoning sacrifice.   That's not what it says.

2.  Hebrews 7:25 and Hebrews 10:14 does not use the word "called".  Go back, read those verses, and tell me how they could be talking about every person.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *
> Hebrews 10:14
> 
> For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
> *


This completely disproves Arminianism.  There is no way to reconcile universal atonement with this verse, the book of Hebrews, or the entire Bible (which is itself a story about God's election and atonement).

----------


## PierzStyx

> Arminians and cultists have a hard time dealing with the Bible, especially the book of Hebrews, because the atonement and covenant language is so rich in the doctrines of election and particular redemption.  This is an example.
> 
> Notice in both of the above responses, the unbiblical idea that Jesus died for every human being cannot fit with the text.  Especially in the book of Hebrews, which talks about the surety and power of what Jesus accomplished.  If Jesus died for every man, and He mediates for every man, then Hebrews 9:15 would have to mean that every man will be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> If Jesus died as a ransom for every man, then every man is set free from sin and will receive the promised eternal inheritance.  That is ridiculous.
> 
> All throughout the book of Hebrews, there is the clear teaching of limited atonement:
> ...




Jesus Christ does mediate for all men, but only those who answer His call to salvation by accepting Him as their savior are sanctified by Him, which is exactly what Hebrews 10:14. By the offering of Himself, Jesus Christ calls all to repentance and sanctifies those who heed His call. Your inability or refusal to recognize that salvation happens individually and isn't "all are saved" or "all are damned" is puzzling. 

For the record, I love Hebrews. It contains many dear truths no where else as clearly taught as Hebrews; fore example, the reality that God is not a triune being but that God the Father and Jesus Christ are both completely separated, wholly individual beings.

----------


## VIDEODROME

What should a person on the side lines listening to this think if they're considering Christianity?  

One side seems to say this: * those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance*

Others seem to be saying:  *Jesus Christ does mediate for all men, but only those who answer His call to salvation by accepting Him as their savior are sanctified by Him*


It almost seems like splitting hairs or different ways of describing the same result.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What should a person on the side lines listening to this think if they're considering Christianity?  
> 
> One side seems to say this: * those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance*
> 
> Others seem to be saying:  *Jesus Christ does mediate for all men, but only those who answer His call to salvation by accepting Him as their savior are sanctified by Him*
> 
> 
> It almost seems like splitting hairs or different ways of describing the same result.


The Bible says that redemption is conditioned solely on the atonement of Jesus for His people, and all the other religions of men say that redemption is conditioned on man's choice.  It's not splitting hairs, it's the difference between the gospel that saves, and the wide road that leads to destruction.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> The Bible says that redemption is conditioned solely on the atonement of Jesus for His people, and all the other religions of men say that redemption is conditioned on man's choice.  It's not splitting hairs, it's the difference between the gospel that saves, and the wide road that leads to destruction.


The other side is also saying Jesus died for us, but yeah they're saying this gift of Salvation must be accepted by acknowledging Jesus' sacrifice.  

I think the dilemma is how can anyone really know if they're choosing this or if they're basically 'chosen' and forced to accept it.  Or they think about this message even more and wonder they're really 'Elect' or not.  

Or if a person has sinned and they hear this teaching, maybe they figure it's to late.  If they were Elect, why would they have done such things?

EDIT:  Maybe I should just go back to posting stupid Memes.

----------


## VIDEODROME

lol

----------


## acptulsa

> *sigh* how is actpulsa a Presbyterian?


Simple.  My Presbyterian upbringing taught me how to read (including how to spell, and cured my dyslexia) so I can make sense of Jesus' own words myself.  That way, I don't have to depend on false prophets who will get me caught up in labels rather than facts, and distract me from the whole point.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Simple.  My Presbyterian upbringing taught me how to read (including how to spell, and cured my dyslexia) so I can make sense of Jesus' own words myself.  That way, I don't have to depend on false prophets who will get me caught up in labels rather than facts, and distract me from the whole point.


Yeah, but sadly it didn't teach what the gospel is.  You still think the gospel is "trying your best to live like Jesus".  That is not the gospel.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Then it seems like the Gospel is, hope you won the Afterlife Lotto.

----------


## TER

> Then it seems like the Gospel is, hope you won the Afterlife Lotto.


I understand your disgust with certain modern doctrines.  I share it with you.

What I don't understand is why you keep getting sidelined by that and not searching then for the actual truths.

----------


## jmdrake

> 1. I believe 1st John 2:2 really says what it really says.  Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice,  not only for Jews, but for the "world" (gentiles).  YOU are the one who says it doesn't mean what it says.  You are saying it says that He "might" be the atoning sacrifice.   That's not what it says.


That is a retarded interpretation of 1 John 2:2.  1 John is a general epistle written to a church that was already mixed of Jews and Gentiles.  So "we" did not mean "Jews".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, but sadly it didn't teach what the gospel is.  You still think the gospel is "trying your best to live like Jesus".  That is not the gospel.


SF you know that orthodox Presbyterians do not teach this nonsense right?  Unfortunately I know some denoms like the PCA are more frendly to Federal Vision than it should be (although I quetion whether even FV is this blatant in its error) but the WCF does not teach this view of salvation at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That is a retarded interpretation of 1 John 2:2.  1 John is a general epistle written to a church that was already mixed of Jews and Gentiles.  So "we" did not mean "Jews".


It's "retarded"?  Ok.  Well, sir you do not understand how Jews used these kinds of words in the time the epistles were written.  You won't read this, but I post this for the benefit of anyone else who wants to understand what this verse means:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/comme...-john-2-2.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

...and notice there is no exegesis coming from jmdrake about the verses I asked him about. I'm used to that.  That'show the discussion always goes. There is no way to exegete those passages and have them portray unlimited atonement. 

The book of Hebrews (I'm studying it now) is one of the most important books in the Bible to understand the limit and power of the atonement.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jmdrake,
> 
> 
> 
> How could the sacrifice of Jesus be for all people since it is His sacrifice that makes a person "perfect forever"?


Footnote on Hebrews 10:14-18; pg 1665, Orthodox Study Bible-"The completeness of Christ's sacrifice establishes the prophesied new covenant: Sacrifice for sin is complete, sanctification is perfect."

You can neither prove nor disprove Election as you describe it with that passage.

ETA: The only Christian thinker in the classical tradition who has been able to glean what we now call "Election" as you and your colleagues describe it from the epistles or Gospels was St Augustine-and he had to borrow from ancient pagan Greeks like Plato and Platinus to rationalize it.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's "retarded"?  Ok.  Well, sir you do not understand how Jews used these kinds of words in the time the epistles were written.  You won't read this, but I post this for the benefit of anyone else who wants to understand what this verse means:
> http://www.biblestudytools.com/comme...-john-2-2.html


More dishonesty from you.  I have read your links over the years and will read this one.  It's from my reading of Calvin and Spurgeon and showing you that they didn't 100% agree with you that you renounced Calvinism.  Oh you won't admit that.  But everyone that's followed the debate between me and you over the years knows this.  In contrast when you've found some BS website that takes EGW out of context and I've given you the context that shows she doesn't say what you think she says, you don't read what I provide.

Okay.  I read your link.  I've found a falsehood in it.

_the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also._

Note whoever wrote this webpage *gave no evidence that John only wrote to Jews*.  In fact the Bible proves the opposite.  The churches that John wrote to in the book of Revelation were primarily Gentile churches.  So John wrote to Jews and to Gentiles and it is dishonest to say he only wrote to Jews.  Was 1 John written "to the Jews?"  There is no historical evidence that proves that.  Here is a link for you to read.  (Do you ever read my links?  I doubt it.)

https://bible.org/seriespage/2-backg...setting-1-john

Most ancient commentaries to not attempt to say the target audience of 1 John and consider it "general epistle" as in an epistle to all believers.  Here is basically your only evidence that it was written "to the Jews" and it's very slim.

_
        Augustine’s Commentary on 1 John

The only other suggestion for the locale to which the Johannine Epistles were addressed comes primarily from the Latin tradition with little Greek manuscript support. St. Augustine’s commentary on 1 John has the Latin title “On the Epistle of John to the Parthians” (ad Parthos). This commentary was written at the beginning of the fifth century a.d. Since “Parthia” referred to territory including Babylon in Mesopotamia, some have suggested that 1 John may originally have been written to Jewish Christians living in Babylon sometime toward the end of the first century.26_

The problem is, Parthia, while it included Babylon, was actually ancient Persia (modern day Iran).  Here is a link for the development of Christianity in Parthia.

http://www.transoxiana.org/0106/vene...an_empire.html
_The sources for the spreading of Christianity among the Iranian population in the first centuries are rare. According to the Acts of Apostles, the first reference for the first touch of the Iranians with the new religion took place in the Day of Pentecost (6). Taking under consideration the text of Acts of Apostles, it is easy to understand how fast a part of the Iranian population became aware of the new religion and adopted it. Moreover many elements about the geography of the Parthian Empire and the areas where Christianity was mostly accepted and adopted. The power of the Christian communities was concentrated in the areas of Adiabene and its capital, Arbela (Irbil), and Osrhoene with its capital Edessa (Urrhai), one of the first centers of Christianity in Western Asia (7).

The city of Edessa is connected with another reference about the development of Christianity at this area. According to this aspect, the founder of the community of Edessa and the whole Christianity in Western Asia was the Apostle Thaddaeus (8). The creation of the first Christian centers at the city of Edessa and the region around it took place in linguistic environment where the Aramaic was the main element among many Semitic idiomatic dialects (9). The eastern Aramaic dialect of Edessa would be the liturgical and literary language of the Eastern Church (10). Especially in the Sassanian State the Aramaic would be the official language of the Christian Church and would be used widely in the administration and the financial life.

The Judaic and Christian communities of Adiabene and Osrhoene and the regions east of Euphrates were the core of the Christian expansion in the Sassanian Iran. These communities were always in the middle of the conflicts between Romans and Parthians, since they were of great importance for the trade and the financial activities of that time. The strategic meaning of Edessa and Arbela allowed them to control the transferring of goods from the eastern to western world and the opposite (11). The focus of the Christian missionary efforts in the important urban centres was on purpose, since they realized the strengthening of the influence of the new religion in vital areas, in order to achieve the stability of the new creed (12).

The methods of attracting new members in the Christian communities were most of the time nameless and quiet (13). The conversion could happen everywhere, anytime and under any conditions. The sources of the first centuries A.D. are not enlightening about this matter but the hagiographic texts of the Sassanian era provide a good image of the practices concerning the attraction of new members in their communities (14). As it is written in the main part of the present work, the ideology of the Christian religion included every human form, any social class, tribe and age. The liberal character of the new religion with respect to the previous religions was giving an advantage for the increase of its popularity and the attraction of new members.

One of the main features of the Christian converting practice was the approach of the woman, the most "weak" part of the family at that period of time, whose role however was of crucial meaning for the right order of the family and the society. According to the Life of Saint Ias, the martyr was in touch everyday with other women of different social classes "and she was preaching the word of God" (15).The admission process to the remaining members of the family started at the moment when the non-Christian women were accepting the Christian tuition. The woman informed her spouse and her children about the new religion. It is clear that the power of the Christian preaching was easily accepted in the female population and the acceptance of this preaching from the female members of the Zoroastrian and other religion was the basis for the further acceptance and adoption of the Christian religion by the Iranians in the Parthian and Sassanian period (16). So, the Christian missionary activity managed to attract to the new religion members from several social classes, even those from the upper classes (aristocracy, priesthood etc.) As a result, the new sect increased its power by creating new communities in several urban centers (17)._

Note the two sections that I have in the above passage in bold.  The first is a biblical reference to Iran in Acts.  Yes these converts would be Jews.  But the second is a reference to missionary efforts among Zoroastrian.  If you know ancient religious you know that Zoroastrianism is an ancient monotheistic religion that grew independently of and may even predate Judaism.  So it would be natural to proselytize this sect as they already accepted the idea that there was only one God even though they were confused as to His nature and identity.  So to come to your "John was writing only to Jewish Christians" conclusion, one must believe that 1 John was written immediately after the events in Acts before any missionary activity was taken (highly unlikely) or that somehow Christian missionaries were effective among Jews in Parthia and polytheistic Greeks, but were not at all effective among fellow monotheists in Parthia.  (Even more unlikely).

So you've moved form "prove text" to "cherry picking commentary" where you find a commentary that agrees with you and you use that even though the commentary gives no biblical or historical basis for coming to a conclusion that you agree with.

----------


## jmdrake

> ...and notice there is no exegesis coming from jmdrake about the verses I asked him about.


More dishonesty from you.  First you haven't given exegesis from 1 John 2:2.  You made a false statement based on nothing and backed it up with a false statement from a commentary based on nothing.  I have given you my exegesis of Hebrews 7:14 which is that the word "Called" must be interpreted as how *Jesus* used it.  Jesus said "Many are called but few are chosen."  You have not addressed that.  I'm not going to just jump for verse to verse with you when you are not willing to honestly address the points I've already raised.

----------


## jmdrake

For further proof that Sola_Fide's "1 John was written to the Jews" fantasy is just that, fantasy, we shall turn to non other than John Calvin himself.  Note that if anyone would have a reason to assert the "John was writing to the Jews" argument, it would have been Calvin.  But Calvin makes no such vain attempt.  Instead he uses circular reasoning, basically saying "It can't mean the whole world because that would include lost people."  Please read:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calc...tion#highlight
_2 And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 63 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world._

Note that I've proven before that there is no actual basis for the "John was writing to the Jews" argument but Sola_Fide keeps raising that falsehood over and over again.  Not sure why.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> More dishonesty from you.  First you haven't given exegesis from 1 John 2:2.  You made a false statement based on nothing and backed it up with a false statement from a commentary based on nothing. * I have given you my exegesis of Hebrews 7:14 which is that the word "Called" must be interpreted as how Jesus used it.*  Jesus said "Many are called but few are chosen."  You have not addressed that.  I'm not going to just jump for verse to verse with you when you are not willing to honestly address the points I've already raised.


No, you need to understand how _the writer to the Hebrews_ used the word "called".  It is very telling that you can't ever stick with a certaint text, but have to jump all around to other ones.  That means your interpretation is not Biblical.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, there are several different passages in the book of Hebrews that do not use the word "called", but plainly teach that redemption is specific in scope.




> *Hebrews 7:25 
> 
> Therefore he is able to save forever those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.*


Who is "them"?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> For further proof that Sola_Fide's "1 John was written to the Jews" fantasy is just that, fantasy, we shall turn to non other than John Calvin himself.  Note that if anyone would have a reason to assert the "John was writing to the Jews" argument, it would have been Calvin.  But Calvin makes no such vain attempt.  Instead he uses circular reasoning, basically saying "It can't mean the whole world because that would include lost people."  Please read:
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calc...tion#highlight
> _2 And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
> 
> Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 63 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world._
> 
> Note that I've proven before that there is no actual basis for the "John was writing to the Jews" argument but Sola_Fide keeps raising that falsehood over and over again.  Not sure why.


Why do you quote John Calvin?  He believed in universal atonement like you do.  Who cares what he says?

----------


## jmdrake

> Why do you quote John Calvin?  He believed in universal atonement like you do.  Who cares what he says?


LOL.  Even more dishonesty from you.  You used to quote Calvin all the time to bolster your belief.  It was my pointing out places in Calvin's commentaries where he honestly commented on verses that go against limited atonement that led you to rejecting Calvin.  You can't bring yourself to admit that, because you're inherently not honest when debating religion.  But at first when I posted these things you angrily declared I was misreading Calvin, when I wasn't.  Then ultimately you saw the truth.  Even Calvin's writings to always support your view of Calvinism (or his view for that matter).  

The most important thing is you can't point to a commentary anywhere that honestly and accurately defends your false point that 1 John was written to the Jews.  The commentary you quoted just made an assertion without evidence.  At this point I've proven that assertion to be misleading at best but likely an outright falsehood driven by the need for 1 John 2:2 to not say what it clearly says.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, you need to understand how _the writer to the Hebrews_ used the word "called".


Are you suggesting that the writer of Hebrews was not a Christian?  That's quite an odd assertion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  Even more dishonesty from you.  You used to quote Calvin all the time to bolster your belief.  It was my pointing out places in Calvin's commentaries where he honestly commented on verses that go against limited atonement that led you to rejecting Calvin.  You can't bring yourself to admit that, because you're inherently not honest when debating religion.  But at first when I posted these things you angrily declared I was misreading Calvin, when I wasn't.  Then ultimately you saw the truth.  Even Calvin's writings to always support your view of Calvinism (or his view for that matter).  
> 
> The most important thing is you can't point to a commentary anywhere that honestly and accurately defends your false point that 1 John was written to the Jews.  The commentary you quoted just made an assertion without evidence.  At this point I've proven that assertion to be misleading at best but likely an outright falsehood driven by the need for 1 John 2:2 to not say what it clearly says.


Jmdrake, 

Don't call me dishonest.  I am being truthful.  You and John Calvin BOTH believe that Jesus died for every man.  That is a fact.

I disagree with both of you based on Scripture:




> *Revelation 5:9
> 
> And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."*

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, 
> 
> Don't call me dishonest.  I am being truthful.  You and John Calvin BOTH believe that Jesus died for every man.  That is a fact.
> 
> I disagree with both of you based on Scripture:


I'm calling you dishonest because you are.  It's a well known fact that John Calvin was one of the main proponents of limited atonement.  *That* is a fact.  Everyone on this forum but you acknowledges that fact.  Your "problem" is that once I showed to you that at times John Calvin interpreted verses that supported universal atonement as they are written, rather than going through the insane mental gymnastics needed to pretend they don't say what they say, you interpret that as meaning he believed in unlimited atonement when there is no evidence that he did.

And for the record, Rev 5:9 doesn't prove limited atonement.  As Jesus said Himself "Many are called but few are chosen."  It only proves limited atonement if you believe grace is irresistible.  But grace *is* resistible.  That's why Hebrews, which you like to selectively quote so much, says "Resist not the Holy Spirit."

Edit: And for the record I'm not calling you dishonest based on your belief in limited atonement.  That's your sincerely held belief.  I believe you are sincerely *wrong* but I don't think you secretly believe something else.  When I call you dishonest I'm pointing out dishonesty in your debating style.  Take post #65 for example where you asserted I wouldn't read your link.  You've known me long enough to know that assertion by you was a lie.  I *always* read your links when you have directed them at me and typically refute them.  Your problem is you scratch the surface.  You found a commentary that said 1 John was written to the Jews and didn't go further.  I went further and proved that was a baseless assertion.  Had you been honest you would have either found evidence to support that assertion, or you would have said "You know what jmdrake?  You're right on that."  You didn't do either but just moved on to your next argument.  That's what you do in general on this sub-forum when someone has proven you wrong.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are you suggesting that the writer of Hebrews was not a Christian?  That's quite an odd assertion.


And I see you aren't willing to respond to this, so I will expand on it.  Jesus said His words were "not His own" but He spoke the words of His father.  Peter said that holy men of God spoke "As the Spirit gave them utterances."  So you ultimately have the same "author" of the words of Jesus as you do for the words in Hebrews, unless the author of Hebrews wasn't actually a Christian.  The idea that the a passage in the Bible can be interpreted without considering what Jesus said on the same subject, in this case being "called", is heresy.

----------


## pcosmar

Who are the Elect? 

I suspect there is little real understanding of who the elect are.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who are the Elect? 
> 
> I suspect there is little real understanding of who the elect are.


Good question.  I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Let me guess, this has something to do with the nephalim?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who are the Elect? 
> 
> I suspect there is little real understanding of who the elect are.


The elect are the ones chosen by God to believe.  It's all throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm calling you dishonest because you are.  It's a well known fact that John Calvin was one of the main proponents of limited atonement.  *That* is a fact.  Everyone on this forum but you acknowledges that fact.  Your "problem" is that once I showed to you that at times John Calvin interpreted verses that supported universal atonement as they are written, rather than going through the insane mental gymnastics needed to pretend they don't say what they say, you interpret that as meaning he believed in unlimited atonement when there is no evidence that he did.
> 
> And for the record, Rev 5:9 doesn't prove limited atonement.  As Jesus said Himself "Many are called but few are chosen."  It only proves limited atonement if you believe grace is irresistible.  But grace *is* resistible.  That's why Hebrews, which you like to selectively quote so much, says "Resist not the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Edit: And for the record I'm not calling you dishonest based on your belief in limited atonement.  That's your sincerely held belief.  I believe you are sincerely *wrong* but I don't think you secretly believe something else.  When I call you dishonest I'm pointing out dishonesty in your debating style.  Take post #65 for example where you asserted I wouldn't read your link.  You've known me long enough to know that assertion by you was a lie.  I *always* read your links when you have directed them at me and typically refute them.  Your problem is you scratch the surface.  You found a commentary that said 1 John was written to the Jews and didn't go further.  I went further and proved that was a baseless assertion.  Had you been honest you would have either found evidence to support that assertion, or you would have said "You know what jmdrake?  You're right on that."  You didn't do either but just moved on to your next argument.  That's what you do in general on this sub-forum when someone has proven you wrong.


*
Fact:* John Calvin taught universal atonement.



> "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him." [Commentary on Romans 5:18]
> 
> "True it is that the effect of His death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered His death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them ..." [Sermon CXVI on the Book of Job (31:29-32)]

----------


## erowe1

> *
> Fact:* John Calvin taught universal atonement.


I believe that it's more complicated than that. He wrote tons of books over many years and addressed it in different contexts. People have written doctoral dissertations on what his view was, and whether it changed or not.

----------


## Ronin Truth

As an anarchist I really doubt that Jesus has much truck with elections.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe that it's more complicated than that. He wrote tons of books over many years and addressed it in different contexts. People have written doctoral dissertations on what his view was, and whether it changed or not.


I agree with that...and some allowance has to be given to what a person writes in different times of their life.  

Here is an article pro:
https://austind90.wordpress.com/2011...ted-atonement/

Here is an article somewhat pro:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminia...ted-atonement/

Here is an article con (with many quotations):
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/norefcal.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Hebrews 10:9-13
> 
> Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
> 
> Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.*


1.  Who are the "we" who have been made holy by the sacrifice of Jesus once for all?  Every person?

2.  Who is the "those" who are made perfect forever by His sacrifice?  Every person?

3.  Who are His "enemies" that will be made His footstool?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Here is an article con (with many quotations):
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/norefcal.htm


Isn't Marc Carpenter considered to be right of hyper-Calvinism?   Some of your favorite guys are listed on his hall of shame.

I'm pretty sure Jim, (Reformed Observer) would give "outsidethecamp" no credence whatsoever.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Isn't Marc Carpenter considered to be right of hyper-Calvinism?   Some of your favorite guys are listed on his hall of shame.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Jim, (Reformed Observer) would give "outsidethecamp" no credence whatsoever.


He probably would.  I don't believe everything they assert.  Incidentally, one area I disagree with them most is infant baptism and the nature of the New Covenant.

Secondly, hyper Calvinism is the view that one doesn't need to obey the prescriptive will of God in preaching the gospel.  Hyper Calvinists just think God will save who He saves regardless of their preaching. No Christian believes that.

If "hyper Calvinism" is a term merely being used to describe a person who holds firmly to the decrees of God in predestination, then the term is not accurate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with that...and some allowance has to be given to what a person writes in different times of their life.  
> 
> Here is an article pro:
> https://austind90.wordpress.com/2011...ted-atonement/
> 
> Here is an article somewhat pro:
> http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminia...ted-atonement/
> 
> Here is an article con (with many quotations):
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/norefcal.htm


Here's the thing though.  It wouldn't matter to Marc Carpenter because Calvin believing in limited atonement wouldn't be enough for him.  He'd also need Calvin to "admit" that he was unregenerate when he taught universal atonement.  



> He probably would.  I don't believe everything they assert.  Incidentally, one area I disagree with them most is infant baptism and the nature of the New Covenant.


Much as I don't like Carpenter I think I actually might mostly agree with him here:




> Now this raises some questions, doesn't it? If circumcision was a mark that was received as a seal of the righteousness that is received by faith, then why did God command that every single male child who was born to Abraham and Abraham's physical descendants be circumcised, even when they had no capacity to confess their faith, and when we know that some of them will grow up to show that they are unbelievers? Well, one thing we can see for sure is that, for children who are under the pale of the covenant, even children who end up showing themselves to be unbelievers, this sign of God's righteousness was to be administered. Some would say that this is because the covenant was merely a temporal, physical covenant and had no spiritual significance. However, as we saw a couple sermons ago, when God covenanted with Abraham, this covenant was a spiritual covenant and spoke of Abraham's spiritual seed. Thus, circumcision signified a SPIRITUAL COVENANT. Even though it was applied to the natural seed of those within the pale of the covenant, it signified the blessing of the spiritual seed. Thus, it did not matter whether or not the one who was physically circumcised was a believer or not, because the very ordinance of circumcision signified a spiritual reality for all the people of God, not necessarily a spiritual reality for the person to whom the circumcision was administered. Just as circumcision did not actually DO anything as far as the ground of Abraham's salvation went, circumcision of children did not actually DO anything as far as the ground of their salvation went. Circumcision did not save, did not cut away any sin, and did not gain God's blessing, although it is a SIGN of salvation, cutting away sin, and God's blessing, not necessarily to the one receiving it. In the same way, baptism does not save, does not wash away any sin, and does not gain God's blessing, although baptism is a SIGN of salvation, washing away sin, and God's blessing, not necessarily to the one receiving it. As with Abraham, adults who were outside the pale of the covenant and have been regenerated receive the SIGN of baptism as a certification of the righteousness that they received by faith before they were baptized. And as with Abraham's physical seed, children who are inside the pale of the covenant receive the SIGN of baptism as a certification of the righteousness that God's people receive by faith. It does not mean that they are surely saved or even will be surely saved. It does not mean that God has covenanted with them in particular. It points to the spiritual reality that God has unconditionally covenanted with His people, Abraham's spiritual seed, based on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. It also shows that the children within the pale of the covenant are set apart from the world, as 1 Corinthians 7:14 says.


http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans25.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here's the thing though.  It wouldn't matter to Marc Carpenter because Calvin believing in limited atonement wouldn't be enough for him.  He'd also need Calvin to "admit" that he was unregenerate when he taught universal atonement.  
> 
> 
> Much as I don't like Carpenter I think I actually might mostly agree with him here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's wrong.  1st Corinthians 7 has nothing to do with covenant or infant baptism or "pale of the covenant".  Also, this position introduces conditionality into the covenant,  because it has members that are "holy" because they are in the "pale of the covenant", yet Jesus does not save them.

 People can be "holy" because of the blood of Christ,  but not saved by it?  So much for particular grace!  What a failure that position is in defending God's grace and atonement.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He's wrong.  1st Corinthians 7 has nothing to do with covenant or infant baptism or "pale of the covenant".  Also, this position introduces conditionality into the covenant,  because it has members that are "holy" because they are in the "pale of the covenant", yet Jesus does not save them.
> 
>  People can be "holy" because of the blood of Christ,  but not saved by it?  So much for particular grace!  What a failure that position is in defending God's grace and atonement.


Honestly at this point I'm just laughing at the two of you damning each other (and everyone else) for not being calvinistic enough.  Whatever.  LOL!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Honestly at this point I'm just laughing at the two of you damning each other (and everyone else) for not being calvinistic enough.  Whatever.  LOL!


I don't think that view of the New Covenant defends particular grace and particular redemption, as much as they want to talk about it.  This is the strength of the Baptist position, and the deficiency of Presbyterianism.   Particular Baptists can be fully consistent monergists.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think that view of the New Covenant defends particular grace and particular redemption, as much as they want to talk about it.  This is the strength of the Baptist position, and the deficiency of Presbyterianism.   Particular Baptists can be fully consistent monergists.


I think the scripture is a little messier about this than you'd like... you have to basically explain away certain passages.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think the scripture is a little messier about this than you'd like... you have to basically explain away certain passages.


Which ones?  We keep going over the ones that have been mentioned.  Are there any other ones?

----------


## Ronin Truth

Does Jesus have free will?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does Jesus have free will?


Yes.  God is the only being who can be described as having a will that is free.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Which ones?  We keep going over the ones that have been mentioned.  Are there any other ones?


Yeah you've told me your interpretation but I don't think is as good as the other interpretation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah you've told me your interpretation but I don't think is as good as the other interpretation.


Of 1st Corinthians 7?   Wouldn't you rather understand and believe what Paul actually said in that passage,  rather than importing some tangential concept that's not in the New Testament at all?  I thought you were a person who wanted to get down to the truth of things?

----------


## erowe1

> I think the scripture is a little messier about this than you'd like... you have to basically explain away certain passages.


You can't possibly really believe that.

----------


## pcosmar

> Good question.  I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Let me guess, this has something to do with the nephalim?


as to your guess,, no, not really.

but the nephalim would be Not the Elect.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of 1st Corinthians 7?   Wouldn't you rather understand and believe what Paul actually said in that passage,  rather than importing some tangential concept that's not in the New Testament at all?  I thought you were a person who wanted to get down to the truth of things?


I do and I'm pretty sure I have it.  Your hermanetic is just wrong.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I do and I'm pretty sure I have it.  Your hermanetic is just wrong.


Does the New Testament define how we interpret the Old?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Does the New Testament define how we interpret the Old?


I tend to more weight old and new equally.  To an extent yes.  Not to the extent a baptist would say.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I tend to more weight old and new equally.  To an extent yes.  Not to the extent a baptist would say.


Really?  That's certainly an issue then.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Really?  That's certainly an issue then.


Yeah, I think this is an issue.

I give both testaments equal weight.  Of course, the new testament does tell us what about the old testament has changed.  But I do think that those changes need to be relatively specific.  Hence why I think the standards of justice and also children being in the covenant is the same.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I know this is a side issue Sola_Fide but I think this explains our eschatological difference either.  I give the Old Testament passages more weight than you do.  And I will usually take a clear Old Testament passage over an unclear New Testament one, hermaneutically speaking.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, I think this is an issue.
> 
> I give both testaments equal weight.  Of course, the new testament does tell us what about the old testament has changed.  But I do think that those changes need to be relatively specific.  Hence why I think the standards of justice and also children being in the covenant is the same.





> I know this is a side issue Sola_Fide but I think this explains our eschatological difference either.  I give the Old Testament passages more weight than you do.  And I will usually take a clear Old Testament passage over an unclear New Testament one, hermaneutically speaking.


That's an issue that can't be a Christian position.  The New Testament determines how the Old Testament is to be interpreted.  That can't even be questioned.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's an issue that can't be a Christian position.  The New Testament determines how the Old Testament is to be interpreted.  That can't even be questioned.


Sola, you saying that something can't be a Christian position is totally irrelevant, and nobody should care at this point.  We're differing on the extent.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, you saying that something can't be a Christian position is totally irrelevant, and nobody should care at this point.  We're differing on the extent.


How can it be a Christian position that the New Testament doesn't determine how we interpret the Old Testament?   Given that, why would you believe that Jesus is the promised messiah?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How can it be a Christian position that the New Testament doesn't determine how we interpret the Old Testament?   Given that, why would you believe that Jesus is the promised messiah?


Jesus is obviously the promised messiah.  This is explicit in the NT and also clearly fits the teaching of the OT.

Its more of a hermaneutical issue of, when you have (say) a clear eschatological text in the OT that seems to say one thing, and a much less clear one in the NT that seems to say something else, what do you do?

Basically how much continuity we assume when texts are less than clear.  I totally agree with you that if something in the NT clearly changes something in the OT, that clearly changes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus is obviously the promised messiah.  This is explicit in the NT and also clearly fits the teaching of the OT.
> 
> Its more of a hermaneutical issue of, when you have (say) a clear eschatological text in the OT that seems to say one thing, and a much less clear one in the NT that seems to say something else, what do you do?
> 
> Basically how much continuity we assume when texts are less than clear.  I totally agree with you that if something in the NT clearly changes something in the OT, that clearly changes.


So the New Testament does determine how the Old Testament is to be interpreted.   Good.

How can you not see that the New Covenant only has elect members in it?  How can you not see that there is no infant baptism in the New Testament?   Wouldn't the fact that every instance of baptism in the New Testament came after a confession of faith give you that clarity you need?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So the New Testament does determine how the Old Testament is to be interpreted.   Good.


I think there's a difference in the extent though.



> How can you not see that the New Covenant only has elect members in it?


I can see how you derive this from Jeremiah 31 and its NT quotations but I think in the light of Romans 11:22, 1 Corinthians 7, Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, and several references to household baptism that all imply children are still in the covenant, I think there's a better interpretation of Jeremiah 31.




> How can you not see that there is no infant baptism in the New Testament?   Wouldn't the fact that every instance of baptism in the New Testament came after a confession of faith give you that clarity you need?


Because these statements simply aren't true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think there's a difference in the extent though.
> 
> 
> I can see how you derive this from Jeremiah 31 and its NT quotations but I think in the light of Romans 11:22, 1 Corinthians 7, Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, and several references to household baptism that all imply children are still in the covenant, I think there's a better interpretation of Jeremiah 31.
> 
> 
> 
> Because these statements simply aren't true.


They're not _true?_  Where is the verse of a baptism happening prior to a confession in the New Testament?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They're not _true?_  Where is the verse of a baptism happening prior to a confession in the New Testament?


This is where I think your hermaneutic is too NT centric.  I don't need a specific verse.  You need to either prove that circumcision is not replaced by baptism (which Colossians 2:11-12 implies) or you need to show Biblical proof that even though baptism is the sign of the covenant, infants don't get that.  Right now you have one verse (Jeremiah 31) plus the times this is quoted in the NT.  This is a weak argument.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think there's a difference in the extent though.
> 
> 
> I can see how you derive this from Jeremiah 31 and its NT quotations but I think in the light of Romans 11:22, 1 Corinthians 7, Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, and several references to household baptism that all imply children are still in the covenant, I think there's a better interpretation of Jeremiah 31.
> 
> 
> 
> Because these statements simply aren't true.


Please don't simply say you believe x, and then post up verse numbers in support of your assertion.  And don't say you believe in "several household" baptisms without putting up the passages so that they can be seen and exegeted. Put the entire passages up.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is where I think your hermaneutic is too NT centric.  I don't need a specific verse.  You need to either prove that circumcision is not replaced by baptism (which Colossians 2:11-12 implies) or you need to show Biblical proof that even though baptism is the sign of the covenant, infants don't get that.  Right now you have one verse (Jeremiah 31) plus the times this is quoted in the NT.  This is a weak argument.


Circumcision is not in Colossians 2....at all.  Why do you keep using that verse when it's not talking about circumcision at all?

The Biblical evidence that infants don't get baptized is that _it was never done by the apostles.  Not once._  Every instance of baptism was after a confession of belief.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Please don't simply say you believe x, and then post up verse numbers in support of your assertion.  And don't say you believe in "several household" baptisms without putting up the passages so that tgey can be seen and exegeted. Put the entire passages up.


Let me start with one that may not be intuitive to you:




> *17* But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[c] of the olive tree,*18* do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.*19* Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”*20* That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.*21* For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.*22* Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.*23* And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.*24* For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.


Gentiles are grafted into the same olive tree as the Jews.

Faith is the condition for remaining in this covenant

Christ purchased faith for his elect within this covenant.

Those who Christ did not die for do not have faith and thus are cut off.

This is not to say that faith MERITS eternal life, only that Christ promises not to cut off those who have the faith which he purchased for his elect.
* 
You can still be cut off from the olive tree, the same covenant of grace the Jews of the OT were part of.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Circumcision is not in Colossians 2....at all.  Why do you keep using that verse when it's not talking about circumcision at all?


The passage is talking about circumcision of the heart and baptism of the Holy Spirit, each of which is represented by an outward sign.  




> The Biblical evidence that infants don't get baptized is that _it was never done by the apostles.  Not once._  Every instance of baptism was after a confession of belief.


This is again a stupid evangelical argument based on a stupid hermenatuic.  Its a view that ignores the continuity between the new and old testaments and is fundamentally proof-texting.

----------


## jmdrake

> *
> Fact:* John Calvin taught universal atonement.


Fact: John Calvin actually took the verses as they are written and didn't go through the insane mental gymnastics that you go through to pretend they don't say what they actually say.

----------


## Dr.3D

For the life of me, I can't understand why this subject keeps being brought up.   

If nobody can do anything about their status of being elect or not, why keep bringing it up?

----------


## pcosmar

> For the life of me, I can't understand why this subject keeps being brought up.   
> 
> If nobody can do anything about their status of being elect or not, why keep bringing it up?


What if you are elect and did not know it?

----------


## Dr.3D

> What if you are elect and did not know it?


Then it's obvious God would let you know, or you wouldn't be one of the elect.

----------


## Crashland

> For the life of me, I can't understand why this subject keeps being brought up.   
> 
> If nobody can do anything about their status of being elect or not, why keep bringing it up?





> What if you are elect and did not know it?





> Then it's obvious God would let you know, or you wouldn't be one of the elect.


Exactly. Trying to find out whether you are the elect or deciding to be a faith seeker would _necessarily_ have zero impact on whether or not you are actually the elect. Of course, this goes against the more common sense idea that deciding to be a faith seeker could be worthwhile because it could cause you to change your mind about something and hence become a Christian, but that would be unbiblical according to the calvinist doctrine that your own faith is entirely God's doing and has nothing to do with you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What if you are elect and did not know it?


That's not possible.   If you are elected, that means that God has given you the faith to believe in Him and the propositions of the gospel.

----------


## Crashland

> Exactly. Trying to find out whether you are the elect or deciding to be a faith seeker would _necessarily_ have zero impact on whether or not you are actually the elect. Of course, this goes against the more common sense idea that deciding to be a faith seeker could be worthwhile because it could cause you to change your mind about something and hence become a Christian, but that would be unbiblical according to the calvinist doctrine that your own faith is entirely God's doing and has nothing to do with you.


I forgot to mention, what ends up happening is, the person who thinks this way ends up being extremely motivated to be a faith seeker because doing so would mean that God has already chosen them. If you're a strong Christian, then God must have chosen you, and if you don't believe in Christ, then God must have not chosen you. And since you really really really REALLY hope that God chose you, what are you going to do? Reinforce the loop of cognitive bias of course. You train your mind to think in a certain way because doing so means that God is making you think that way which is good! Until you are thoroughly brainwashed. This really messes with people's minds.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What if you are elect and did not know it?


All members of the Elect get a secret decoder ring. You're not allowed to tell anyone else about it. You just chat among others about it and be as smug and condescending as possible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> All members of the Elect get a secret decoder ring. You're not allowed to tell anyone else about it. You just chat among others about it and be as smug and condescending as possible.


The irony is that you are belittling something that God made plain in the Old Testament, Jesus taught, and all the apostles believed and preached.  It's sad.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The irony is that you are belittling something that God made plain in the Old Testament, Jesus taught, and all the apostles believed and preached.  It's sad.


Except it's not made plain in the OT (from the Christian POV, at least. Christians view the OT as prefiguring the New.). Nor did Christ or the apostles teach it. It never occurred to anyone in any meaningful way until Augustine began writing. There are only hints at the notion of election in literature aimed at Jewish converts to help them understand the Good News. Matthew's gospel, for example, is VERY Jewish, borrowing literary forms (like chiism) and style that Jewish audiences would understand. Paul does this sort of thing in some of his epistles.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except it's not made plain in the OT (from the Christian POV, at least. Christians view the OT as prefiguring the New.). Nor did Christ or the apostles teach it. It never occurred to anyone in any meaningful way until Augustine began writing. There are only hints at the notion of election in literature aimed at Jewish converts to help them understand the Good News. Matthew's gospel, for example, is VERY Jewish, borrowing literary forms (like chiism) and style that Jewish audiences would understand. Paul does this sort of thing in some of his epistles.


No.  Here is Paul writing to the Gentile church in Ephesus:




> For he chose us*in him before the creation of the world*to be holy and blamelessin his sight. In love*he predestined*us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure*and will—*to the praise of his glorious grace,*which he has freely given us in the One he loves.*In him we have redemption*through his blood,*the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches*of God’s grace*that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding,*he made known to us the mystery*of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed*in Christ,*to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
> 
> In him we were also chosen, having been predestined*according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose*of his will,**in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.*And you also were included in Christ*when you heard the message of truth,*the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal,*the promised Holy Spirit,*who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance*until the redemption*of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's not possible.   If you are elected, that means that God has given you the faith to believe in Him and the propositions of the gospel.


What about before they believe.. are they still elect?

(correct answer is yes)

Then anyone of the somebodies here could be elect and not know it yet,, because they don't believe *yet*.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What about before they believe.. are they still elect?
> 
> (correct answer is yes)
> 
> Then anyone of the somebodies here could be elect and not know it yet,, because they don't believe *yet*.


That's true, but since none of us have the ability to know who God will cause to believe and when, it doesn't matter.

Edit:  Also, there is a heresy called "eternal regeneration" out there that says the elect have always been saved and are saved without belief.  This is wrong because men are saved at a point in time and they are always saved by God giving them faith to believe.

----------


## pcosmar

> Edit:  Also, there is a heresy called "eternal regeneration" out there that says the elect have always been saved and are saved without belief.  This is wrong because men are saved at a point in time and they are always saved by God giving them faith to believe.


I don't think I could buy into that one.

But you would disagree with my reasons why.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's an issue that can't be a Christian position.  The New Testament determines how the Old Testament is to be interpreted.  That can't even be questioned.


The words of Jesus determine how the entire Bible is to be interpreted.  And yet you question (or rather reject) that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The words of Jesus determine how the entire Bible is to be interpreted.  And yet you question (or rather reject) that.


As good as you think that sounds, that is not a proper hermanuetic at all.  And it doesn't require me to "reject" Jesus' words (how could I do that) to say that.

----------


## jmdrake

> As good as you think that sounds, that is not a proper hermanuetic at all.  And it doesn't require me to "reject" Jesus' words (how could I do that) to say that.


I didn't say you rejected Jesus' words any more than I would say you rejected the Old Testament.  More dishonesty from you.  I said you rejected the proposition that the entire Bible should be interpreted based on the words of Jesus.  And you have.  In fact you just did it again.  Just be honest about it.  You want the entire Bible interpreted on the words of Paul.  That's not Christianity.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Well that would certainly simplify his mediation job considerably.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I didn't say you rejected Jesus' words any more than I would say you rejected the Old Testament.  More dishonesty from you.  I said you rejected the proposition that the entire Bible should be interpreted based on the words of Jesus.  And you have.  In fact you just did it again.  Just be honest about it.  You want the entire Bible interpreted on the words of Paul.  That's not Christianity.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.


 Someone plz +rep this guy! ^^

----------


## Dr.3D

> Someone plz +rep this guy! ^^


Got it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't say you rejected Jesus' words any more than I would say you rejected the Old Testament.  More dishonesty from you.  I said you rejected the proposition that the entire Bible should be interpreted based on the words of Jesus.  And you have.  In fact you just did it again.  Just be honest about it.  You want the entire Bible interpreted on the words of Paul.  That's not Christianity.


I'd say the entire Bible should be interpreted based on the entire Bible

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'd say the entire Bible should be interpreted based on the entire Bible


Haha...jmdrake is turning in to Ronin Truth.  Everything happens for a reason.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Haha...jmdrake is turning in to Ronin Truth.  Everything happens for a reason.


His argument is really bad but I think there's a little more nuance to it.

Ronin is just sticking his fingers in his ears and being like "Paul contradicts Jesus... lol" and never gives proof.

Jmdrake is saying that you should interpret anything Paul says through the lens of what Jesus says.  So if a statement Paul makes seems to contradict a statement Jesus makes at first glance, take the clearest possible interpretation of what Jesus said and interpret Paul through that lens.  Or at least I think that's what he's trying to say.

Still a bad argument.  But not quite as bad.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> His argument is really bad but I think there's a little more nuance to it.
> 
> Ronin is just sticking his fingers in his ears and being like "Paul contradicts Jesus... lol" and never gives proof.
> 
> Jmdrake is saying that you should interpret anything Paul says through the lens of what Jesus says. So if a statement Paul makes seems to contradict a statement Jesus makes at first glance, take the clearest possible interpretation of what Jesus said and interpret Paul through that lens. Or at least I think that's what he's trying to say.
> 
> Still a bad argument. But not quite as bad.


Get a clue, Goober.

http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html

PAUL vs. JESUS - A List of Contradictory and Incompatible Statements

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Get a clue, Goober.
> 
> PAUL vs. JESUS - A List of Contradictory and Incompatible Statements


I already went over several of those and got no response from you.  Do you want to go back to that thread and answer some of my responses?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, I just want to ask you straight out.  Would you now say that someone who holds to the Westminster view of Covenant Theology is not saved?  I just want to be clear on this.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, I just want to ask you straight out.  Would you now say that someone who holds to the Westminster view of Covenant Theology is not saved?  I just want to be clear on this.


I don't know.  It completely misunderstands the nature of the New Covenant and diminishes the sacrifice of Christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  It completely misunderstands the nature of the New Covenant and diminishes the sacrifice of Christ.


Seriously you are eventually going to damn everyone except yourself

----------


## jmdrake

> His argument is really bad but I think there's a little more nuance to it.
> 
> Ronin is just sticking his fingers in his ears and being like "Paul contradicts Jesus... lol" and never gives proof.
> 
> Jmdrake is saying that you should interpret anything Paul says through the lens of what Jesus says.  So if a statement Paul makes seems to contradict a statement Jesus makes at first glance, take the clearest possible interpretation of what Jesus said and interpret Paul through that lens.  Or at least I think that's what he's trying to say.
> 
> Still a bad argument.  But not quite as bad.


First off most experts don't think Paul wrote Hebrews so you making this about Paul shows your general lack of Biblical knowledge.

But second of all, why would you or anyone else believe that the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New Testament, but not believe that th everything should be interpreted in light of what Jesus said?  That's inconsistent and illogical.  You only call it a "bad argument" because your beliefs are closer to that of Sola_Fide's and not because you have actually thought this through.  Now your "Interpret the whole Bible based on the entire Bible" argument makes sense...if that's the argument you're making rather than being sarcastic.  (Not sure since you used a  face).  If the Holy Spirit is really the author of the Bible then you can't logically say that you should look at the words of Paul in isolation since Paul isn't really the author of Paul's writings but the Holy Spirit is.  If, on the other hand, Paul is the author and not the Holy Spirit, then Paul's writings aren't inspired.

So..articulate an actual argument against that if you can't.  Just calling it a "bad argument" is cowardice at best and dishonesty at worst.

----------


## jmdrake

> Seriously you are eventually going to damn everyone except yourself


Poor argument.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Poor argument.


Its not actually an argument.  Just a statement of fact.

----------


## jmdrake

> Haha...jmdrake is turning in to Ronin Truth.  Everything happens for a reason.


More dishonesty from you.  I'm getting used to it at this point.  You lack and argument so rather make one you rely on ad hominem.  Make an actual argument.  Explain why you believe the entire Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet you believe the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New but you don't believe anything should be interpreted in light of the words of Jesus.  This should be good.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> First off most experts don't think Paul wrote Hebrews so you making this about Paul shows your general lack of Biblical knowledge.
> 
> But second of all, why would you or anyone else believe that the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New Testament, but not believe that th everything should be interpreted in light of what Jesus said?  That's inconsistent and illogical.  You only call it a "bad argument" because your beliefs are closer to that of Sola_Fide's and not because you have actually thought this through.  Now your "Interpret the whole Bible based on the entire Bible" argument makes sense...if that's the argument you're making rather than being sarcastic.  (Not sure since you used a  face).  If the Holy Spirit is really the author of the Bible then you can't logically say that you should look at the words of Paul in isolation since Paul isn't really the author of Paul's writings but the Holy Spirit is.  If, on the other hand, Paul is the author and not the Holy Spirit, then Paul's writings aren't inspired.
> 
> So..articulate an actual argument against that if you can't.  Just calling it a "bad argument" is cowardice at best and dishonesty at worst.


I agree that Hebrews wasn't written by Paul.  I was less thinking in terms of the book we were talking about and more in terms of the fact that that's always the argument Ronin Truth trots out.  

I do think we should interpret the whole Bible through the lens of the whole Bible, though of course the New Testament illuminates the Old.

----------


## jmdrake

> Its not actually an argument.  Just a statement of fact.


I was being sarcastic.  That said I doubt Sola_Fide would agree with that "fact."  If he believes himself to be part of the "elect" then of course he must believe that there are other "elect" besides himself because the Bible is clear that more than one person on the planet will be saved.  That said, yes I'm being hyper literal here.  This thread has gotten extremely boring with Sola_Fide being unwilling to engage in honest debate.

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree that Hebrews wasn't written by Paul.  I was less thinking in terms of the book we were talking about and more in terms of the fact that that's always the argument Ronin Truth trots out.  
> 
> I do think we should interpret the whole Bible through the lens of the whole Bible, though of course the New Testament illuminates the Old.


Then maybe Sola_Fide is becoming Ronin_Truth because Sola_Fide is the one denying the obvious truth that the whole Bible should be used to interpret all of the Bible.  But if someone is going to elevate one part of the Bible over the other for the purposes of interpretation, should that part be the words of Jesus?  Seriously, if you think about it and you are honest with yourself, it is Sola_Fide who has made the bad argument.  I know you don't want to go against a TULIPer on this, but I see no other honest way around that for you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was being sarcastic.  That said I doubt Sola_Fide would agree with that "fact."  If he believes himself to be part of the "elect" then of course he must believe that there are other "elect" besides himself because the Bible is clear that more than one person on the planet will be saved.  That said, yes I'm being hyper literal here.  This thread has gotten extremely boring with Sola_Fide being unwilling to engage in honest debate.


OK.

I was being hyperbolic slightly but honestly I think OTC type people probably would damn everyone other than themselves if they actually knew everything about everyone other than themselves.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then maybe Sola_Fide is becoming Ronin_Truth because Sola_Fide is the one denying the obvious truth that the whole Bible should be used to interpret all of the Bible.  But if someone is going to elevate one part of the Bible over the other for the purposes of interpretation, should that part be the words of Jesus?  Seriously, if you think about it and you are honest with yourself, it is Sola_Fide who has made the bad argument.  I know you don't want to go against a TULIPer on this, but I see no other honest way around that for you.


I have no problem with going against Sola on stuff honestly.  Heck, he already thinks I'm going to become a Roman Catholic... lol  I'm almost certain he doesn't actually consider me a Christian although I would consider him to be one.

I am curious what, in this case, interpreting either Paul or Hebrews in the light of Jesus would change.  I'm not sure where you're seeing the two seem to say different things.  Because for you to need to interpret one in the light of the other you would need an apparent contradiction.

Although really my point was more that comparing you to Ronin Truth isn't really fair.

----------


## jmdrake

> I have no problem with going against Sola on stuff honestly.  Heck, he already thinks I'm going to become a Roman Catholic... lol  I'm almost certain he doesn't actually consider me a Christian although I would consider him to be one.
> 
> I am curious what, in this case, interpreting either Paul or Hebrews in the light of Jesus would change.  I'm not sure where you're seeing the two seem to say different things.  Because for you to need to interpret one in the light of the other you would need an apparent contradiction.


You don't need an apparent contradiction between the two for one to help explain the other.  What you need is an unclarity in or or a way that one can be interpreted differently for one to explain the other.  Now you don't see a contradiction in the two.  Guess what?  I don't either.  But there is a contradiction in what you and I believe both are saying.

Here's the deal.  What is meant by "called" and what is the effect of being "called?"  Jesus said "Many are called but few are chosen."  So, if we believe there is no contradiction, and I agree with you on that, then called can't mean what Sola_Fide thinks it means or it doesn't have the effect that Sola_Fide thinks it has.  People can be called but not ultimately chosen.  So, Jesus mediating for everybody doesn't mean that everybody is chosen.  So what does chosen mean?  In the parable where Jesus used that phrase, He was talking about salvation.  This was the parable of the wedding feast.  Wedding garments were given to the "good and bad" signifying no matter how good you think you are you are not good enough to get into heaven.  You *cannot get in based on your good works*.  So then we get the one person that shows up not properly dressed.  The king asked "Friend, why did you not come with a wedding garment on?"  The man was speechless.  That signifies that he had no excuse.  If he had not been offered a garment his excuse would have been "Because nobody offered me one."  The fact that he showed up shows that he was "called" as in "invited to the feast."  But he wanted to come on his own terms.  Thus he wasn't chosen.

Jesus mediates for the saved and the unsaved.  As Lamentations says "It is the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed."  The people who are not consumed right now include the people who are not ultimately chosen.  In the parable of the fig tree, Luke 13, the gardener told the owner who was ready to cut the tree down to allow the gardener to work with the tree longer to see if it would bear fruit.  But if it didn't bear fruit it would be cut down.  That is a type of mediation.  But it's mediation for people who could ultimately be saved or lost.  Moses once interceded on behalf of all of Israel when God threatened to wipe them out and start over with Moses.  Moses said "If you will wipe them out then wipe me out from the book."  (See Exodus 32).  Moses putting his very soul on the line for Israel was a type of Christ's mediation and ultimate sacrifice for us.  Many that Moses mediated for were ultimately slain by God later on, and all save Caleb and Joshua died without stepping foot into the promised land.

So no.  It's not a contradiction between the two passages.  The way Jesus uses "called" helps clarify the meaning of how Hebrews uses "called" and what ultimate conclusion can be drawn from that.  You are free to disagree with that conclusion, but it does flow logically.




> Although really my point was more that comparing you to Ronin Truth isn't really fair.


Okay.  Maybe I misread you on that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You don't need an apparent contradiction between the two for one to help explain the other.  What you need is an unclarity in or or a way that one can be interpreted differently for one to explain the other.  Now you don't see a contradiction in the two.  Guess what?  I don't either.  But there is a contradiction in what you and I believe both are saying.
> 
> Here's the deal.  What is meant by "called" and what is the effect of being "called?"  Jesus said "Many are called but few are chosen."  So, if we believe there is no contradiction, and I agree with you on that, then called can't mean what Sola_Fide thinks it means or it doesn't have the effect that Sola_Fide thinks it has.  People can be called but not ultimately chosen.  So, Jesus mediating for everybody doesn't mean that everybody is chosen.  So what does chosen mean?  In the parable where Jesus used that phrase, He was talking about salvation.  This was the parable of the wedding feast.  Wedding garments were given to the "good and bad" signifying no matter how good you think you are you are not good enough to get into heaven.  You *cannot get in based on your good works*.  So then we get the one person that shows up not properly dressed.  The king asked "Friend, why did you not come with a wedding garment on?"  The man was speechless.  That signifies that he had no excuse.  If he had not been offered a garment his excuse would have been "Because nobody offered me one."  The fact that he showed up shows that he was "called" as in "invited to the feast."  But he wanted to come on his own terms.  Thus he wasn't chosen.
> 
> Jesus mediates for the saved and the unsaved.  As Lamentations says "It is the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed."  The people who are not consumed right now include the people who are not ultimately chosen.  In the parable of the fig tree, Luke 13, the gardener told the owner who was ready to cut the tree down to allow the gardener to work with the tree longer to see if it would bear fruit.  But if it didn't bear fruit it would be cut down.  That is a type of mediation.  But it's mediation for people who could ultimately be saved or lost.  Moses once interceded on behalf of all of Israel when God threatened to wipe them out and start over with Moses.  Moses said "If you will wipe them out then wipe me out from the book."  (See Exodus 32).  Moses putting his very soul on the line for Israel was a type of Christ's mediation and ultimate sacrifice for us.  Many that Moses mediated for were ultimately slain by God later on, and all save Caleb and Joshua died without stepping foot into the promised land.
> 
> So no.  It's not a contradiction between the two passages.  The way Jesus uses "called" helps clarify the meaning of how Hebrews uses "called" and what ultimate conclusion can be drawn from that.  You are free to disagree with that conclusion, but it does flow logically.


OK, I sort of disagree with you and I sort of don't.  I think Sola takes predestination too far, but I still think being "chosen" is monergistic.  Ill give more detail later once I've thought about how I want to formulate it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK, I sort of disagree with you and I sort of don't.  I think Sola takes predestination too far, but I still think being "chosen" is monergistic.  Ill give more detail later once I've thought about how I want to formulate it.


What do I take too far?

Predestination is that God ordains all things for His own glory.  Monergism is that salvation is wholly of the Lord.  What's wrong with these two biblical concepts?

----------


## jmdrake

> What do I take too far?
> 
> Predestination is that God ordains all things for His own glory.  Monergism is that salvation is wholly of the Lord.  What's wrong with these two biblical concepts?


Taking your beliefs too far would be wanting them enshrined into law and enforced by the government which is something you *don't* do.  You and I can both think the other is a heretic while not wanting to burn the other at the stake.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Taking your beliefs too far would be wanting them enshrined into law and enforced by the government which is something you *don't* do.  You and I can both think the other is a heretic while not wanting to burn the other at the stake.


Well, that I agree with.  That would be unbiblical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm gonna ignore all the stupid snide comments about heresy (which BTW is not the issue at discussion here) but I'll respond to this.



> What do I take too far?
> 
> Predestination is that God ordains all things for His own glory.  Monergism is that salvation is wholly of the Lord.  What's wrong with these two biblical concepts?


In my opinion the affirmation of equal ultimacy and rejection of common grace are probably your biggest errors on this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Taking your beliefs too far would be wanting them enshrined into law and enforced by the government which is something you *don't* do.  You and I can both think the other is a heretic while not wanting to burn the other at the stake.


I was talking about the belief itself not the lengths to which one would go for them,  Seriously can you ever stay on topic without bashing theonomy in a thread?  LOL!

----------


## Dr. Dog

> Taking your beliefs too far would be wanting them enshrined into law and enforced by the government which is something you *don't* do.  You and I can both think the other is a heretic while not wanting to burn the other at the stake.


If murder is illegal, why shouldn't propagation of idolatry and false religions be illegal as well? One can make the case that the latter is even worse, since it has consequences beyond just the temporal. Murdering someone does not damn them to eternity in hell, but guiding them towards idolatry will damn them for eternity. You are essentially murdering their soul. 

In my opinion, both warrant the death penalty.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In my opinion the affirmation of equal ultimacy and rejection of common grace are probably your biggest errors on this.


What's the error?  The Bible beyond a shadow of a doubt teaches that the reprobate have been predestined to their destruction:




> 1st Peter 2:7-10
> 
> Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
> 
> “The stone the builders rejected
>     has become the cornerstone,”
> 
> and,
> 
> ...


How much clearer can that be?  The disobedient ones stumble because they were destined to stumble.




> Romans 9:21-24 
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
> 
> What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, *bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?* What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?


How can a Christian read the Bible and not believe that God predestines people, not just allows them to go, for destruction?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If murder is illegal, why shouldn't propagation of idolatry and false religions be illegal as well? One can make the case that the latter is even worse, since it has consequences beyond just the temporal. Murdering someone does not damn them to eternity in hell, but guiding them towards idolatry will damn them for eternity. You are essentially murdering their soul. 
> 
> In my opinion, both warrant the death penalty.


I have to spread some rep. before I can rep you again but seriously this.

I'm open to the possibility of lesser penalties in cases where the offender is unbaptized (thus not a covenant-breaker) but I agree in general with this.  (I think its possible that the opening lines of Deut 13 are meant to imply that the offender is a covenant member although I could be wrong there, similarly there's a case law that specifically applies to covenant breakers in Deut 17)




> What's the error?  The Bible beyond a shadow of a doubt teaches that the reprobate have been predestined to their destruction:
> 
> 
> 
> How much clearer can that be?  The disobedient ones stumble because they were destined to stumble.
> 
> 
> 
> How can a Christian read the Bible and not believe that God predestines people, not just allows them to go, for destruction?


I agree with that but equal ultimacy goes further and says God is just as active in causing the sin of the reprobate as by causing the regeneration of the Christian.  IIRC that would be what you teach.  I don't think that's Biblical.

----------


## erowe1

> If murder is illegal, why shouldn't propagation of idolatry and false religions be illegal as well?


They are illegal, according to the only law that actually exists and isn't made up by human beings, God's law.

And the penalty for them is death.

But God reserves the administration of that penalty for himself. He has not delegated it to us.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm open to the possibility of lesser penalties in cases where the offender is unbaptized (thus not a covenant-breaker) but I agree in general with this.  (I think its possible that the opening lines of Deut 13 are meant to imply that the offender is a covenant member although I could be wrong there, similarly there's a case law that specifically applies to covenant breakers in Deut 17)


This assumes that baptism entails entry into a covenant in which the participants agree that they will be subject to the death penalty administered by other human beings if they henceforth go on to propagate idolatry. What is your biblical basis for that assumption?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This assumes that baptism entails entry into a covenant in which the participants agree that they will be subject to the death penalty administered by other human beings if they henceforth go on to propagate idolatry. What is your biblical basis for that assumption?


The whole debate about circumcision that we had earlier.

----------


## Dr. Dog

> But God reserves the administration of that penalty for himself. He has not delegated it to us.


Did God not delegate the authority to administer the death penalty in Deuteronomy 13:5?

----------


## erowe1

> The whole debate about circumcision that we had earlier.


That's a pretty bold position to take with zero biblical support.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's a pretty bold position to take with zero biblical support.


I had Biblical support and I gave it to you, I'm just not restating it all again because I know you have made up your mind on this.

----------


## erowe1

> Did God not delegate the authority to administer the death penalty in Deuteronomy 13:5?


He delegated it to very specific people under very specific circumstances. Notice the bold that I provide in the quote from Deuteronomy 13 below:



> “If there arises *among you* a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives *you* a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 *you* shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 *You* shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; *you* shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order *to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage*, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall *put away the evil from your midst.*
> 
> 6 “If *your* brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or *your* friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices *you*, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ *which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers*, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 *you* shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall *your eye* pity him, nor shall *you* spare him or conceal him; 9 but* you* shall surely kill him; *your hand* shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And *you* shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice *you* away from *the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.* 11 So *all Israel* shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this *among you*.
> 
> 12 “If *you* hear someone *in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell in*, saying, 13 ‘Corrupt men have gone out from *among you* and enticed* the inhabitants of their city*, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods”’—*which you have not known*— 14 then *you* shall inquire, search out, and ask diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination was committed* among you*, 15 you shall surely strike *the inhabitants of that city* with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it, all that is in it and its livestock—with the edge of the sword. 16 And you shall gather all its plunder into the middle of the street, and completely burn with fire the city and all its plunder, for the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again. 17 So none of the accursed things shall remain in your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of His anger and show you mercy, have compassion on you and multiply you, *just as He swore to your father*s, 18 because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments *which I command you today*, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God.


That passage is given directly to Israel, as a nation occupying the promised land, and allows for no expansion beyond that.

I would add though, that if you do believe that it applies to us today, then you should accept the duty to go around killing these false prophets right now as a private individual, just as this passage commands.

----------


## erowe1

> I had Biblical support and I gave it to you, I'm just not restating it all again because I know you have made up your mind on this.


It did not, and no you didn't. You're kidding yourself.

----------


## Dr. Dog

> He delegated it to very specific people under very specific circumstances.


You're contradicting your previous post.




> But God reserves the administration of that penalty for himself.

----------


## erowe1

> You're contradicting your previous post.


No I'm not.

The specific people and circumstance that obtained in Deuteronomy 13 do not obtain now. I didn't claim that God has never authorized anyone to administer the death penalty on anyone else for propagating idolatry. I only claimed that he doesn't now do that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It did not, and no you didn't. You're kidding yourself.


That is not an argument so whatever.

----------


## erowe1

> That is not an argument so whatever.


If you had some biblical support, I could give arguments against it. As it stands there's nothing to argue against. You just have this make believe idea about baptism being entry into the covenant that God made with Israel on Sinai. There is nothing that approaches a biblical basis for it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I had Biblical support and I gave it to you, I'm just not restating it all again because I know you have made up your mind on this.


It amazes me that someone like yourself who always wants to dig down to the truth of things is being so intentionally blind on this.  Your verses were explained 10 different ways to you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you had some biblical support, I could give arguments against it. As it stands there's nothing to argue against. You just have this make believe idea about baptism being entry into the covenant that God made with Israel on Sinai. There is nothing that approaches a biblical basis for it.


No I don't think that.  Its not the exact same covenant.  I would see more continuity than any baptist, I do see the Old Covenant as an administration of the overarching covenant of grace, but the new covenant has greater revelation and thus better.

But I've given you my arguments.  You just don't take them seriously as arguments.  OK whatever.  I guess everyone at Westminster Assembly was not worth refuting.  No, you're so much better than all of them that you don't even owe them a response.  Oh well.



> It amazes me that someone like yourself who always wants to dig down to the truth of things is being so intentionally blind on this.  Your verses were explained 10 different ways to you.


The explanations are weak and too literalistically on what the passage outright spells out, and do not focus enough on the intended meaning of the texts.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No I don't think that.  Its not the exact same covenant.  I would see more continuity than any baptist, I do see the Old Covenant as an administration of the overarching covenant of grace, but the new covenant has greater revelation and thus better.
> 
> But I've given you my arguments.  You just don't take them seriously as arguments.  OK whatever.  I guess everyone at Westminster Assembly was not worth refuting.  No, you're so much better than all of them that you don't even owe them a response.  Oh well.
> 
> lanations are weak and too literalistically on what the passage outright spells out, and do not focus enough on the intended meaning of the texts.


Too literalistic?  That's bizarre, don't you think?  Shouldn't a person read the Bible in the way that the writers of the words meant for them to be understood?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Too literalistic?  That's bizarre, don't you think?  Shouldn't a person read the Bible in the way that the writers of the words meant for them to be understood?


Yes, which is my point.  When you read 1 Corinthians 7, and you think about the context of the entire bible, holy children being covenantally apart fits with the whole big picture view of the BIble.  But instead you want to nitpick that it doesn't literally spell that out and act like it supports your view.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, which is my point.  When you read 1 Corinthians 7, and you think about the context of the entire bible, holy children being covenantally apart fits with the whole big picture view of the BIble.  But instead you want to nitpick that it doesn't literally spell that out and act like it supports your view.


So the context, in which Paul is not talking about any covenent at all, is not relevant?   That's "too literal" to just read what Paul is saying to the Corinthian church in its context (what is a lawful marriage)?  

That's just not what a Christian can do when he reads the Scripture.   That's what Mormons do.  They read in all their outlandish theology in to the text instead of taking what the verse means in its context.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> ... the affirmation of equal ultimacy and rejection of common grace...


Are there many Reformed who take these positions, CL?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are there many Reformed who take these positions, CL?


No but I think the PRC does.  At the least the PRC would deny common grace.  I know Nang would as well. I disagree because of Matthew 5:43-47




> So the context, in which Paul is not talking about any covenent at all, is not relevant?   That's "too literal" to just read what Paul is saying to the Corinthian church in its context (what is a lawful marriage)?  
> 
> That's just not what a Christian can do when he reads the Scripture.   That's what Mormons do.  They read in all their outlandish theology in to the text instead of taking what the verse means in its context.


Look to the greater context of all of scripture and draw proper implications.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> No but I think the PRC does.  At the least the PRC would deny common grace.  I know Nang would as well. I disagree because of Matthew 5:43-47


I've never even seen the phrase equal ultimacy in PRC articles, but there may be some.  Denying common grace makes sense to me.  

Robert Harbauch, writing for a PRC publication

"Then what, in effect, is an affront to this doctrine of God's holiness is the human invention of "common grace." This philosophy is an insult to the very nature of God, especially in the property of His holiness, since that virtue is the glory of every perfection of His being. God in His holy nature has an infinite and transcendent separation from the creature, but especially from the fallen creature, while at the same time He enjoys an exclusive separation (dedication) unto Himself. His own absolute (incommunicable) holiness is the innate property of His being and the rule of all His actions, but "common grace" makes God by nature common. It makes Him something other than God. It blunts and blurs the sharp, clear, beautiful facets of His holiness we see in His transcendental separateness, inaccessibility (I Tim. 6:16), and inapproachability.

Also one of the root meanings of the Hebrew word for holiness means "to shine" from which we get the adjective "new." God's glory (holiness) always has a new shine, a blazing splendor. So there cannot possibly be anything common about God's grace (or any of His virtues). Still, "common grace" would, in effect, put God not in separation from but in connection with the wicked world, so that those who are in God then have a nice bridge over into the kingdom of this world and all it affords, its mad pleasures and ungodly, unbiblical science. "Common grace" is the very opposite of and obliterative of sanctification and holiness of life—of both God's and the life of the saints. "Common grace" also stands in opposition to God's holy law, which is a transcript of His nature, and therefore of His immutable detestation of sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So the context, in which Paul is not talking about any covenent at all, is not relevant?   That's "too literal" to just read what Paul is saying to the Corinthian church in its context (what is a lawful marriage)?  
> 
> That's just not what a Christian can do when he reads the Scripture.   That's what Mormons do.  They read in all their outlandish theology in to the text instead of taking what the verse means in its context.


Paul assumes the concept of covenant childen and argues for the lawfulness of the marriage in part based on the assumption. And you're just like "nope, he doesn't literally say covenant so I don't have to believe it."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Paul assumes the concept of covenant childen and argues for the lawfulness of the marriage in part based on the assumption. And you're just like "nope, he doesn't literally say covenant so I don't have to believe it."


No he didn't.   He positively, absolutely did not assume that concept, in any letter, because he says over and over again that faith is what the new covenant is, not lineage.  Christians are Abraham's children by faith, not by lineage.  This is the difference between the old and new covenants.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was talking about the belief itself not the lengths to which one would go for them,  Seriously can you ever stay on topic without bashing theonomy in a thread?  LOL!


The belief that you have that God allows, nay *requires* you to support taking your belief that far is itself a belief.  You cannot separate that from your belief itself anymore than a radical muslim can separate how far he believes God wants him to take his belief.

----------


## jmdrake

> If murder is illegal, why shouldn't propagation of idolatry and false religions be illegal as well?


Are you asking me from a legal standpoint or a Christian standpoint?  From a legal standpoint, the constitution was set up to avoid the insanity of the religious wars in Europe where Catholics killed protestants for heresy and protestants killed Catholics for idolatry.  You *seriously* want to return to that garbage?  From a Christian standpoint Jesus made it clear in the parable of the wheat and the tares and multiple other places that His followers would not go around punishing sinners.  In the parable of the wheat and the tares Jesus said the field represents the world (not the "visible church" like theonomists falsely claim), that the wheat represents the righteous and that the tares represent the wicked.  The servants in the parable asked "Can we not just pull up the tares now?"  The master said "No because you might pull up some wheat with them.  Let the wheat and tares grow together.  Then at the harvest we will separate them out."  Jesus made it clear that the harvest was the final judgment and that the angels would separate the wheat from the tares.  The death penalty for moral crimes in the old testament was nothing more than a shadow of the final judgment and at the crucifixion of Christ it was suspended until the final judgment.  Those seeking to kill in the name of religion are going against Jesus.




> One can make the case that the latter is even worse, since it has consequences beyond just the temporal. Murdering someone does not damn them to eternity in hell, but guiding them towards idolatry will damn them for eternity. You are essentially murdering their soul. 
> 
> In my opinion, both warrant the death penalty.


Your attempt to usurp the authority Jesus reserved for the final judgment by wanting to kill those who teach "false religion" is itself a form of idolatry but I'll leave that to Jesus to punish.

----------


## jmdrake

> Paul assumes the concept of covenant childen and argues for the lawfulness of the marriage in part based on the assumption. And you're just like "nope, he doesn't literally say covenant so I don't have to believe it."


In that same passage Paul said the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving spouse.  He made no difference between the unbelieving spouse and the child.  So unbelievers are part of the covenant?  You just ignore the parts of the Bible that don't support your belief system.

----------


## jmdrake

> Did God not delegate the authority to administer the death penalty in Deuteronomy 13:5?


Hello.  You are quoting the old covenant.  Please look at the words of Jesus in the new covenant.

_John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Luke 9:49-46 
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.



Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
.
.
.
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear._

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In that same passage Paul said the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving spouse.  He made no difference between the unbelieving spouse and the child.  So unbelievers are part of the covenant?  You just ignore the parts of the Bible that don't support your belief system.


Even if they were they'd be cut off per Hebrews 6.

----------


## jmdrake

> Even if they were they'd be cut off per Hebrews 6.


Hebrews 6 isn't talking about spouses.  That said, actually quote the part of Hebrews 6 that you think supports your argument and explain why.  I'm betting you don't have a coherent argument but prove me wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> Paul assumes the concept of covenant childen and argues for the lawfulness of the marriage in part based on the assumption. And you're just like "nope, he doesn't literally say covenant so I don't have to believe it."


I know you have to tell yourself this in order to maintain the pretense that you're getting your ideas from the Bible, rather than imposing them onto it. But I can't believe that in your heart you honestly believe this.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

This will probably seem like a silly question, but if God already chose the elect why is there any need for mediation?

Occam's Razor, y'know...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> This will probably seem like a silly question, but if God already chose the elect why is there any need for mediation?
> 
> Occam's Razor, y'know...


Trouble maker.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This will probably seem like a silly question, but if God already chose the elect why is there any need for mediation?
> 
> Occam's Razor, y'know...


Because God's law needed to be fulfilled.  If God's law was not fulfilled, then God wouldn't be just and holy.  Jesus fulfills the law for the elect so that they stand before God as though they never sinned.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know you have to tell yourself this in order to maintain the pretense that you're getting your ideas from the Bible, rather than imposing them onto it. But I can't believe that in your heart you honestly believe this.


I honestly believe this.  I don't know why you have a hard time with that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I honestly believe this.  I don't know why you have a hard time with that.


But you don't believe it based on the New Testament, which is the problem.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But you don't believe it based on the New Testament, which is the problem.


Sometimes I'm not sure you and erowe actually believe the Old Testament 

More seriously sometimes I just think Baptists and Presbyterians have a different type of brain and thus can't understand each other by default.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sometimes I'm not sure you and erowe actually believe the Old Testament 
> 
> More seriously sometimes I just think Baptists and Presbyterians have a different type of brain and thus can't understand each other by default.


But you grew up in a Baptist church, right?  Your dad is a Baptist pastor.  So didn't you ever seek out the answer to that vital question?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But you grew up in a Baptist church, right?  Your dad is a Baptist pastor.  So didn't you ever seek out the answer to that vital question?


My dad is a baptist pastor, who you wouldn't get along with 

That said, we have discussed this at length.  He doesn't agree with me but he understands how I got to where I'm at.

----------


## pcosmar

> This will probably seem like a silly question, but if God already chose the elect why is there any need for mediation?
> 
> Occam's Razor, y'know...


There is an accuser. therefore, there is a mediator.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is an accuser. therefore, there is a mediator.


Except the accuser works for the judge according to TULIP theology.  So it's really just a farce and there is no need for a mediator.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Because God's law needed to be fulfilled.  If God's law was not fulfilled, then God wouldn't be just and holy.


But God is already just and holy, so why does His law need to be fulfilled?

----------


## erowe1

> Sometimes I'm not sure you and erowe actually believe the Old Testament


I do believe it. I just don't change its meaning the way you do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But God is already just and holy, so why does His law need to be fulfilled?


_Man_ needs God's law to be fulfilled.  If God's law is not fulfilled for that man, then the just and holy Judge will carry out justice against the violations of His law.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> _Man_ needs God's law to be fulfilled.  If God's law is not fulfilled for that man, then the just and holy Judge will carry out justice against the violations of His law.


But if a particular human is among the elect why does he or she need to have God's law fulfilled?  You're making it sound as if God's choosing that person to be one of the elect was insufficient, a curious notion given that God is omnipotent.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But if a particular human is among the elect why does he or she need to have God's law fulfilled?  You're making it sound as if God's choosing that person to be one of the elect was insufficient, a curious notion given that God is omnipotent.


Yes that's right.   God's choosing is inextricably tied to Jesus fulfilling the law for that person.  It's all part of how God saves a man.  The fulfillment of the law is important because God is a holy Judge who upholds the standards of His law forever.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Yes that's right.   God's choosing is inextricably tied to Jesus fulfilling the law for that person.  It's all part of how God saves a man.


Why?  An all-powerful God could simply decree that an individual is saved without anything more.  Why was it necessary to make Jesus suffer on the cross?  Going back to the potter metaphor, a potter simply saves or destroys the pots he creates; he needs to do nothing more.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why?  An all-powerful God could simply decree that an individual is saved without anything more.  Why was it necessary to make Jesus suffer on the cross?  Going back to the potter metaphor, a potter simply saves or destroys the pots he creates; he needs to do nothing more.


If you would have read and quoted the second part of my post, you would have seen the answer.

The cross is necessary because of God's law, and His holiness.  Jesus had to live a perfect life and have His righteousness imputed to the elect, so that the law would be fulfilled for them.  God never alters or lowers the standards of His law.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you would have read and quoted the second part of my post, you would have seen the answer.
> 
> The cross is necessary because of God's law, and His holiness.  Jesus had to live a perfect life and have His righteousness imputed to the elect, so that the law would be fulfilled for them.  God never alters or lowers the standards of His law.


Right.  Cause Jesus' blood is not all powerful thus atonement must be limited.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right.  Cause Jesus' blood is not all powerful thus atonement must be limited.


Is God all powerful?  Then why is not everyone saved?

The answer is:  God is all powerful and He _intends_ that Jesus' blood cover some and not others.

----------


## jmdrake

> Is God all powerful?  Then why is not everyone saved?


Because God has the power to grant man the power of choice.  Duh!




> The answer is:  God is all powerful and He _intends_ that Jesus' blood cover some and not others.


Nope.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because God has the power to grant man the power of choice.  Duh!
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.


Yep.   That is what the Bible teaches.  There is not one verse in the entire Bible that says "God gave man the power of choice".  Whenever I've asked you for the verse before, you never answer it, because you can't.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yep.   That is what the Bible teaches.


No it doesn't.




> There is not one verse in the entire Bible that says "God gave man the power of choice".  Whenever I've asked you for the verse before, you never answer it, because you can't.


I have multiple times.  You choose not to believe the Bible.

_Choose ye this day whom ye will serve...

Let us make man in our image_

That's just two.  Of course you will lie and say "God told man to do what cannot be done" or "God doesn't have the power of choice either" or "In God's image doesn't mean anything" or a myriad of other lies where you can pretend the Bible doesn't say what it says.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I have multiple times.  You choose not to believe the Bible.
> 
> _Choose ye this day whom ye will serve...
> 
> Let us make man in our image_
> ...


Where in either of those 2 verses, or any other verse in the entire Bible, does it say that God gave man the power to choose?

Alternatively,  how do you explain the dozens of passages and verses that say man doesn't have the power to choose?

----------


## jmdrake



----------

