Earth is 9,000 years old, says Rep. Paul Broun, who sits on House Science Committee (start

[jmdrake]

But that's not what 1 John 2:2 says. It doesn't mention an offer of propitiation of sins. It mentions actual propitiation. And it says this propitiation is not for our sins only but also for those of the whole world.

Do you understand finance? I'm not being facetious here. If I write you a check to cover your debt, I've paid your debt. But if you never endorse the check or cash the check it doesn't get credited to your account. Now maybe you think a check is just an "offer" since the money isn't withdrawn from the account. Okay. Consider a money order. If I buy a money order to pay your electric bill, I've already drawn down the money from my account. The point is, that person A can actually pay the debt for person B, but that payment never be applied.

Now, go back and look at the original use of propitiation in the example of the temple services. When the blood got applied to the mercy seat, the sinner was deemed forgiven. But that sinner could still be cut off on the Day of Atonement if he did not put away his sin. The earthly tabernacle services were meant to foreshadow how Christ would lay down His life for us and mediate for us in the heavenly sanctuary.

When you say that it only applies to the those who accept (i.e. the elect), rather than actually the whole world, there's nothing about your own interpretation of that verse that doesn't comport with limited atonement.

Not true. My interpretation is that Christs blood was sufficient for every human being that ever lived or would ever live. Limited atonement is that His sacrifice was only sufficient for a select few. It's like the Titanic not having enough lifeboats, as opposed to a ship with plenty of lifeboats but some people choosing not to get on them.

Now, back to Romans 8:32. I will attempt, once again, to explain my position on that.

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Here is the Arminianist interpretation.

1) Christ's sacrifice is required for anyone to be saved.
2) Only those who choose Christ are ultimately saved. (The "us all")
3) The point being made is that if God gave Jesus to die, and if His death saved "us all", God will also give us anything else we need.

But notice this, Jesus told His own disciples "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." (John 16:24) James goes on to say "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4:3). So if you go with the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8:32 that "us all" automatically have Christ's blood applied even without asking, you must also go with the interpretation that "us all" receive "all things" without asking and also if we ask with the wrong motives. Thus you are forced into a contradiction with both Jesus and James.

 

[erowe1]

Not true. My interpretation is that Christs blood was sufficient for every human being that ever lived or would ever live. Limited atonement is that His sacrifice was only sufficient for a select few.

Some people might say that. I wouldn't. I would say that the atonement is limited in that only the elect are effectually saved by it. God's wrath is not on them any more. It has been propitiated. Christ's blood may be sufficient for every human being over all time (and I have no problem saying it was), but that doesn't mean that they are all saved by it, or that God's wrath is propitiated for them, such that he will not punish them for their sins.

Now, back to Romans 8:32. I will attempt, once again, to explain my position on that.

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Here is the Arminianist interpretation.

1) Christ's sacrifice is required for anyone to be saved.
2) Only those who choose Christ are ultimately saved. (The "us all")
3) The point being made is that if God gave Jesus to die, and if His death saved "us all", God will also give us anything else we need.

Right. And the contrapositive of that is that if he will not give us all things, then he did not give up his son for us.

According to Romans 8:32, the sense in which it talks about God giving up his son for people, is a sense that only applies to those who actually end up in Heaven.

 

[jmdrake]

Some people might say that. I wouldn't. I would say that the atonement is limited in that only the elect are effectually saved by it. God's wrath is not on them any more. It has been propitiated. Christ's blood may be sufficient for every human being over all time (and I have no problem saying it was), but that doesn't mean that they are all saved by it, or that God's wrath is propitiated for them, such that he will not punish them for their sins.

Okay. Well my position is that Christ's blood is sufficient for every human being over time but not all are saved (an acceptable position to yours) and that being part of the "elect" involves a conscious choice (I think that's acceptable to your position, though at times I'm confused as to what your position is). I believe, going from the example of the sanctuary services and the examples given by Jesus in the parables, that there are those who at one point were propitiated (no wrath of God upon them) but ultimately face God's wrath. (e.g. the servant who's debt was forgiven, but who chose not to forgive another servant's death).

Right. And the contrapositive of that is that if he will not give us all things, then he did not give up his son for us.

Careful. I believe you are falling into the "All dogs have four legs. It has four legs so it must be a dog" trap. The key is what does "He will give us all things" mean? It doesn't mean He will give us all things that we haven't asked for or "Ask and ye shall receive" is moot. It doesn't mean He will give us things that we want from a selfish motive or "You do not receive because you ask with selfish motives" is moot. So what's the other possible meaning? All things are available to us.

According to Romans 8:32, the sense in which it talks about God giving up his son for people, is a sense that only applies to those who actually end up in Heaven.

Christ died for the whole world. Only those who accept His sacrifice actually end up in heaven.

 

[matt0611]

Christ died for the whole world. Only those who accept His sacrifice actually end up in heaven.

Question, what of the people scattered throughout the world who lived in the time before Christ who did not know of the God of the Bible or the messiah to come?

He never sent them any prophets.

Did Christ die for them?

 

[Dr.3D]

Question, what of the people scattered throughout the world who lived in the time before Christ who did not know of the God of the Bible or the messiah to come?

He never sent them any prophets.

Did Christ die for them?

Are those people not the ones who worked in the vineyard for the shortest period of time but were still paid as much as those who worked the entire time?

 

[erowe1]

Careful. I believe you are falling into the "All dogs have four legs. It has four legs so it must be a dog" trap.

No. The analogy would be "All dogs have four legs. Therefore, if it doesn't have four legs it is not a dog."

Any time you have an if then statement that is true, its contrapositive must also be true.

With the if then of Romans 8:32, "If God gave up Jesus for us, then he will give us all things," the contrapositive is "If God will not give us all things, then Jesus did not die for us." As for what "all things" means, in the context of Romans 8, it means ultimate glorification. Thus, in the sense intended by Romans 8:32 the only people God gave Jesus up for are the ones who end up glorified.

 

[jmdrake]

No. The analogy would be "All dogs have four legs. Therefore, if it doesn't have four legs it is not a dog."

Nope. That's what you think you are saying, but it isn't what you are saying.

Any time you have an if then statement that is true, its contrapositive must also be true.

Except you put forth an incorrect contrapositive.

With the if then of Romans 8:32, "If God gave up Jesus for us, then he will give us all things," the contrapositive is "If God will not give us all things, then Jesus did not die for us." As for what "all things" means, in the context of Romans 8, it means ultimate glorification. Thus, in the sense intended by Romans 8:32 the only people God gave Jesus up for are the ones who end up glorified.

The "for us" is qualified and the "give us all things" is qualified. You can't get around the fact that, according to James, God does not give us "all things" by relying on a false contrapositive. Once you look at the broader context it makes sense and it fits James. Back up to Romans 8:28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Some things we might not like happen, but all things work out for the ultimate good to those who love God. And those who love Him are called according to His purpose. Yes God gave Jesus up for those who end up glorified. But that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't also pay the price for those who don't end up justified or that they don't have the same chance to be justified as those who end up justified.

 

[erowe1]

The "for us" is qualified and the "give us all things" is qualified. You can't get around the fact that, according to James, God does not give us "all things" by relying on a false contrapositive. Once you look at the broader context it makes sense and it fits James. Back up to Romans 8:28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Some things we might not like happen, but all things work out for the ultimate good to those who love God. And those who love Him are called according to His purpose. Yes God gave Jesus up for those who end up glorified. But that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't also pay the price for those who don't end up justified or that they don't have the same chance to be justified as those who end up justified.

I'm not sure how James relates to this any more than the bronze serpent does. We're talking about Romans, written by Paul. Whatever any other passage of the Bible says, we need to interpret Romans 8:32 in its own context. Romans 8:32 says that if God gave Jesus up for someone, he will also give that person ultimate glorification (or "all things"). In the sense Paul means in that verse, there are zero people for whom Jesus died who do not end up in Heaven.

If it is also the case that Jesus died for those who end up in Hell, then it must have been in some sense other than what Paul is talking about in Romans 8:32. There may be other passages that talk about that, and it may be that the aspect of the atonement those passages are talking about is unlimited. But Romans 8:32 isn't one of them, and the aspect of the atonement that it is talking about has to be limited.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure how James relates to this any more than the bronze serpent does. We're talking about Romans, written by Paul. Whatever any other passage of the Bible says, we need to interpret Romans 8:32 in its own context. Romans 8:32 says that if God gave Jesus up for someone, he will also give that person ultimate glorification (or "all things"). In the sense Paul means in that verse, there are zero people for whom Jesus died who do not end up in Heaven.

If we assume the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then understanding James is important for understanding Paul. That said, there are those who think James wrote his epistle specifically to countermand the errors coming from people misinterpreting Paul. (And some who think Paul was just flat out wrong.)

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So it is dangerous to take Paul's writings and interpret them without referring to other passages of scripture. When you compare scripture with scripture, the only interpretation of Romans 8:32 that makes sense to me is the one I already gave you.

If it is also the case that Jesus died for those who end up in Hell, then it must have been in some sense other than what Paul is talking about in Romans 8:32. There may be other passages that talk about that, and it may be that the aspect of the atonement those passages are talking about is unlimited. But Romans 8:32 isn't one of them, and the aspect of the atonement that it is talking about has to be limited.

Again, you are picking only one possible interpretation of Romans 8:32. I've explained to you ad naseum why that isn't the only, or even the best interpretation. As Peter said, Paul's writing are hard to understand and some people misinterpret them to their peril. The most straightforward interpretation of Romans 8:32 is that if God paid the price for our sins, will He not ultimately reward those of us who accept that salvation. While Romans 8:32 allows the interpretation you've chosen, it doesn't require it.

 

[erowe1]

If we assume the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then understanding James is important for understanding Paul. That said, there are those who think James wrote his epistle specifically to countermand the errors coming from people misinterpreting Paul. (And some who think Paul was just flat out wrong.)

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So it is dangerous to take Paul's writings and interpret them without referring to other passages of scripture. When you compare scripture with scripture, the only interpretation of Romans 8:32 that makes sense to me is the one I already gave you.



Again, you are picking only one possible interpretation of Romans 8:32. I've explained to you ad naseum why that isn't the only, or even the best interpretation. As Peter said, Paul's writing are hard to understand and some people misinterpret them to their peril. The most straightforward interpretation of Romans 8:32 is that if God paid the price for our sins, will He not ultimately reward those of us who accept that salvation. While Romans 8:32 allows the interpretation you've chosen, it doesn't require it.

I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, and I definitely don't think either James or Paul intentionally wrote to contradict the other. But each passage has to be understood in its own context. You can't just wipe Romans 8:32 out of the Bible because you think it goes against something in James. And I don't see anything in James that addresses the extent of the atonement anyway. You have never offered any argument against interpreting Romans 8:32 to mean just what it says. Nothing you have said about Romans 8:32 is an interpretation of that verse itself. You have merely repeated assertions about how your system of theology obligates you not to accept what it says.

Romans 8:32 is obviously a rhetorical question. The obvious understood answer to it is that, since God gave up Jesus for us all, he will not fail also to give us all things. If there were the possibility that someone could reply, "Not everyone whom God gave Jesus up for goes to Heaven." then the whole point of asking the rhetorical question would be lost. In Romans 8:32, the "us all" for whom God gave up Jesus, and those who accept that salvation and go to Heaven, are not two different groups, they are one in the same, perfectly coextensive, with not a single person who belongs to one of those groups and not the other.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, and I definitely don't think either James or Paul intentionally wrote to contradict the other. But each passage has to be understood in its own context. You can't just wipe Romans 8:32 out of the Bible because you think it goes against something in James. And I don't see anything in James that addresses the extent of the atonement anyway. You have never offered any argument against interpreting Romans 8:32 to mean just what it says. Nothing you have said about Romans 8:32 is an interpretation of that verse itself. You have merely repeated assertions about how your system of theology obligates you not to accept what it says.

Not true. I've offered countless arguments multiple times. You just don't accept them. That's fine. But saying I haven't offered any arguments is just dishonest. If you want to play that way, fine. You can have the last word. I'm done. But you are misinterpreting scripture. Further I said some believe that James wrote his epistle to countermand errors others had in interpreting Paul. How you got "contradict Paul" from that is a mystery to me. But that's probably the same way you missed the counter arguments I've given to your false interpretation of Romans 8:32. Peter made it clear that people were misinterpreting Paul way back then. So it only makes sense that apostles would try to clear up those misinterpretations. To ignore clear intent and falsely claim I'm trying to "wipe out" Romans 8:32, when all I'm doing is correcting a misinterpretation is disingenuous at best.

 

[erowe1]

Not true. I've offered countless arguments multiple times.

No you haven't. You've run around in circles going to this passage and that, but never Romans 8:32.

Also, you said, "If we assume the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then understanding James is important for understanding Paul." When I said I don't believe Paul contradicts James, that's what I was replying to.

As for the purposes of the respective books, I think it's more likely that Romans 4 was written to countermand false interpretations of James 2 than vice versa.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If Romans 8:32 in context is not speaking of election, what could it possibly be speaking of?

Romans 8:31-39 NASB

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?

Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written,

"FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG ;
WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED ."

But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Who can bring a charge against God's elect? It's a rhetorical question, because no one can bring a charge against them. Why:

1. Because God is the one who justifies them
And
2. Because Christ is interceding for them

God is not justifying every single person, and Christ is not interceding for every single person. If that were the case, every single person would be saved (unless you think that Christ's intercession can fail, and in that case you would have to prove that from the Scripture...especially since in this very passage Paul says that it cannot fail).

There is no other way to read this.

 

[jmdrake]

No you haven't. You've run around in circles going to this passage and that, but never Romans 8:32.

I know I said I was giving you the last word, but since Sola_Fide bumped this I read it again. And what you are saying is simply not true. I don't know how you can be so blatantly dishonest about this. In post #221 I specifically went over Romans 8:32.

Also, you said, "If we assume the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then understanding James is important for understanding Paul." When I said I don't believe Paul contradicts James, that's what I was replying to.

Fine. Then it makes no sense to say that you can't look at James to understand Paul. If they don't contradict than one scripture must be looked at in light of another. That is not "wiping out" Romans 8:32 whatsoever.

As for the purposes of the respective books, I think it's more likely that Romans 4 was written to countermand false interpretations of James 2 than vice versa.

We know for a fact that Peter wrote at least one of his epistles to counteract false interpretations of Paul's writings. We have no such statement from Paul about James writings or the writings of any other apostle. So it's more likely that other apostles wrote to counteract false interpretations of Paul than vice versa.

 

[jmdrake]

Question, what of the people scattered throughout the world who lived in the time before Christ who did not know of the God of the Bible or the messiah to come?

He never sent them any prophets.

Did Christ die for them?

Acts 17:32 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Ps 87:4-6
4 I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there.

5 And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her.

6 The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there.

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


God is perfectly able to account for people who have never had an opportunity to hear about Jesus. There is a knowledge requirement for sin.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No scientist has ever claimed that we are monkeys. A 3 year old can deduce we are apes, not monkeys (we no longer have our tail).

Claiming that Scientists believe the Universe - "exploded", shows you have literally no understanding of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion. As for "out of nothingness", that's not scientific language, that's biblical language. Once you're done studying Biology, you should start studying Astrophysics/Cosmology, so you don't look like a bible-thumping clown.

What field of science are you in? Archaeology? they usually don't know sh-- about other fields.

Of course if one wants a good once over from the mouths of babes....



The kids seem to like it.

Of course, I'm not without my own personal bias either. I do firmly believe that we are all created in "God's" image. Like others, my bias isn't toward those who claim to have found "him" but lean more toward the fact that I don't believe all of the questions have been asked either. That's the wonderful thing about organized indoctrination. it stifles critical thought. The flipside of that is that unlike those traditional scientific folk, I'm not so bold as to think that I've found "God" and that there is no sense in asking any further questions.

For now though, I'll agree that we are all created in "God's" image. Decipher "God" as one may wish, I guess. I prefer not to stop asking questions at the point of the lil old dude with the beard up in the clouds who wants to send you to the burning and scortching fires of this theoretical "Hell" because he loves you though.




It's a big forest. And while there are those who would remain content to sit under their own personal shade tree of choice while reading their favorite Book and without any notion at all to consider looking beyond it to actually see the entirety of the forest it must be considered that not all seeds fall from a single tree. That's important to understand. Sometimes a new tree sprouts. And then it drops seeds. Could be understood to be relative to Change as it truly transpires. Old trees die and fall. Is a good question as to whether or not that particular phenomenon is truly heard if'n one isn't there to listen. Or doesn't choose to be. Is just so...oh, I don't know...GMO'ish. Is that the right word? Could be as far as it relates to the critical thought department. Or lack thereof, to be clear. There's definitely something to be said about the fluke that is the natural seed that gets to grow beside it's counterparts despite the GMO shade they emit and in a manner meant only to block it's growth and subsequent reproduction.

It's interesting that some choose to throw around what Ron Paul's view is on the matter as a standard premise in assessing ones own view on liberty. I disagree with Ron on a few things but generally agree that liberty is a pretty good idea. Doesn't mean one's assessment on translation should default to recognizing Adam as opposed to the Atom though.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Bump. Awesome thread.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Bump. Awesome thread.

But not awesome for a good candidate. You want Broun to lose?

 

[Sola_Fide]

But not awesome for a good candidate. You want Broun to lose?

I've pretty much come to the understanding that politics is worthless. I'm more interested in ideas, in truth.

 

[Carson]

Earth is 9,000 years old, says Rep. Paul Broun, who sits on House Science Committee (star

I'm pretty sure I've got underwear that have been with me longer than that.