Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Limited atonement?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
    The reformers were heavily influenced by Augustine. But Augustine is not scripture. Augustine changed his views from time to time. That is why the principle of sola scriptura was so foundational to the Reformation.

    John 6
    35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; 38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.”

    OSAS does not deal completely with Jesus' theology here. I believe the concept of Perseverance of the Saints is a better theological option over something like OSAS.
    Gropper and Bucer (Reformers) would have agreed. Sanctification cleans a person from the inside out, and it does take time and diligence.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      So then, what DOES 1 John 5:18 say? I just checked 8 versions (including one German and one Japanese) - the meaning is the same in each, though the wording does vary. Which means either that a Biblical author's words have to be redefined to make them say what they're supposed to mean, or he meant what he said. The first option won't gain any traction. And that leaves the question, which can be presented in a variety of ways, hanging - which sin is impossible to stop doing? Which sin did Jesus (or any Biblical author) claim it was OK to continue doing? Which sin does the Holy Spirit not bestow the power on a believer to overcome?
      Near as I can tell - the New Testament requires the believer to exercise diligence, under the aegis of the Holy Spirit, to purify himself (1 John 3: 2b-4a; James 4:8). That is not expected to be an instant or immediate change, but one that progressively occurs - and it is not done without effort on the part of the believer.
      You can't read verses in isolation. You need to read them in the local context and in view of the other writings of the author and of other authors.

      Which sin is impossible to stop doing? I can think of at least one that every single Christian still does: Lying. How about that? Do you still lie? Do you know it is wrong? Do you still lie even knowing that you are doing wrong? I am betting you do. I can't think of any human being that doesn't tell a lie here and there.

      Is it IMPOSSIBLE to stop? No. But nobody does.

      And you still have the problem that if your interpretation of the meaning of 1 Jo 5:18 is correct then you are not saved and do not belong to God. Which you conveniently keep avoiding in your replies.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        I have already answered - but just in case the answer wasn't clear, the time will come when I can answer "yes" to that question. With due diligence, that will be within my life-time.

        .... so now my turn to ask, "have you been set free from sin?" or an even easier question ... "What sin is it impossible to stop committing?"
        Seeing as you think that it is possible to stop sinning completely within your life-time, how then do you understand 1 John 1:8?

        Scripture Verse: 1 John 1:8 ESV


        8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

        © Copyright Original Source



        John seems to speak of Christians as a whole here, including himself, and doesn't seem to make any distinction about where in you currently are in your Christian walk. On the contrary, the message seems to be that no matter how far you've come in your Christian walk and sanctification, as long as you're still wandering on this earth you are deceiving yourself if you think that you are in a state where you no longer sin.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          It is relevant to the requirement for holy living, which OSAS and SOLA FIDE claim to be impossible. The capacity to become saints (in the "having conformed themselves to holiness" sense) is affirmed by the Eastern Church, and was affirmed by the Westminster Divines, and by John Wesley ... to mention but a few - the relevant term is Theosis.
          I don't know about what OSAS and SOLA FIDE claims to be impossible when they are put together, but SOLA FIDE by itself does not claim that holy living is impossible. Whether "faith alone" leads to the belief that holy living is impossible depends on what other beliefs you pair it with.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sentient 6
            The reformers were heavily influenced by Augustine. But Augustine is not scripture. Augustine changed his views from time to time. That is why the principle of sola scriptura was so foundational to the Reformation.
            I didn't post for you Augustine's view. I posted for you a view that Augustine recited, which he expressly said that he disagreed with. And the people adopting that view were relying on John 6 — sola scriptura.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              You can't read verses in isolation. You need to read them in the local context and in view of the other writings of the author and of other authors.
              Who'd have thought it? Buttigieg ignores the scriptures that speak against homosexual relationships whilst advocating scriptures that, without the prohibitions on homosexuality, might allow the practice. In Romans 7:14, Paul says that he is in the flesh - in Romans 7:5 "we were in the flesh..." and 8:9 "you are in the Spirit."
              So which is better?
              1/ Claim that Romans 7:14 shows that Paul is in the flesh; extrapolate "If Paul, then all," ignore Romans 7:5 and Romans 8:9?
              2/ Check the local and broader context, interpret each of those statements and all other relevant statements as a synthesised whole, then make a determination?
              The person who follows Buttigieg's pattern will do the first, and invariably claim that the person who does the second ignores context and engages in cherry picking.

              Which sin is impossible to stop doing? I can think of at least one that every single Christian still does: Lying. How about that? Do you still lie? Do you know it is wrong? Do you still lie even knowing that you are doing wrong? I am betting you do. I can't think of any human being that doesn't tell a lie here and there.
              What makes it impossible to stop lying? If someone claimed he didn't lie, would you - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - call him a liar? If I catch myself in a lie, I will correct it if possible, and endeavour and undertake to not do it again (that is called repentance). The intervals between lies increase. I could, of course, take the alternative course of shrugging and saying "well, I'm only human" - but self justification is a dead end.

              Is it IMPOSSIBLE to stop? No. But nobody does.
              Correct - maybe. I seem to recall something in scripture about people walking wholly in the Lord (which doesn't mean throughout their lives, just that they developed to a satisfactory conclusion). It comes down to a matter of choice - and a choice to lie would be a choice to disobey Christ - a choice to not put to death the deeds of the flesh. Love the lie or love the truth - which is the proper course? I admit to being inconstant, but I'm not going to deny that such things have been done despite the received power to avoid them.

              And you still have the problem that if your interpretation of the meaning of 1 Jo 5:18 is correct then you are not saved and do not belong to God.
              My interpretation? or your interpretation of my interpretation? When did I use any single verse as a proof text? I do use particular verses to show that interpretations of other verses are incorrect, in part or in sum, when the latter have used with disregard for the former, however.

              Which you conveniently keep avoiding in your replies.
              I haven't avoided them. If the answers I have given are unclear, they are irrelevant. Could it be that a person is saved BEFORE he has purified himself by the power of the Holy Spirit? It would be true to say that a person cannot so purify himself UNLESS he has been saved. But of course, the person who chooses to not purify himself might find that his blood is on his own hands.

              To people who consider their own sin offensive, the reality of the received ability to overcome sin and to live in purity is GOOD news.
              Last edited by tabibito; 05-23-2019, 01:59 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Who'd have thought it? Buttigieg ignores the scriptures that speak against homosexual relationships whilst advocating scriptures that, without the prohibitions on homosexuality, might allow the practice. In Romans 7:14, Paul says that he is in the flesh - in Romans 7:5 "we were in the flesh..." and 8:9 "you are in the Spirit."
                So which is better?
                1/ Claim that Romans 7:14 shows that Paul is in the flesh; extrapolate "If Paul, then all," ignore Romans 7:5 and Romans 8:9?
                2/ Check the local and broader context, interpret each of those statements and all other relevant statements as a synthesised whole, then make a determination?
                The person who follows Buttigieg's pattern will do the first, and invariably claim that the person who does the second ignores context and engages in cherry picking.
                Again, I have a hard time following your train of thought. You seem to just jump into something unrelated and expect that to answer what we are discussing about. Not sure what the heck you are talking about here.



                What makes it impossible to stop lying? If someone claimed he didn't lie, would you - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - call him a liar? If I catch myself in a lie, I will correct it if possible, and endeavour and undertake to not do it again (that is called repentance). The intervals between lies increase. I could, of course, take the alternative course of shrugging and saying "well, I'm only human" - but self justification is a dead end.
                And yet YOU STILL LIE. Everyone does. You asked me for some sin that it is impossible to stop. There you go. While not ACTUALLY impossible, I don't know anyone who has. Just like sin itself. It is theoretically possible for someone to live a sinless life. Nothing is actually stopping anyone from doing it. Yet only one person in the history of mankind has actually done it: Jesus.



                Correct - maybe. I seem to recall something in scripture about people walking wholly in the Lord (which doesn't mean throughout their lives, just that they developed to a satisfactory conclusion). It comes down to a matter of choice - and a choice to lie would be a choice to disobey Christ - a choice to not put to death the deeds of the flesh. Love the lie or love the truth - which is the proper course? I admit to being inconstant, but I'm not going to deny that such things have been done despite the received power to avoid them.
                I have no idea again what you are going on about. YOU were the one who claimed John was saying that if we belonged to God we would not sin. Yet you have admitted that we do sin. Even you.

                So either that means that

                1. John wasn't saying that anyone saved has stopped sinning,

                or it means that

                2. nobody is saved because we all still sin.

                Which is it? It is a simple question. Stop with all of the dodging and twisting.

                Which statement do you think is true?

                Comment

                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                Working...
                X