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

Merits/Demerits of Reformed Theology VS. Jehovas Wittnesses.

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
    I affirm that the JW view of Christ is heretical. However, their ultimate 'fatal error' when it comes to salvation is putting their trust in an organization, rather than having true faith in Christ.
    What are the consequences of a "FATAL" error.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
      So, have we in effect found another version of the unpardonable sin. What you have in effect done is cast Jehovah’s Witnesses’ outside the possibility of salvation. Reformed theology misrepresent the nature, character and love of God to the point where God is no longer recognizable as presented in scripture. According to their deterministic views God caused Adam to sin, and has also been the cause of every sin committed subsequently... That would also lay the J W"s view of the deity of Christ straightway at the feet of God.
      Well, you would have to actually prove that the Reformed view of God misrepresents the nature of God.

      ...and I kinda getting the picture thats what you would like to try to do ?
      “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
        John 3:16King James Version (KJV)
        16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

        OK, let's take a look at your rendition to see if it had been translated your way, just how much sense would it make...

        John 3:16King James Version (KJV)
        16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that <whosoever>all the believing ones believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

        Makes no sense huh, now you need to fix the rest of the passage to receive your unique interpretation.
        Do believe there is a greek word for " whosoever " ? There isn't. It is a phrase thats being translated.

        In essense John is trying to convey the idea that those that believe will have eternal life. John 3:16 is not meant to be a commentary on the extent of who will be save per se. The immediate context is, just like those during the time of Moses who looked upon the serpent will be saved, so will it be for those that look to the Son.
        “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
          Immediate context takes precedent over extended context. Your conclusion makes no sense...
          Both are needed to get the full perspective of the author. The goal is to understand what the author is saying in its immediate context of course, but it is also helpful to understand immediate circumstances in which the author writes.
          “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
            A big issue is, of course, that immediate context should dictate prior to other Biblical references. And it should also be noted that Revelation was written by John as opposed to Paul.

            Although the Jews saw themselves as the 'chosen' people who merely were the recipients of God's grace and therefore salvation, Paul actually spends a good part of Romans dismantling this very nonsense. With that in mind, you can't reinterpret Paul's writings to be based on the very perspective he was speaking against and trying to correct.

            In other words, although historical context is important, we can't toss out literary context (historical background gives the setting, but can't be solely relied upon to determine the meaning)
            I whole heartly agree that we need to understand the immediate context. I was simply taking this one step at a time here.

            What you say about Paul is exactly the point that I was making. When Paul says in Romans 2 that " God does not show favoritism " Arminians mainly like to view this as a merely individual thing. When the context is that he is merely trying to express that God does not show favoritism by His including of the Gentiles in salvation. Pauls argument in the beginning chapters of Romans are to show that both Jews and Gentiles are just as sinful and in need of salvation as well.
            “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
              A big issue is, of course, that immediate context should dictate prior to other Biblical references. And it should also be noted that Revelation was written by John as opposed to Paul.
              Yes. Pauls letters and Revelations were written by two authors, but inspired by the same Holy Spirit. The scriptures are internally consistent and reveal one cohesive revelation from God. So in my beliefs, I would expect the different authors to express similar ideas. I do not believe that Paul and John are in conflict with each other.
              “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                Yep. It is interesting how I have had multiple conversations lately with someone who referred to 'context' - yet when pressed to look at the immediate context of a passage, either didn't know what to do or didn't want to. It seems that many people don't really understand the what context actually is.
                The " all " passages have been mentioned. I am curious as to what part of the context of those passages show that we should interpret " all " as every single person who has ever lived, or ever will ? In the Arminian view, " all " is Pharoah and the people of Noahs time. As well as the Amalekites and the Caanites.

                I am all for the context of a passage, but I don't ignore things like grammar and historical context. Our scriptures were not written in english, so sometimes we have to look at some nuances to really get at the heart of the text.
                “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                  In other words, although historical context is important, we can't toss out literary context (historical background gives the setting, but can't be solely relied upon to determine the meaning)
                  Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?
                  “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    dacristoy,

                    1 John 5:1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ."

                    Talking to a JW, the "Whosoever" are only the 144,000. Not the rank and file JW.

                    Reading a Catholic apologetics site, the "Whosoever" are only the baptized.

                    According to Calvinism the "Whosoever" are only God's elect. (Which happens to be true, and I'm not a Calvinist. My viewpoint is nevertheless Calvinistic on only two points of the T.U.L.I.P., the T and P.)

                    2 John 9, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." ( Here the "Whosoever" that "abideth not in the doctrine of Christ" are not the elect.)
                    Last edited by 37818; 09-27-2014, 10:53 PM.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
                      Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?
                      The word "world" is most accurately used as a non exclusionary phrase. It does not exclude anybody, that distinction is made above our understanding.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
                        Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?
                        It means that God is not a respecter of persons...
                        Acts 10:34

                        Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          dacristoy,

                          1 John 5:1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ."

                          Talking to a JW, the "Whosoever" are only the 144,000. Not the rank and file JW.

                          Reading a Catholic apologetics site, the "Whosoever" are only the baptized.

                          According to Calvinism the "Whosoever" are only God's elect. (Which happens to be true, and I'm not a Calvinist. My viewpoint is nevertheless Calvinistic on only two points of the T.U.L.I.P., the T and P.)

                          2 John 9, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." ( Here the "Whosoever" that "abideth not in the doctrine of Christ" are not the elect.)
                          The underlining principle must be that God's elect are chosen through faith. Whosoever hath faith is one of God's Chosen, none are chosen to have faith... They are chosen through faith...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            dacristoy,

                            1 John 5:1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ."

                            Talking to a JW, the "Whosoever" are only the 144,000. Not the rank and file JW.

                            Reading a Catholic apologetics site, the "Whosoever" are only the baptized.

                            According to Calvinism the "Whosoever" are only God's elect. (Which happens to be true, and I'm not a Calvinist. My viewpoint is nevertheless Calvinistic on only two points of the T.U.L.I.P., the T and P.)

                            2 John 9, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." ( Here the "Whosoever" that "abideth not in the doctrine of Christ" are not the elect.)
                            No disagreement on that, where I believe there is a fatal flaw in the Calvinist position is their belief that God created all, chose some for salvation, chose others for eternal damnation without any regard to anything pertaining to the person chosen... Personally I believe that God made salvation available to all that he created. Then chose faith as the way of salvation, then said "whosoever will let him come.

                            Saved by Grace through faith…. If you accept the Calvinistic belief of election, you must accept it as is, with all of its consequences and ramifications… Anything less is not Calvinistic… Even the worst lies must be mixed with a bit of truth mixed in to establish believability

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
                              Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?
                              In context of John 3, and other Yohanine literature - the use of 'world' is quite consistent.

                              The point is not to show the inclusion of the gentiles in John 3. In fact, in context that seems to completely miss the point. Rather, as is consistent with the rest of Yohanine literature, world is referring to literally the 'world'. That world includes everything - the broken system, broken people, the broken planet. IOW, God loves His creation -- so much so that He sent His only begotten Son.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                                The word "world" is most accurately used as a non exclusionary phrase. It does not exclude anybody, that distinction is made above our understanding.
                                I got no problem with that as a general expression.
                                “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

                                Comment

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