Are Jews saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Byzantine_Wolf said:
I’m not hostile at all. I don’t mind contrary opinion. What’s frustrating, however, is, as I said in my previous post, when I’m told I’m wrong and, after asking sincerely to be shown how, I’m given bluster and non sequitors - which, unfortunately, you provided again by leaping to anti-Protestant argumentation. However, as with Reformed theology, I haven’t even argued from any specific Protestant mindset. I haven’t even used any kind of argumentation similar to, “Well you’re saying that because you’re a Roman Catholic!” Again, I’ve only been arguing from scripture.

And again, the fact a person has to either run away from scripture the minute they’re asked to give some examples, or they refuse to respond to exegesis that reviews the scripture they believe proves their point and in fact leap to another discussion, is telling of someone’s theology. If there is indeed a consistent theology present, it should be seen in scripture rather than in personal opinion.
Click to expand...
LOL - thanks Byzantine. I echo Bryan’s comment.

Again - maybe we are just talking past each other.

My point is that in interpreting any particular verse of scripture, our understanding of other related verses is relevant. Thus, if my understanding of those “other related” verses is different than yours, it would not be surprising that our respective interpretations of the verses at issue (in the case, the two verses we’ve not discussed several times) will be different.

That is not running away from scripture interpretation - its the actual exercise of scriptural interpetation and harmonization of verses. I was paying you respect by acknowledging another theological perspective that would inform interpreation of these verses differently. Nothing more, or less, than that.

Blessings,

Brian
 
BryanM27 said:
And that, Byantine, is why I love having you here on CAF. It is refreshing to have someone come in and say this is what I believe and why, without adding that everyone else is wrong for believing different.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I’m always right, even when I’m wrong. G’fa ha ha ha ha :mad:

No I’m kidding. No really I am. No! Don’t report me to the mods! Noooooooooooo~ banned
Robbinson said:
My point is that in interpreting any particular verse of scripture, our understanding of other related verses is relevant. Thus, if my understanding of those “other related” verses is different than yours, it would not be surprising that our respective interpretations of the verses at issue (in the case, the two verses we’ve not discussed several times) will be different.

That is not running away from scripture interpretation - its the actual exercise of scriptural interpetation and harmonization of verses. I was paying you respect by acknowledging another theological perspective that would inform interpreation of these verses differently. Nothing more, or less, than that.
Click to expand...
Again, you quoted two unrelated verses and then when I replied with counter-exegesis, you started to talk about Reformed theology, which wasn’t the subject in any way, shape or form. I don’t really feel that one side has even attempted to present alternate interpretation when it’s barely touched upon.

Let me try to present it from the other side so that maybe I can be understood. Suppose this was a thread on another topic such as, say, papal supremacy (I’m not trying to detract from the topic, I’m just using this as an example for the sake of conversation). Imagine if our dialogue went like this.

You: "Actually there’s plenty of proof for papal supremacy. [Review of ten scriptural passages]
Naysayer A: “Actually, you’re taking those passages out of context.”
You: “How?”
Naysayer A: “No, see, you’re taking those passages out of context.”
You: “OK…how?”
Naysayer B: “Here, let me try. Here are two verses that prove our point.”
You: “Actually…[exegetical study for the negative]. And what about these verses I cited previously?”
Naysayer B: “Well of course you believe that, you’re a ROMAN CATHOLIC!”
You: "…wha? :confused: "

That’s about how I feel right now. Let me use another example, a refresher from what I had earlier. To the poster who had said, “Scripture isn’t clear enough,” I asked if it would fly if I told a police officer who pulled me over for speeding, “Well the speed limit sign wasn’t clear enough.” Now let me present another example.

Officer: “You know how fast you were going?”
Me: “Yeah, 80 MPH.”
Officer: “The speed limit is 55 MPH.”
Me: “Well I didn’t know that!”
Officer: “You sped right by the speed limit sign, it was clear as day.”
Me: “Yeah but it wasn’t clear enough.”
Officer: “How could it not be clear? It ‘speed limit’.”
Me: “But that other sign said ‘80’.”
Officer: “That was the interstate sign.”
Me: “Well I’m just taking all the signs into account here, and for all we know the speed limit could be 80…”

That’s what I feel we’re doing with scripture. Again, if we are going to call for a consistent theology, let’s be consistent with scripture. The verses I’ve cited at the beginning of this thread, which no one has addressed - they need to be addressed. They all relate to salvation. I can quote plenty more. To say “scripture isn’t clear” or “they’re being taken out of context” (with no demonstration) or jumping to other verses in general is not being consistent, if anything it’s avoiding the text.

So instead of arguing about why to deal with text, let’s just deal with text.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
What are you talking about? I’m always right, even when I’m wrong. G’fa ha ha ha ha :mad:

No I’m kidding. No really I am. No! Don’t report me to the mods! Noooooooooooo~ banned

Again, you quoted two unrelated verses and then when I replied with counter-exegesis, you started to talk about Reformed theology, which wasn’t the subject in any way, shape or form. I don’t really feel that one side has even attempted to present alternate interpretation when it’s barely touched upon.

Let me try to present it from the other side so that maybe I can be understood. Suppose this was a thread on another topic such as, say, papal supremacy (I’m not trying to detract from the topic, I’m just using this as an example for the sake of conversation). Imagine if our dialogue went like this.

You: "Actually there’s plenty of proof for papal supremacy. [Review of ten scriptural passages]
Naysayer A: “Actually, you’re taking those passages out of context.”
You: “How?”
Naysayer A: “No, see, you’re taking those passages out of context.”
You: “OK…how?”
Naysayer B: “Here, let me try. Here are two verses that prove our point.”
You: “Actually…[exegetical study for the negative]. And what about these verses I cited previously?”
Naysayer B: “Well of course you believe that, you’re a ROMAN CATHOLIC!”
You: "…wha? :confused: "

That’s about how I feel right now. Let me use another example, a refresher from what I had earlier. To the poster who had said, “Scripture isn’t clear enough,” I asked if it would fly if I told a police officer who pulled me over for speeding, “Well the speed limit sign wasn’t clear enough.” Now let me present another example.

Officer: “You know how fast you were going?”
Me: “Yeah, 80 MPH.”
Officer: “The speed limit is 55 MPH.”
Me: “Well I didn’t know that!”
Officer: “You sped right by the speed limit sign, it was clear as day.”
Me: “Yeah but it wasn’t clear enough.”
Officer: “How could it not be clear? It ‘speed limit’.”
Me: “But that other sign said ‘80’.”
Officer: “That was the interstate sign.”
Me: “Well I’m just taking all the signs into account here, and for all we know the speed limit could be 80…”

That’s what I feel we’re doing with scripture. Again, if we are going to call for a consistent theology, let’s be consistent with scripture. The verses I’ve cited at the beginning of this thread, which no one has addressed - they need to be addressed. They all relate to salvation. I can quote plenty more. To say “scripture isn’t clear” or “they’re being taken out of context” (with no demonstration) or jumping to other verses in general is not being consistent, if anything it’s avoiding the text.

So instead of arguing about why to deal with text, let’s just deal with text.
Click to expand...
LOL - you asked for scriptural support for the statement that we are only held accountable to the level of revelation made available to us (e.g., that we can be saved even if we don’t confess, by name, that Jesus is Lord). I offerred:

**John 9:41 (Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains. "); **(suggesting this showed us that if the Pharasees could “see” the truth, they are guilty but if they could not, they would not have "guilt) and

**John 15:22 (If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. ).(**suggesting this showed that had Jesus not made himself known to someone, they would not have guilt for not knowing him, if he did, they would have guilt).

You countered with an alternative interpretation of those verses based upon your understanding of immediate context. I countered by looking to other verses in scripture (I didn’t cite by verse reference but by concept as I assume you know scripture - but to humour you - here are a few of many similar verses) which suggest we can “choose” life (**Deut 30:19; Sirach 15:17;); **Jesus implores us to “repent” (which is a voluntary action of the heart) (**Matt 3:2) (Mat 4:17) (Luke 13:3) **(about 10 other similar verses) and that God desires all be saved **(1 Tim 2:4)**and thus, if we don’t “know the truth” and can’t choose, it drives me back to my interpretation of these verses.

I honestly don’t see how this is not a scriptural response. Once again - don’t you believe we must harmonize any particular verse with other verses of scripture?

You may disagree with my interpretation and may, or may not have a legitimate basis to do so. I attemped to explain “my basis” by reference to how I understand other verses and the larger message of scripture - you have refused to explain the same and have criticized me for the “fuller explanation” - that’s pretty funny.

Blessings brother 🙂
 
Robbinson said:
LOL - you asked for scriptural support for the statement that we are only held accountable to the level of revelation made available to us (e.g., that we can be saved even if we don’t confess, by name, that Jesus is Lord). I offerred:

**John 9:41 (Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains. "); **…

John 15:22 (If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. ).(…

You countered with an alternative interpretation of those verses based upon your understanding of immediate context. I countered by looking to other verses in scripture (I didn’t cite by verse reference but by concept as I assume you know scripture…)
Click to expand...
Sir, you have presented: (1) an outright lie, saying that you countered by looking to other verses (you most certainly did not unless you can show me the citations in this post, which was your response to my counter-exegesis); (2) an attempt to cover this by saying, “I didn’t cite by verse reference but by concept.” I’m sorry, if this is how you’re trying to backtrack from saying earlier, “I quoted several to you!” and then having to admit you only quoted “a few” (actually two), then it’s simply dishonest.

You did not even attempt to respond to my exegesis of the verses you cited. You went off on a tangent about Reformed theology. You didn’t cite scripture, nor did you respond to my argumentation. I’m sorry, but you didn’t offer a response.
Robbinson said:
I honestly don’t see how this is not a scriptural response. Once again - don’t you believe we must harmonize any particular verse with other verses of scripture?
Click to expand...
Yes I do, which is why I must ask you to respond to these verses, which I have presented over and over again throughout this thread and to which no one has bothered to post a response.
  • Matthew 10:32-33
  • John 1:12-13
  • John 3:18
  • John 5:38 (in relation to if Jews are saved)
  • John 5:45-46 (in relation to if Jews are saved)
  • John 11:24-26
  • John 14:6
  • Acts 4:11-12
  • Acts 17:30-31
These aren’t passages I’ve quoted “by concept,” but rather with full citations or reference, some in my responses to you. These are the passages I have presented to prove my point which I believe firmly establish salvation is through Christ alone with full accountability upon the believer. So far, no one has even pretended to respond. Jumping to other scripture is not responding (people at the time listening to Jesus would not have been able to jump to scripture). Show me, please, how my interpretation of these passages is incorrect.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Sir, you have presented: (1) an outright lie, saying that you countered by looking to other verses (you most certainly did not unless you can show me the citations in this post, which was your response to my counter-exegesis); (2) an attempt to cover this by saying, “I didn’t cite by verse reference but by concept.” I’m sorry, if this is how you’re trying to backtrack from saying earlier, “I quoted several to you!” and then having to admit you only quoted “a few” (actually two), then it’s simply dishonest.
Click to expand...
Yikes - that is an extremely uncharitable accusation (and not a fair one either). If you go back and read my posts (and I hope others here do given your really harsh and unwarranted statement) they are all charitable and in love and I cited the two verses I did here and cited the concepts referenced in scripture (God desires all be saved) and “choose life”). While I didn’t have a concordance with me when responding initially - I really did assume (my bad if I was wrong, but I don’t think so) that you would readily recognize “God desire that all be saved” and “choose life” and “repent”. I’m not “covering up anything” - why would I - we are in a disucssion between two brothers in Christ. I don’t lie about anything - and ceratinly not about scripture or to “win” an argument - that’s, frankly, ridiculous (and I can’t ever recall or imagine under virtually any circumstances my making that accusation to another in a Christian forum, or otherwise - I really am almost speechless from this last reply).:confused:
You did not even attempt to respond to my exegesis of the verses you cited. You went off on a tangent about Reformed theology. You didn’t cite scripture, nor did you respond to my argumentation. I’m sorry, but you didn’t offer a response.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry that you feel that way - I didn’t agree with your exegesis and explained now, several times in replies, why - because of my understanding of the larger message in scripture that speaks of “choosing life” God desiring we be saved informing my understanding of these verses. I actually used almost those exact words in the prior respones and then, out of intellectual honesty, acknowldged how I might read these 2 verses differnetly (e.g. your way) if I didnt’ believe in “free choice” and cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

If you step back (fairly), you will find my hand extended at every post, and accusation from you in almost every post:blush:

I think its time to move on - no hard feeling from my end - but you have reacted unfairly in this particular thread brother.

Blessings,

Brian
 
I presented evidence of my case, and if it came across as harsh I apologize, but all I’ve asked for is even just one of the verses I’ve presented to be addressed, and people are unable to, which leads me to again conclude it is all a man-made theology that has no basis in scripture, save where man wishes to find it while ignoring the rest. The fact is, when one reads the post I cited, no you didn’t quote scripture as you said you did, but that’s not the issue here. I’m trying to give a wake up call for people to really respond to these issues.

Quite frankly, when I see people unable to respond to scripture, it leads me in the opposite direction of which they wish to take me. If any goal here was to convert me to the semi-universalist concept I have criticized this entire thread, then it was gone about in the wrong way.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
I presented evidence of my case, and if it came across as harsh I apologize, but all I’ve asked for is even just one of the verses I’ve presented to be addressed, and people are unable to, which leads me to again conclude it is all a man-made theology that has no basis in scripture, save where man wishes to find it while ignoring the rest. The fact is, when one reads the post I cited, no you didn’t quote scripture as you said you did, but that’s not the issue here. I’m trying to give a wake up call for people to really respond to these issues.

Quite frankly, when I see people unable to respond to scripture, it leads me in the opposite direction of which they wish to take me. If any goal here was to convert me to the semi-universalist concept I have criticized this entire thread, then it was gone about in the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted - absolutely.

And I apologize if you do not find my responses (or those of others in this thread) satisfactory to you in approach or substance.

Blessings,

Brian
 
All I’ve been asking is for someone to please respond to my use of these verses:
Byzantine_Wolf said:
  • Matthew 10:32-33
  • John 1:12-13
  • John 3:18
  • John 5:38 (in relation to if Jews are saved)
  • John 5:45-46 (in relation to if Jews are saved)
  • John 11:24-26
  • John 14:6
  • Acts 4:11-12
  • Acts 17:30-31
Click to expand...
Again, all I’ve gotten is, “Well that’s out of context” (no explanation how), or, “You just need to read the Catechism” (I shouldn’t have to if the RCC is scriptural), or, “Well you just think that way because you’re Reformed.” I haven’t had anyone sit down and show me how my use of these passages is incorrect or taken out of context. As such, I have to reject any call that my theology is “inconsistent.”
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
All I’ve been asking is for someone to please respond to my use of these verses:

Again, all I’ve gotten is, “Well that’s out of context” (no explanation how), or, “You just need to read the Catechism” (I shouldn’t have to if the RCC is scriptural), or, “Well you just think that way because you’re Reformed.” I haven’t had anyone sit down and show me how my use of these passages is incorrect or taken out of context. As such, I have to reject any call that my theology is “inconsistent.”
Click to expand...
Ill try - if you play nice 🙂 - meaning I know you likely wont agree with these responses (but please respond with patience, love and respect :-)) - but they are how I interpret the scriptures and, as you can see by the responses, as I promised and noted in all of my prior replies, the interpretation is “informed” by my understanding of God’s “desire that all be saved”; asking us to “choose” life and asking us to “repent” (a voluntary knowing action).

Matt 10:32 (So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. )

Yes - we are saved when we acknowledge him - leads to obedience - but “deniel” implies understanding of who he is and rejection.

John 1:12-13 (But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. )

Again - yes, those who receive him are saved - this verse doesn’t say what happens to those who don’t know him thorugh no fault of their own.

John 3:18 (Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. )
Yes - this is a strong verse - again, it requires an interpretation of whether “not believed” means for any reason or implies “chose not to believe” - I believe invincible ignorance (never heard of Christ or is supernatually blinded) is not a “choise not to believe”.

John 5:38 (and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.)
Same issue - “do not believe” - if a choice, clearly there is guilt - this is why I keep going back to the two verses I cited (if he had not performed miracles to them, they wouldn’t have guilt and if they could “see” but denied him, they will have guilt).

John 5:45-46 (Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. )

Agreed -for those Jews who were not supernaturally blinded and for non-jews who don’t know the hebrew scriptures or never heard of Christ - yes - but again (for those, jew or gentile who never heard of Christ or those supernaturally blinded (God does talk about God causing Israel, in large part to have eyes but not see and ears but not hear), still leaves open the issue.

**John 11:24-26 (Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”). **

Agreed - this speaks to salvation for those who do believe (will lead to obedience of faith) but does not address those who don’t believe through invincible ingnorance.

John 14:6 (Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. )

Agreed - I believe that we all come to salvation through Christ, even those who don’t know His name - without Christ, there would be no way to the father for anyone.

Acts 4:11-12 (This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” )

Agreed - same response as above - it is Jesus who saves, not Baal or any other God - through is redemption on the cross and those who know of him and are not supernaturally blinded and “reject” him, are lost - those who never hear of him or are supernaturally blinded, are not “rejecting” him and are still saved through Him.

**Acts 17:30-31 (he times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” )**Agreed - we must “repent” - that is a “voluntary action of the heart” - if we don’t know of Jesus and/or are supernaturally blinded, I believe our repentance is based upon the level of revelation made available to us.

Blessings,

Brian
 
Yes, I’m aware of the argument “They just don’t know any better.” But here’s the thing…

Show me where that is in the passages.

In every single instance, you’ve had to read into the text to put that theology there, while at times ignoring the entire context of what is said openly and plainly. You even ignored the apostle Paul’s words “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,” saying “I believe our repentance is based upon the level of revelation made available to us.” That’s wonderful that you believe that, but according to the words of Paul (especially with the context of all that came before that verse), the apostles and early Christians didn’t believe that.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Yes, I’m aware of the argument “They just don’t know any better.” But here’s the thing…

Show me where that is in the passages.

In every single instance, you’ve had to read into the text to put that theology there, while at times ignoring the entire context of what is said openly and plainly. You even ignored the apostle Paul’s words “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,” saying “I believe our repentance is based upon the level of revelation made available to us.” That’s wonderful that you believe that, but according to the words of Paul (especially with the context of all that came before that verse), the apostles and early Christians didn’t believe that.
Click to expand...
Byzantine - 🙂

Again - I’m reading these verses “in conjunction” with (i) the two verses I’ve now identifed more than several times which I believe imply no guilt with invincible ingorance and (ii) the verses I’ve identified “in concept” several times and “specifically” a few posts ago re: God’s larger message of “desiring all be saved”; asking us to “chose” and recognizing that is paradoxically inconsistent with “no choice” for those who “don’t believe” because of either ignorance of the gospel or supernatural blinding.

I would say that your interpretation of these verses (while reasonable in looking at only these verses) is in direct tension with those other verses and concepts. Thus, alas, we disagree - but not without “reasonable basis.”

Once again - this is why I pointed out (and its important acknoledgement), that if I did not believe in “free will” and “free choice” to accept the Holy Spirit (e.g., if I didn’t interpret those other verses that way but believed in “election” - I would have no problem interpreting these verses your way. You consistently don’t want to go there, but I speculate that is your larger scripture view (which is ok - and is consistent with your view on these verses).

Anyway - I"ve been making sincere attempts to be responsive to you - including pulling out all these verses and typing them out at 10pm (since you gave cites without text) and explaining, consistently in all my posts, what I believe and why. I recognize you don’t agree - Lets celebrate our mutual love and devotion to Christ and both agree that for those who do believe in HIm it is our mission to share the gospel so that as many people as possible can come to know and Love him.

Blessings,

Brian
 
Robbinson said:
Again - I’m reading these verses “in conjunction” with (i) the two verses I’ve now identifed more than several times which I believe imply no guilt with invincible ingorance and (ii) the verses I’ve identified “in concept” several times and “specifically” a few posts ago re: God’s larger message of “desiring all be saved”; asking us to “chose” and recognizing that is paradoxically inconsistent with “no choice” for those who “don’t believe” because of either ignorance of the gospel or supernatural blinding.
Click to expand...
That’s jumping to a text again. A person listening to Peter speak in Acts 4 probably had no way of knowing what Christ said in the passages you cited in John 9. They didn’t carry around Bible apps on an iTouch so they could quickly go to a verse and say, “Oh! THAT’S what Peter means!” Likewise, if I say something now, you’ll have no way of knowing what I’m going to say a year from now to someone else under a completely different context - human conversation doesn’t work that way. Neither should we approach individual passages of scripture.

The paradoxes and tensions you speak of, I’m afraid, only exist with man-made tradition, not with those who allow scripture to speak. However, if you feel you have to read into text because our Lord was not a good public speaker, I allow you that opportunity.
Robbinson said:
Once again - this is why I pointed out…that if I did not believe in “free will” and “free choice” to accept the Holy Spirit (e.g., if I didn’t interpret those other verses that way but believed in “election” - I would have no problem interpreting these verses your way. You consistently don’t want to go there, but I speculate that is your larger scripture view (which is ok - and is consistent with your view on these verses).
Click to expand...
Again, I’m simply repeating what scripture says. None of these speak of election. If you mean I reject universalism in all its forms, yes I do - but even non-Reformed Christians do likewise.
Robbinson said:
I recognize you don’t agree - Lets celebrate our mutual love and devotion to Christ and both agree that for those who do believe in HIm it is our mission to share the gospel so that as many people as possible can come to know and Love him.
Click to expand...
The reason I am adamant about this is because what you are saying here negates the very purpose to “share the gospel so that as many people as possible can come to know and love Him.” Why should I bother, if I’ll only bring condemnation on themselves? After all, if they don’t know any better, God will forgive them. That’s what we have been taught.

Christ says He is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him - yet you tell me that a person can be saved by other ways, other truths, other sources of life, and that they don’t need Christ to go to the Father. That is an insult to our Lord and His divinity.

Christ said, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” He identified Himself as the very embodiment of the resurrection, in which believers will rise and enter into the presence of their Lord. Yet you tell me that Christ isn’t the resurrection and the life, and in fact millions of people out there have never needed Him to have eternal life. That is an insult to our Lord.

The apostle Peter, speaking of Jesus, said, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Yet according to you, a person can be saved under Mohammad, Vishnu, Buddha, or any other number of false gods all because “they don’t know any better.” That’s not only an insult to the sovereignty of our Lord, but the apostle Peter.

The apostle Paul, speaking of how men used to unknowingly follow false gods, said, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed…” Yet you tell me that, in actuality, God will keep overlooking that ignorance because it would simply be unfair to judge someone in that regard. That makes the apostle Paul a liar and a deceiver.

You might accuse me of being inconsistent, but there is nothing with being inconsistent in the theology, “God desires all men to be saved, and has brought about this salvation through His Son, Christ Jesus.” What’s inconsistent is teaching people, “There’s salvation in Jesus alone…um, unless you don’t know any better. I mean, He’s the only way to the Father, but you know, there are other ways if you just don’t read your Bible well enough.” There is nothing inconsistent with saying, “God desires all men to be saved, and so He has sent His apostles throughout the world so that all believing in Christ would be saved.” What’s inconsistent is teaching people, “Christ sent out his disciples to preach Jesus, but um…they didn’t have to, I mean, if someone doesn’t know Jesus they’ll still be saved…” That is all inconsistent. That is the kind of theology that leads to universalism and heresy (albeit the former is a version of the latter).

You can leap again and say, “Well that’s just your Reformed theology talking.” The fact is I haven’t done anything this entire thread except quote scripture. I’ve quoted scripture in context and only repeated what it said. You have quoted scripture and read into it, including taking what I’ve cited and read into it. When this is pointed out you say that it makes it consistent - no, it makes it consistent with your theology. I say this not out of spite but out of a demand for the truth.

There is only one way to God, and that is through Christ. Just as scripture beats that drum over and over again, so will I beat that drum over and over again.
 
Byzantine - you do like sarcasm, but I recognize you are passionate and that (passion) is a good thing. I’m not asking you to compromise your belief (not at all), only to temper your posts with love and patience (which isn’t easy for any of us in some of these ongoing exchanges late at night, I appreciate that).

Since I’ve been trying to answer your questions sincerely, though you disagree (strongly), please allow me to ask you a related question.

How do you harmonize 1 Tim 2:4 (who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.) , the various verses I cited where Jesus implores us to “repent” with salvation only being avaible to those who “believe” in Christ and “confess his name” in the context of:
  1. Those who never heard of Christ through no fault of their own; and
  2. Those supernaturally blinded by God to the truth? (Romans 11:8)?
Blessings,

Brian
 
I haven’t been sarcastic (or at least tried to be), I have merely reiterated what your theology is presenting. However, I’d be willing to respond to the passages you gave, if anything to further continue the discussion and show consistency. Here’s the passage you are referring to (in bold):

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. [1 Timothy 2:1-7]

The context here is actually stated in the previous verses. “I urge…supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people” (2:1), which is then followed by the context of “all people” for the prayers: “kings and all who are in high positions” (2:2). Paul then writes that this is good for God our Savior “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2:3-4). Yet then we talk about the context of “all people” - “for this,” Paul says, “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle…a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (2:7). “All people,” meaning Jews and Gentiles. Whenever the New Testament says “all people” it is often in this context, such as in John’s gospel (I use this as an example) when Christ says: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). Obviously if Christ meant “all people” literally, then He is a failed savior - but what He means (in the context that He is making reference to the Gentiles who were wishing to see Him at that moment) “all people” as in Jews and Gentiles. To many people in Paul’s world, the issue of salvation through God (and God alone) was to the Jews, but now, in the new covenant, it had been extended to the Gentiles. This is what Paul has had to clarify many times in his epistles, such as this here.

You see the problem is: (1) God has a desire which you confuse with His will - if God desires all people to be saved and likewise wills “all” (according to your definition) to be saved, then He is a failure of a God because millions have died without being saved; (2) the context of “all people” when looked under scrutiny is not literally every single person who ever lived, but “all people” as in Jews and Gentiles. No, I’m not reading into the text, I am simply clarifying what this means after having pointed out how the passage entire clarifies it.

Your quotation of Romans 11:8 is likewise very ironic, because it in fact proves my point - God wills that some be blinded and not be saved, and the salvation is given to those who believe. Let’s look at the full context here:

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” [Romans 11:7-8]

You see, in the previous verse, Paul says that “the elect” (the believers in God, not “nice people worldwide”) obtained what the Jews who had been hardened did not. This is why your theology is further inconsistent - you say God will go easy on people who don’t know any better, yet then you claim God intentionally makes sure people don’t know any better. You might try to argue here, “But clearly that means that some people weren’t hardened!” Yes, some people weren’t hardened - they were known as the elect, the ones who believed in God. Remember that earlier Paul had made mention of those Jews who remained faithful during the days of Ahab and concluded with, “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace” (Romans 11:5).

Again, nowhere in scripture is the “divine loophole” you and many others in this thread have argued for exists. It is simply unscriptural.
 
I suggest Byzantine change his name to Calvinist Wolf or Geneva Lobo or Continental Reformed Lupo! But after the conversion, the Byzantine thing just doesn’t work. I can’t picture a Reformed Calvinist with icons and a long ZZ Top beard :p:D
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I suggest Byzantine change his name to Calvinist Wolf or Geneva Lobo or Continental Reformed Lupo! But after the conversion, the Byzantine thing just doesn’t work. I can’t picture a Reformed Calvinist with icons and a long ZZ Top beard :p:D
Click to expand...
Geneva_Lobo…has a nice ring to it. 😃 Continental_Reformed_Lupo…not so much, sounds like a bad hotel breakfast. 😛

BTW, if you want to see Calvinist “icons,” check this out 😛
 
Nah that’s more Buddhist. It supports the concept of nothingness. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top