John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ
For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here.
I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-)
God be with you,
Dan
I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-)
God be with you,
Dan
Comments
out of the shoot I have to say that it is going to be hard for you to overcome Christ's own explanation while He lived in that then "present age" while we ponder yours in this "present evil age".
Here it is and please make an unequivocal explanation to refute Jesus's own Teaching:
Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,
Mat 13:25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
Mat 13:26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
Mat 13:27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?'
Mat 13:28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'
Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
Mat 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.
Mat 13:32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."
Mat 13:33 He told them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."
Mat 13:34 All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.
Mat 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."
Mat 13:36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."
Mat 13:37 He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
Mat 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.
Mat 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
You will have to come up with something powerful, alive and Life changing to refute Christ, don't you think?
What is your explanation to Christ's explanation? Was Jesus telling the Truth? Or are we to believe God sent Christ to save the sons of the devil?
Excellently summarized! I re-read it and thus managed to survive yet another boring day on my internship.
Considering you are so very good in explaining Arminianism- I actually see your explanations beat in effectiveness and clarity the ones in most published books I’ve seen - would you kindly help here when your time allows, please. Or Robert or any other kind helpful soul. :)
I got stuck trying to explain the issue of faith not being works. While we went as far with my forum opponent as agreeing that faith is not works (we can’t be saved by obeying Mosaic laws) I have to agree that faith is literally requires effort /energy , in a certain limited sense its work.
That resulted in general accusations of “ having the reason to boast”, choice means merit ,and such to which I answered that if anything ,faith is the realization of our total inability to save ourselves and it excludes pride, boastfulness but rather evokes the feeling of humility.
But that fellow on the forum seem to still see our faith as effort and work on our part, therefore giving us reasons to boast. Do you have any recommendations or advice here? Not as for winning the debate, it’s impossible, but I rather want to take the discussion further.
Thank you,
Odelia.
PS great debate with TF. Appreciate the gabs.You guys are a good match in terms of theological knowledge
“I got stuck trying to explain the issue of faith not being works. While we went as far with my forum opponent as agreeing that faith is not works (we can’t be saved by obeying Mosaic laws) I have to agree that faith is literally requires effort /energy , in a certain limited sense its work.”
I believe that I already took some time explaining how saving faith is not considered to be a religious work by THE BIBLE. If that is not sufficient for someone, especially one who professes to believe the bible, then nothing will be sufficient for such a person.
“That resulted in general accusations of “ having the reason to boast”, choice means merit ,and such to which I answered that if anything ,faith is the realization of our total inability to save ourselves and it excludes pride, boastfulness but rather evokes the feeling of humility.”
You gave the right answer. And how do I know? From lots and lots of experience. My job involves evangelizing and dealing with inmates (now about 6,000 of them). I preach and teach in prisons and it involves some of the hardest most sinful folks you can even imagine. And yet I have literally seen many times, how the power of God is able to change the hardest hearts, able to humble the most prideful people. And here is the key. When they convert to Christianity, it is always the same way: the Lord works on them and leads them to see their own sinfulness, their own need for a Savior from sin, the identity of that Savior/Jesus, their need to repent and turn from sin, etc. etc. etc. Now in every case I have seen people converted and transformed by the power of God, ***not once*** have I seen one of these men or women BOAST ABOUT THEIR FAITH. Not once. So the bible says saving faith excludes boasting and daily experience confirms it. I have seen and experienced these things first hand.
And this tells me something about the calvinist that you were having the discussion with: he/she has little or no experience in the real world actually evangelizing and seeing people come to the Lord. Only someone sheltered from the real world, not having seen the power of God to humble the hearts of hard and very sinful people/inmates, could claim that saving faith results in boasting. The person who claims otherwise than what scripture says and what experience confirms is simply a fool.
“But that fellow on the forum seem to still see our faith as effort and work on our part, therefore giving us reasons to boast. Do you have any recommendations or advice here? Not as for winning the debate, it’s impossible, but I rather want to take the discussion further.”
Faith is an effort on our part. God does not have the faith for us, or take over our bodies and cause us to have faith. Either we choose to trust or we do not make that choice. Regarding trying to further the discussion with a fool who keeps arguing contrary to scripture and has little or no experience evangelizing people, you cannot discuss things with a fool. A fool has their mind made up, and keeps pushing their own beliefs and agenda, no matter what the bible says or what the facts of experience show. Some of these calvinists really are fools when they claim that saving faith leads to boasting. You should ask them if saving faith led to boasting in their experience? And if not, why not? And these folks who make these claims don’t know about evangelism in the real world. They are quite good at pontificating from their computer screen and trying to develop all sorts of “logical” arguments for their calvinism/determinism, rather than actually getting out into the real world and evangelizing sinners who are in need of a Savior. These folks talk with lots of talk, but they do not walk the walk. If I were you and someone kept ignoring what the bible says about faith not being a work and they kept pushing their false claim that saving faith leads to boasting, I would just shake the dust off my feet and move on. The person is acting like a fool and has become a waste of time.
We should always have time and make an effort to answer sincere questions coming from people who really want to know the truth. But someone who has heard the truth and repeatedly ignores it and teaches contrary to it, may not be a person we want to use our limited time for.
Robert
God be with you in your internship. It will be good to have another Christian in the business world.
I plan on blogging through the topic of grace and conversion next. D.V., I will go over Charles Hodges' Systematic Theology on the subject of resistible/irresistible grace. So I hope to get into some detail on the questions you have asked.
For now, I will just make three quick points.
1. Faith doesn't save. God saves. So even if we could boast about faith (and we can't), we can't boast about saving ourselves.
2. Faith isn't good, in the same sense that the works of the law are good. God never repented and believed, nor did Adam in the garden, nor will we in heaven. Good works reflect God's holy character, but repentances and faith are not part of the image of God and Christ.
3. Most Calvinists (along with Arminians) think we choose during conversion. They define choices with CFW, we with LFW. But we both say people are responsible for their choices. So if we can boast, so can they.
For now, I think I should hold off on saying more till I start blogging through Hodge.
God be with you,
Dan
remember me and my request above?
Robert,
I too have been involved in prison and jail work, been a sworn Peace officer/ Capt/ Chaplain for me city's police department for several years years ago.
If you are saying you evangelize in prisons, that's not saying very much about true evangelism.
Can you like Paul say this:::>
Rom 15:17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.
Rom 15:18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience--by word and deed,
Rom 15:19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God--so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ;
Rom 15:20 and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation,
Rom 15:21 but as it is written, "Those who have never been told of him will see, and those who have never heard will understand."
To be fair, most folks in prison have a fairly good understanding why they are there and know all about the Lord.
It's like a friend who directs a "rescue" mission pointed out. He says to everyone who comes through the rescue mission door, "both of us know why you are here and the only way for us together now is to go up".
So, for what it is worth, I don't consider that work a badge of evangelistic honor, though I commend you for your ability to work with those with convictions.
I would that you would go a bit farther and find a place at Paul's table as quoted from Romans 15 above.
In any event, I am sensing maybe you guys are dodging my first post?
Would you deal with Jesus' explanation of the parable of the tares and the wheat?
if you would permit it I would touch on something in your post.
I, like Dan, came to Christ very early on, 1957; I was about 4 and a half when I was opened up to Jesus Christ.
I have been in active ministry since about 1975 and have been a part of seeing this Gospel of the Kingdom come since. I have had the priviledge of speaking into "pastors" lives dealing with just about everything imaginable when it comes to the Ten Commandments, Grace and Truth.
You said this above writing to Robert and it is to this I want to quote from Matthew and make a comment:
odeliya: I got stuck trying to explain the issue of faith not being works. While we went as far with my forum opponent as agreeing that faith is not works (we can’t be saved by obeying Mosaic laws) I have to agree that faith is literally requires effort /energy , in a certain limited sense its work.
Odeliya, on this point that you make, I would most certainly disagree with you.
Here is why. Consider what Jesus is saying:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Mat 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Either your experience is "truth" or Jesus' Words quoted are?
I would be happy to develop those verses if you like?
In any event, it would of interest to me to hear you explain them and square Jesus' promise to His followers with your characterization above that I highlighted in your response to Robert?
Here it is and please make an unequivocal explanation to refute Jesus's own Teaching:
Why would I want to try to refute Christ? He is the Truth.
I am not sure what aspect of the passage you would like me to address?
God be with you,
Dan
Sure, good points, and esp. the last one. Looking forward to your Hodges critique once it’s ready.
********************************
Robert,
I believe that I already took some time explaining how saving faith is not considered to be a religious work by THE BIBLE
I did precisely that, taking your explanation on Rom 4 and some examples and posting it as is, shamelessly plagiarizing the text without any editorial, which wasnt even necessary:)
Basically the entire C camp-don’t get me wrong, they are nice people and all very kind to me- replied with the old mantra ”if you made the choice, then you contributed in part to your salvation ” , some credit belongs to you.
So it's a stalemate at this point.I am sorry they dont get my point, but I know God is patient with me in what i dont understand yet, too :) so i guess, i will just wait maybe something more meaningful and debate-wise productive comes up.
God bless you richly.
O.
I, like Dan, came to Christ very early on, 1957; I was about 4 and a half when I was opened up to Jesus Christ.
That is a real blessing, I am happy for you brothers, it must have been a great experience to grow up a Christian kid. Glory be to God.
Here is why. Consider what Jesus is saying:
Mat 11:25-30 Either your experience is "truth" or Jesus' Words quoted are?
I would be happy to develop those verses if you like?
In any event, it would of interest to me to hear you explain them and square Jesus' promise to His followers with your characterization above that I highlighted in your response to Robert?
Robert and Dan surely know much more then I, but I would gladly offer my opinion if you kindly wish.
I don’t see anything in the currently discussed view that contradicts Matt 11 verses you presented. Please elaborate. Sometimes, if I may share the opinion, it is hard to debate by just giving Scripture, because one verse means one thing to one person, another to others. I have a running buddy , a Catholic woman, very well educated in religious matters, it’s amazing how often we see the same verse in completely different light.
So please, do present your point.
May God bless you richly.
O
you wrote this and I quoted some verses to refute something in the meaning of what you wrote:
odeliya: I got stuck trying to explain the issue of faith not being works. While we went as far with my forum opponent as agreeing that faith is not works (we can’t be saved by obeying Mosaic laws) I have to agree that faith is literally requires effort /energy , in a certain limited sense its work.
I will highlight the area of your words:[[I have to agree that faith is literally requires effort /energy , in a certain limited sense its work.]]
In light of these Words of Jesus:::>[[Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."]]
I would say something is wrong if you are characterizing the proclamation of the Gospel as:::> [requires effort /energy , in a certain limited sense its work.]
No, there is no effort on my part proclaiming the Gospel. "Faith" comes by "hearing" and "hearing" by the Word of God, not us.
I believe we make this proclamation difficult because we don't relate with everyone by "God's Faith" but we go beyond what is easy and light, the "burden" of the Lord and do that that literally makes it an effort.
That is why I said, either you are right and proclaiming is an effort or you are wrong because Jesus said this, quoting what I already have quoted:
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Does that make my point clear enough for you?
are you of a limited or unlimited atonement view?
I do not believe in unlimited atonement so thereby citing the verses from Matthew's Gospel that I did.
God did not send Christ to die for everyone. He Himself explains that in His explanation of the tares and the wheat parable to which the disciples came to Him privately asking Him to explain that one of the several He gave that day as recorded by Matthew.
michael
“If you are saying you evangelize in prisons, that's not saying very much about true evangelism.”
How is evangelizing in prisons not saying much about true evangelism?
“To be fair, most folks in prison have a fairly good understanding why they are there and know all about the Lord.”
This statement is false, the prisons, like the rest of the world, contains a lot of people who are very ignorant about the Christian faith and they do not “know all about the Lord.”
“So, for what it is worth, I don't consider that work a badge of evangelistic honor, though I commend you for your ability to work with those with convictions.”
Who said it was a “badge of evangelistic honor?
My point in referring to my experience wit inmates in my post directed to Odeliya was that I have seen many come to the Lord and not once were they boasting about their saving faith. So the calvinist claim that if people choose to have faith they will then boast is a false claim. It is false according to scripture and false according to our actual experience in evangelizing (in my case, in prisons).
“In any event, I am sensing maybe you guys are dodging my first post?”
You quoted bible verses that were not dealing with the topics being discussed here. You appealed to the parable of the wheat and tares which is not about free will or determinism or what this thread is about.
“Would you deal with Jesus' explanation of the parable of the tares and the wheat?”
Why should we if it is not dealing with the topics Dan is discussing on his blog?
Perhaps if you showed how it relates to the issues being discussed here, then we would not ignore you on this. Until you clarify what your point was in bringing up the parable, we cannot deal with your point. The parable is an explanation of the nature of the Kingdom of God on earth, that there would be a mix of both believers and nonbelievers on the earth right on up until the end when Jesus returns. The parable was not teaching on free will, compatibilism, whether or not God experiences agent causation or libertarian free will. So again, when you show how the parable relates to these topics, which are the topics Dan **is** actually discussing, then we can better respond to what you are trying to say.
Robert
“I did precisely that, taking your explanation on Rom 4 and some examples and posting it as is, shamelessly plagiarizing the text without any editorial, which wasnt even necessary:)”
I say it again, if the scripture is clear on something, in this case, that saving faith excludes boasting. That is explicitly stated and taught by the text of Romans 4. If someone then disagrees with that, there is not much else that you can do. They are rejecting scripture and as they claim to be believers, then what else can you do?
“Basically the entire C camp-don’t get me wrong, they are nice people and all very kind to me- replied with the old mantra ”if you made the choice, then you contributed in part to your salvation ” , some credit belongs to you.”
I am glad they are being nice and kind to you, that is as it should be, when christians are interacting with one another. The experience of myself and friends of mine has been quite different (for example - remember the guy calling himself "Magnus"?). This “mantra” that “if you made the choice, then you contributed in part to your salvation” gets old after a while. The fact is, when we put our trust in someone, whether it be the Lord or some else, we **are** in fact making a choice. And we **are** in fact making the choice. God does not make the choice for us, nor does He take over our bodies and then make the choice using our bodies and minds and wills. God does not control people in that way. When we are converted some where along the line there is also a prayer of acknowledgement that we are sinners and that we sinned against God and that we need forgiveness for these sins. This prayer is ALSO DONE BY US, should we be claiming credit for that as well? This calvinistic view gets ridiculous if they want to claim that any action we do is one which we may claim credit.
“So it's a stalemate at this point.I am sorry they dont get my point, but I know God is patient with me in what i dont understand yet, too :) so i guess, i will just wait maybe something more meaningful and debate-wise productive comes up.”
I disagree with you here, the problem is not that “they don’t get my point.” NO, they understand your point just fine, the problem is they are stubbornly rejecting the truth in order to defend and protect an unbiblical and false system of theology. Their not getting the point here is similar to the Jehovah’s Witness who does not get the point when we share bible verses that teach the trinity. It is not that the Jehovah’s Witness does not understand or get our point, it is that he is willfully remaining ignorant, willfully rejecting the truth. It is not a stalemate, it is attempting to persuade a made up mind that unfortunately is made up and fixed on an error. It is a freely made choice to reject the truth and instead choose to cling to an error. We have all done this at times, usually when we do so we are being stubborn about something.
Robert
Actually this particular thread is not on any of those topics. The title is John Owen – Death of Death in Death of Christ and it is discussing limited atonement. If you understand that then you would know the significance of Michael’s use of this particular parable.
I deleted my last comment because it had some things in it that were not germane to this comment.
Praise be to God
first off, I don't know who I am addressing here?
I posted my comments to Dan and Robert, you responded. hmmmmm?
But to the point:
Dan: This section discusses the reasons to believe the atonement is unlimited.
This section is referring to part 2 in your review of Owen's.
I cited the Bible to refute your position.
I am still asking you "Dan" to unequivocally respond to Jesus' explanation of the tares and wheat parable, of the parables mind you that the disciples, living human beings, Jews, questioned Him about.
You cannot develop an unlimited atonement argument with those verses in mind.
That's the point.
As I said in my first comments:
"You will have to come up with something powerful, alive and Life changing to refute Christ, don't you think?"
Ok, I await something more powerful, alive and Life changing then.
God sent Christ to save sinners.
This group, these sinners, are also identified as the "Elect".
This group does not include those Jesus clearly identifies as "tares".
The Gospel is preached to those for Whom He died and that does not include these in question here, "the tares".
God be with you now!
Michael
“Dan: This section discusses the reasons to believe the atonement is unlimited.
This section is referring to part 2 in your review of Owen's.
I cited the Bible to refute your position.”
And where IN THE TEXT of Matt. 13/wheat/tares parable does it discuss either limited atonement or unlimited atonement?
Where does the word atonement occur in that passage?
Where in that passage does it speak of Jesus dying for some, all, anyone?
“I am still asking you "Dan" to unequivocally respond to Jesus' explanation of the tares and wheat parable, of the parables mind you that the disciples, living human beings, Jews, questioned Him about.”
Natamllc you have brought up a passage whose concern is not with **any** atonement theory. So asking Dan to answer how the passage teaches unlimited atonement is not a fair challenge.
“You cannot develop an unlimited atonement argument with those verses in mind.
That's the point.”
The point of the parable has nothing to do with atonement theories, so it cannot be used to develop the unlimited atonement view. By the same token, it also cannot be used to develop the limited atonement view either. The fact is the passage is not dealing with the atonement issue.
“As I said in my first comments:
"You will have to come up with something powerful, alive and Life changing to refute Christ, don't you think?"
Ok, I await something more powerful, alive and Life changing then.”
Again this is not a fair challenge to Dan or anyone else who holds to unlimited atonement. You should not just take some scripture that involves the words of Jesus and then improperly use it to “proof text” some point that you want to make that has nothing to do with the text itself. If you are going to proof text like that, then any passage can be used to prove or disprove anything. Dan does not contradict something that Jesus said and Dan definitely does not contradict some supposed atonement teaching of Jesus in the wheat/tares parable, because the passage is not dealing with the atonement.
“God sent Christ to save sinners.”
And John 3:16 says that the Father sent the Son, Jesus to the WORLD (which is a group larger than just those who will eventually believe).
“This group, these sinners, are also identified as the "Elect".
This group does not include those Jesus clearly identifies as "tares".”
Both the “wheat” and the “tares” make up the WORLD for which Jesus was given (Jn. 3:16) and for whose sins he died for (1 Jn. 2:2). No where in the text of Matt. 13, the wheat/tares parable does it ever say that Jesus **only died for** believers/ the wheat. It says the wheat are his people, but it never says in that text that Jesus only died for the wheat.
Since it never says that, and the text is not dealing with the issue of Jesus’ atonement, Natamllc you are proof texting from a passage that does not speak on the issue of the atonement whether it is limited or unlimited.
“The Gospel is preached to those for Whom He died and that does not include these in question here, "the tares".”
Are the “tares” of Matt. 13, PART OF THE WORLD?
If so, then according to 1 Jn. 2:2 Jesus died for them as well: “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins [that would be the wheat] and not for ours ONLY [not just for the wheat] but also for those of the whole world [which would include the tares].”
If Jesus died for the ***whole world***, which is what the scripture does in fact say, then Jesus died for both the wheat and the tares.
Robert
PS – Mitch apparently takes the same position as Natamllc, so Mitch feel free to show us **from the text** of the wheat/tares parable that it is speaking about and teaching the limited atonement view.
So you chastise Michael for prooftexting and then proceed to grossly distort a text yourself by trying to use it as a prooftext for your view. Lol
Perhaps you should start with a simple question- who was the Apostle John writing too in this letter??? After you figure that out you may then want to look at all the ways that this same author uses the word world? Then you may want to consider what your shallow view of this Scripture verse would mean if your view were correct.
I will let Michael speak for himself for he is more than capable of answering you. I doubt you will understand. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Isaiah 6:9
Praise be to God
While we wait for Michael to reply I will leave you with Spirit breathed words to ponder.
Praise be to God
....No, there is no effort on my part proclaiming the Gospel. "Faith" comes by "hearing" and "hearing" by the Word of God, not us. I believe we make this proclamation difficult because we don't relate with everyone by "God's Faith" but we go beyond what is easy and light, the "burden" of the Lord and do that that literally makes it an effort.
That is why I said, either you are right and proclaiming is an effort or you are wrong because Jesus said this,
If you kindly re-read my post you will see that it's the reformed opponents from Calv. camp that were convincing me that faith is work and therefore gives us the reason to boast.
I dont think it is.
But it seems you agree with me, - great! ;)
O.
The fact is, when we put our trust in someone, whether it be the Lord or some else, we **are** in fact making a choice. And we **are** in fact making the choice. God does not make the choice for us, nor does He take over our bodies and then make the choice using our bodies and minds and wills.....
perfect point! Appreciate all the help, Robert.
O.
P.S. I am also interested in explantion from our dear C friends on parable related to LA.Even i *strongly* disagree with practice of building a theological theory based on an isolated parable.
This is not how jewish thought works, that would be more of a western, linear way of thinking to do that...
I suggest you take a look at reason 1, as it goes over 1 John 2 at some length. (link In the process, I studied ever use of the word "world" in the NT. The problem, you see, is not that “world” isn't sometime used to mean something less then everyone. Rather, the problem is that the word "world" is never used in the sense Calvinists use it. If the passages that speak of Christ's death for the world actually mean the elect throughout the world, they are the only cases of such a usage.
God be with you,
Dan
God be with you,
Dan
If your comments about Matthew 13 relate to the fact that some people ultimately perish, I suggest you look at the passages that teach Christ died for those that ultimately perish. (Reason #3 parts A, B & C)
If you mean something else, I ain't getting it. :-)
God be with you,
Dan
“I will let Michael speak for himself for he is more than capable of answering you. I doubt you will understand. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Isaiah 6:9”
The Isaiah passage was written with the unbelieving Jews as the intended audience (note the phrase “this people” which throughout the OT refers to Israel). And their lack of understanding and perception was not something they began with, rather, God kept speaking to them and they willfully were disobedient and did not listen or take heed. It is after repeated intentional ignorance and not listening that Isaiah writes Isaiah 9:6. Now that is what that passage is talking about properly interpreted and in its proper context. It was not a verse intended for believers who are part of the church nor is it intended to be used as a way of attacking other believers who hold different interpretations than you do.
You appear to be **aiming** that verse at me, explain how it applies to me.
Robert
PS – you said my interpretation of 1 Jn. 2:2 was “shallow.” How so? And are you saying that Dan’s interpretation is “shallow” as well?
And Mitch while you are at it, show us how Matt. 13 the parable of the wheat and tares discusses limited atonement, your view.
Yes Robert I think that Dan's and your interpretation of 1 John 2:2 is shallow. It is nice to know that you are closet universalist though, I will have to remember that.
As for Matt 13, my Lord has answered it enough. If you do not understand than I cannot help you.
And it also proves my use of Isaiah:)
Praise be to God!
I have stated unequivocally that Christ did not die for all mankind born into this present world but rather He died only for the Elect, the sons of the Kingdom, the sons of Light, to separate them out of the world.
I quoted Matthew's Gospel chapter 13 on the wheat and the tares about the explanation He gives why and added to it Matthew 24 and those passages.
Why can't you "simply" state unequivocally that Christ died for tares, those Jesus describes as sons of the devil sown into the world by the devil?
I have been through several debates on this already and am not convinced on your position about "who" is included in the definition of those in the "world" Christ died on the Cross for.
I can cite unequivocally Jesus' explanation and it is clear what He is saying and I hasten to say it contradicts your claim:
Mat 13:37 He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
Mat 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.
Mat 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
and:
Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
I will, if you request it, go into some things opened up to me regarding the "trees" planted in the Garden and the two trees, the Tree of Life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, both trees, by the way, do not have fruit bearing "seeds". These two trees were not planted in the Garden but as Scripture says where "in the midst of the Garden"?
Or maybe you can simplify your thesis and state unequivocally why you believe Christ died for all men including the sons of the devil and why He then contradicts Himself?
Don't you think Christians can disagree on subjects like this?
God be with you,
Dan
So you both take 1 John2:2 to mean that Christ is the *propitiation* of all people??? Again, a simple question is WHO was the Apostle writing too???
Yes and I don't know specifically, but whoever they were, they were true believers.
God be with you,
Dan
I have stated unequivocally that Christ did not die for all mankind born into this present world but rather He died only for the Elect, the sons of the Kingdom, the sons of Light, to separate them out of the world.
Yes, but the passage you cite doesn't say this or imply it.
God be with you,
Dan
thank you for pointing me correctly and interpreting what you meant.
I missed it. I stand corrected!
Faith without works is dead.
It's the works of "Faith" not "self works" that produces the "fruits"/"works" of Faith.
I am assuming we are now, or at least in my mind, I have in mind James' famous verse: "Faith without works is dead"? referring to the verse in the book of James?
first let me commend you for your tone towards me now!
Thanks.
I am for an agressive debate on subjects that edify and build us up and men and women of God as this is the foundational mission of Christianity:
Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
Eph 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Eph 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
I do believe and we prove it, that there is marked disagreement on some matters of least importance to the Salvation of the Saints and the Faith once delivered to the Saints to which is common to us.
I am not implying anyone herein is "not" saved or is of the devil!
I am rather engaging in here because I am still trying to understand what is the importance of which position it is?
Maybe you can give me an understanding of the severity of the matter if one side is wrong?
I am trained in Ministry and have ordination.
My training and ordination is somewhat fundamental and birthed out of the Jesus' revivals of the sixties and seventies.
The intelligence of the Reformation mindsets of Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Turretin, Goodwin and and and even to scholars of the last century and contemporaries of today way exceeds my small brain.
I am very simple minded and take things as I divide Scriptures, look at the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek original texts and then the texts that have framed up our present day Bibles.
One of the teachings my mentoring Teacher taught about "building" the Church is this.
The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ and there is no other foundation that can be laid and we are to beware of building on another man's foundation.
Secondly, it is Christ's call to introduce to us God's Names and His Love.
Third, God reveals to us His Vision.
Fourth, when we have firmly been established in the Truth/Jesus and filled with the Love of God and understand God's vision for us, our personal calling and election, then and only then should we proceed to number 5.
Fifth, doctrines, doctrines, doctrines, doctrines.
The point is most "young" or inexperienced Ministers like to engage others in "doctrines" first without adequately establishing the Apostolic order, 1. Jesus Christ, 2. God's Love, 3. God's Vision, 4. Unity and then 5. discussion about doctrines.
I have exercised myself this way and in this manner with you, Dan and more with you Robert so as to keep the dynamic between us in the unity of the Spirit in a bond of Peace.
Even still, as you have noted, it's been a bit strained at times.
Peace.
Here's my endeavor in Ministry when I am teaching brethren:
Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
My request is as always, lets endeavor to have discussion and disagreement but not at the expense of leaving out the God of Peace being with us in this back and forth!
Since the Apsotle says that
Christ is speaking to the Father in our defense would you say that Christ does this for the WORLD ie. for everyone that has, is and will be? If you do not believe that then on what grounds are you limiting the text to exlcude Christ from doing that for the world ie. everyone that has, is and will be?
I think that Michael has asked a good question, did Christ make a propitiation for the Devil and his children?
Praise be to God
I forgot to acknowledge you so here it is.
I like what you asked there about the Apostle in your latest post herein.
I will quote Jesus' in the exact moment of praying and wonder how limited atonement is not understood:::>
Joh 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
Joh 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
Joh 17:11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
Joh 17:13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
Joh 17:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
Dan, yes we can disagree on many things.
Then why the Is 9:6 reference? It could so easily be taken as accusing one of unbelief. I am not sure if that's what you intended, but I took it that way.
Since the Apsotle says that
Christ is speaking to the Father in our defense would you say that Christ does this for the WORLD ie. for everyone that has, is and will be?
No. Christ intercedes for believers alone.
did Christ make a propitiation for the Devil and his children?
No to the Devil, yes to his children (i.e. those who ultimately perish).
God be with you,
Dan
Exactly where in the text would you get that Christ is not speaking to the Father for the WORLD? Would not the context tell us that Christ is doing this for them and for the world, I certainly see the dilemma that your interpretation brings if you take the “world” to mean all that had, are or ever will be. I always find it amusing that Arminians say that they want to take the simple meaning of the text and then proceed to put unwarranted restrictions on what it does say.lol
What you are saying is that Christ propitiated for the sins of them and for the whole world (ie. Everyone that ever was, is or will be), but then you restrict who Christ is speaking to the Father for with no supporting argument derived from the text. Yet the Apostle tells us that Christ is the propitiation for them (meaning those whom this letter is written too, there is some scholarly support that would put the recipients to be Jews) and for the world (meaning all Christians throughout who ever were, are or will be) and that Christ is speaking to the Father for ALL of them. My interpretation does no injury to the text and does not put any unwarranted restrictions on what the Apostle wrote.
A careful study of the use of the word “world” and how it was used in Jewish thought and tradition would benefit all who wish to study and learn.
BTW, it appears that your answer to Michael about Christ dying for the tares would be “YES”. Much could be said about that, but that is for you two. My bone of contention was Robert’s abuse and misuse of 1 John 2:2. When I read his reply to Michael this verse immediately came to my mind
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:5, KJV)
Praise be to God!
Beams weigh more that motes! :)
The Prophet then:::>
Mat 23:24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
For me Dan, to say My Lord was sent to propitiate sons of the devil is a mouth full.
Dan, I am mouth opened wide though and willing to consider your "revelation" of the Knowledge of the Truth.
However, for me, my next move would be here with these two verses and the meaning of them:
Luk 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!"
Luk 10:18 And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luk 10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.
Luk 10:20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
and
Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
Heb 12:23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
Heb 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Heb 12:25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.
Heb 12:26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens."
Heb 12:27 This phrase, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of things that are shaken--that is, things that have been made--in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain.
Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe,
Heb 12:29 for our God is a consuming fire.
Thanks Mitch, I can hear my Lord's Spirit in your words!!!
I noticed you didn’t answer my question, but I will just say personal attacks are not allowed on this blog, so I am asking you to focus on the issues and please leave the rest out.
Exactly where in the text would you get that Christ is not speaking to the Father for the WORLD?
The text doesn’t say Christ is advocating for the world.
Would not the context tell us that Christ is doing this for them and for the world
No. We should not conflate advocation and propitiation. Christ advocates on the basis of being a propitiatory sacrifice, but they are not the same thing. Advocation is the request the Son makes based on His sacrifice. The sacrifice and offering (i.e. the propitiation) are for the whole world, but Christ only asks the Father to accept the offering for believers (i.e. advocation).
What you are saying is that Christ propitiated for the sins of them and for the whole world
No. You changed “is the propitiation” to “propitiated”. (i.e. from noun to verb). In doing so you accidently misrepresent what I am saying. Christ is the sacrifice that can cleanse, but the actual cleansing is brought about through advocation. The sacrifice was made for the world and it can clean the world, but it only actually cleanses believers.
Yet the Apostle tells us that Christ is the propitiation for them (meaning those whom this letter is written too, there is some scholarly support that would put the recipients to be Jews) and for the world (meaning all Christians throughout who ever were, are or will be) and that Christ is speaking to the Father for ALL of them. My interpretation does no injury to the text and does not put any unwarranted restrictions on what the Apostle wrote.
Besides passages that speak of Christ’s death for the world (or loving the world or coming to save the world…), can you cite any cases where world = “all Christians throughout who ever were, are or will be”?
As far as the addressees being Jews, there’s just not much to go by.
A careful study of the use of the word “world” and how it was used in Jewish thought and tradition would benefit all who wish to study and learn.
I wouldn’t mind reading a word study on “world”, if you have one in mind. Know of any that you liked?
God be with you,
Dan
For me Dan, to say My Lord was sent to propitiate sons of the devil is a mouth full.
Saying Christ died for everyone (even those that perish) is easy. That's just affirming scripture. Saying Christ died for me is hard. Why would He do that?
God be with you,
Dan
As for 1 John 2:2-
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
It is not me that is conflating anything here, lol. You do so by driving a wedge in the text trying to separate the two. An honest reading of the text shows that the Apostle is saying that Christ is the advocate for them and the “whole world”. You cheapen what Christ did on the cross when you write that Christ can cleanse. Dear Dan, Christ does more than just can, what he accomplished on the cross was real and true. Not some potential cleansing or possible cleansing. If you are his then your sins were nailed to that cross.
Show me and all here how you can separate the propitiation and the advocating done by Christ in this text? You will have to strive awfully hard to counter Spirit breathed words.
As for *all* these supposed verses that you think help you, I fear that you are abusing those as bad as you are 1 John 2:2. When it comes to who the letter was originally addressed to, a scholarly case can be made that this was addressed to a Jewish audience. It is important that you see how Jews used the word “world”. Again, this is a study that would be fruitful for any to embark on. It also would be beneficial to see all the ways that the Apostle John used the word “world”.
The problem that you have when it comes to this particular verse is that if you want it to say what you want it too then you have to say that Christ is the advocate for the whole world. By trying this slight of hands that you are attempting- separating the two- you grossly distort the text and the truth as revealed in Scripture. The burden is on you to show how exactly you separate what the Apostle writes here. As of yet you have not offered up any credible reason why the propitiation *accomplished* by Christ is to be separated from the ones that Christ is an advocate for to the Father. Perhaps you could point to sentence structure? Nope. Perhaps you could point to context? Nope.
BTW if you thought that the Isaiah verses were “personal attacks” then would that mean that the Matthew passage was also a “personal attack”? I pray that you do not see it as such, but I have to question your understanding on these matters when you mangle these verses and distort the truth as written the way that you have here.
Praise be to God!
Your argument to ad hominem ratio is too low. Either clean it up or move along. Last warning.
God be with you,
Dan
I have shown how your view on this verse is clearly wrong, I’ve not tried to change the subject, I’ve not attacked a characteristic of yours, I’ve addressed the subsatance of your argument. Yet I’m accused of “ad hominem” argument. Hmmm. You have me truly perplexed on this. How bout I stick to my last comment, the burden is on you to prove from this text how you can separate the propitiation from the advocating.My interpretation does no injury to the text and fits into the flow of the text and common Jewish usage.
Hopefully this will pass the “clean” test, if not the offer is still available for you or anyone else to email me and teach me how I can “clean it up”.
Praise be to God!
Mitch wrote: [[the burden is on you to prove from this text how you can separate the propitiation from the advocating.]]
Can you help me understand how this is a personal attack on anyone?
I might not be prophetic or able to go deep into the thoughts behind Mitch's thoughts, but I have to ask, doesn't he make a sound claim here?
I would though offer Scripture to show the advocacy and propitiation Mitch is pointing to which I have to say does make it difficult to understand your interpretation of the plain meaning of the Scriptures both of us, Mitch and I have put forward.
By the way, I was simply asking you to make an unequivocal statement to the cited verses I posited.
Here, in my judgment, and please correct me if I am missing it here, either of you guys, Dan, Robert or Mitch, I put this forward offering this to my claim:
Joh 17:11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
I choose this here because of His reference to the "son" of destruction.
I see both advocacy and propitiation preparation. Am I missing something?
michael
There are no indications in the text of 1 John that lead to the conclusion that the “us” of 1 Jn. 2:2 refers exclusively to Jewish Christians. Some NT letters (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians) were written to a specific city. Other letters were “circular” letters intended to be passed around to different churches (e.g. 1 Peter where Peter writes to those scattered abroad, so it is not written to just one congregation). 1 John is a circular letter intended for multiple churches. And we can be sure that those churches consisted of a combination of both Gentile and Jewish Christian believers. It is similar to when Paul wrote to the Romans, with the church being a mix of both Gentile and Jewish Christian believers. Since 1 John was a circular letter and intended for multiple churches, these churches would have included both Gentile and Jewish Christian believers.
Scholars have also noted that 1 John seems to be dealing with an incipient form of Gnosticism. This Gnosticism was not something developing in Israel but in the Roman Empire outside of Israel. If John was dealing with this problem in 1 John this is further evidence that the intended audience would have included churches consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers.
So it makes more sense to take the “us” of 1 Jn. 2:2 to be referring to Christian believers which would include **both** Gentile and Jewish Christian believers.
“It is not me that is conflating anything here, lol. You do so by driving a wedge in the text trying to separate the two.”
If the “us” refers to Christian believers both Jewish and Gentile, then the advocacy work of Christ mentioned in 2:1 refers to Christ’s work only on behalf of believers. And the propitiation work is in behalf of “us” (Christian believers both Jewish and Gentile) and “not for our only” (i.e., not just for those who eventually become believers) but also for the whole world (the human race being the scope of God’s provision of atonement through Christ).
“An honest reading of the text shows that the Apostle is saying that Christ is the advocate for them and the “whole world”.”
It is not a “dishonest reading” to suggest that the advocacy of 2:1 is in reference only to believers and the propitiation is in reference to both believers and the whole world. Again, this is the standard and majority view of all Christians (the exception being the calvinists who oppose the standard interpretation) throughout church history across all theological persuasions. It is not a question of honest versus dishonest readings. It is a question of the correct versus the incorrect interpretation of the text.
“You cheapen what Christ did on the cross when you write that Christ can cleanse. Dear Dan, Christ does more than just can, what he accomplished on the cross was real and true. Not some potential cleansing or possible cleansing.”
The non-calvinist does not “cheapen what Christ did on the cross”. This is a false charge and just a put down by calvinists. Jesus accomplished exactly what He wanted to do on the cross: he provided an atonement for the world; He made it true that God is both “just and justifier” (God maintained his holy character and the atonement of Christ gives God the right to justify whomsoever He desires to justify).
Regarding “potential”, the atonement of Christ has the potential to save any person who puts their faith in Christ alone for salvation. In this regard the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all. On the other hand, the atonement of Christ will actually be applied only to those who put their trust in Christ (with the possible exception of babies and small children, the mentally disabled and those who never have an opportunity to hear about Jesus). In order for something to be actual it must first be possible. A person can possibly be atoned for by the cross, but they are not actually atoned for until that person exercises a faith response to the gospel message. The cross if the provision of atonement, but that provision does not get applied to an individual until they have a faith response to the gospel message. No faith means no atonement.
“If you are his then your sins were nailed to that cross.”
If you are his, then the atonement is actually applied to you as an individual.
“Show me and all here how you can separate the propitiation and the advocating done by Christ in this text? You will have to strive awfully hard to counter Spirit breathed words.”
First, your interpretation is not to be equated with Spirit breathed words. Second, if your interpretation is mistaken and false as we believe that it is, then your striving to make the passage mean something other than it does mean, is doomed to failure. Third, from comparing scripture with scripture we find that the advocacy of Christ is **only** for believers. On the other hand, the atonement of Christ as a provision for human persons is for the whole world (both those who eventually come to faith and believe and those who never become believers). Verse 2:1 speaks of the advocacy work of Christ and clearly says it has reference to “us”, only to believers. Verse 2:2 then makes the point that Jesus as propitiation is not just for “us” (believers both Jewish and Gentile) but for the whole world.
“When it comes to who the letter was originally addressed to, a scholarly case can be made that this was addressed to a Jewish audience.”
I would suggest that the “scholarly case” that can best be made is that 1 John is a circular letter intended for multiple Christian churches consisting of both Gentile and Jewish believers. As such, the word “us” in 2:2 refers to believers who were both Jewish and Gentile.
“It is important that you see how Jews used the word “world”. Again, this is a study that would be fruitful for any to embark on. It also would be beneficial to see all the ways that the Apostle John used the word “world”.”
I think we are familiar with the various ways that “world” is used and the various meanings that it has. As Dan already pointed out, it never means “exclusively Gentile believers throughout the world”. It never has reference EXCLUSIVELY TO THE ELECT. When referring to human persons in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 it refers to the group of human persons who oppose God (and that group consists of both people who eventually come out of the world and become believers; and those who never come out of the world and remain unbelievers).
Robert
You have thoroughly surprised me with this last post!
Thanks!
You really are a kind brother when you are flowing with the Love of His Spirit when commenting or debating an issue that is close to your heart!
Having just given you praise, which by now I would think you would be shrinking in humiliation because of, right?, I want to touch on this you wrote and ask a big loaded question:
Robert addressing Mitch:[[Regarding “potential”, the atonement of Christ has the potential to save any person who puts their faith in Christ alone for salvation.]]
Can we find a place of agreement on this point?
Would you agree that the "work" of Faith, or the "fruit" of Faith is one hundred percent a "work" of God so that no one can boast but in the Work of Christ sent by God, God's Work of Faith, sent in the "power of the Holy Ghost" so that the Holy Ghost can do "His" "work of Faith" in those God sent Jesus to die for, the sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost as Peter address at 1 Peter 1?
Now that's a large question.
It is because of these "Words" of Jesus and for no other reason and to make clear what you mean when you further added these words to your idea: "who puts their faith in" .
Mat 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
You see, I may be mistaken about the Arminian "way" of "Faith without works", the famous James passage and that is this, Arminians believe the "potential" "Salvation" is for all humanity which is universiality and not "limited atonement"?
[[...the atonement of Christ has the potential to save any person...]
Am I mistaken to "add" meaning here?
I would add these words for the purpose of being "clear" or perspicuous.
Is it ok to say this is what you mean that the potential is for those God "Elects" and "Calls" out of the world only and these are the ones who have the potential to be saved?
I responded in a new post.
God be with you,
Dan
I hope my new post addresses your concerns.
God be with you,
Dan
It's the works of "Faith" not "self works" that produces the "fruits"/"works" of Faith.
...I have in mind James' famous verse: "Faith without works is dead"? referring to the verse in the book of James?
Sure, that is - the fruit of the Holy Spirit and true works of faith can only be present in the ones who are born of it.
Even it's opening another can of worms.. it is impossible for us humans to determine what is true fruit and what isn't.
My nonchristian sister who is very devoted to God(Adonai)and shows much of what is identical to the fruit of HS can be easily confused for a christian, unless you know.
I agree with your verses from James.However the debate about boasting was rather coming from C camp saying that A position makes faith work, and therefore, a reason to boast.
Dan said he will elaborate on that in the next critique of one of the reformed authors he plans to post.
I am willing to answer you,but I would rather wait for Dan’s review, he will undoubtedly do a much better job of it.
O.
My interpretation does no injury to the text and fits into the flow of the text and common Jewish usage.
That's a tricky beast, that common Jewish usage thingy.
The whole Judaistic idea of private interpretation based on worldly wisdom, reliance on mysticism and heavy influence of what passes for logic among talmudists makes tons of views equally valid.
I grew up as, what you in States call Reformed, those dont have unified theology on anything.Give 2 Rabbies the most innocent Torah topic/or a word to discuss and they are at each others throats in record time.
So i agree with you ," world" can be used in that sense you suggest, but there is no money in it, for there are enough jews that will argue for 5 different views.Depends who you ask.
Sort of like the modern academia- for enough grant money a prof and research lab will prove that the earht is flat ( or a cube,) perpetually warming/or cooling , according to customer order.
So we better of thinking in a christian ( gentile) fashion :))
O.