1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Acts2.21, Jun 17, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I was arguing against Penal Substituton Theory and that as the primary view. for all text.

    In every thread I affirmed substitutionary atonement (I said that the word "atonement" itself implies not only substitution but penal substitution). In fact, not only did I affirm substitution but I affirmed penal substitution (I agreed with MartinM that his definition of Penal Substitution was, in fact, biblidcal). We disagreed after that.

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,238
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry JonC...God as creator defines every created fact .He alone gives meaning to truth, sin,propitiation and every other revealed truth.
    This is taught clearly all through scripture

    2tim3:16, 1 cor2, psalm 119 etc.
     
    • Prayers Prayers x 1
  3. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    193
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not at all...

    Your argument is: "The fact remains that mankind is a subset in the universe. So as the term is used in the NT, one can get away with the argument that none of the usages disallow the meaning of that Greek term in the NT to mean mankind. Because mankind is a subset of the universe." (Source)

    What you are doing here is insisting that you--as the reader--get to choose the meaning of any given word within its semantic range, rather than take the author's meaning as determined by grammar, context, etc.

    Your argument is that mankind is a "subset" of kosmos and, as such, is included in the semantic range of the word. Mankind is indeed within the semantic range of kosmos but it is not because mankind is a subset of universe; it is because mankind is one possible meaning of kosmos. But, if you argue--as you have--that mankind is a possible translation in every case you determine to be proper because mankind is a subset of universe, then the possibilities of meaning are endless since literally everything in the created order could be argued to be a subset of universe. Therefore, your "subset" argument is invalid.

    The author--John, in this case--is the one who decides what meaning is. It is our task to understand what John is conveying. John's use of grammar and context is more a determiner of his meaning of kosmos than the lexicon. In John 21:25 it is quite clear to nearly everyone that he is referring to the world, not to mankind.

    The Archangel
     
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry, Iconoclast, but you and your eisegesis (by definition)are wrong.

    The problem with subjective interpretation (redefining words based on one's theology) is people can and do make words mean anything that suits them.

    Scripture is God's revelation to man about God. It is God communicating to man. You may believe that the Holy Spirit redefined words so that no one but the initiated could understand them, but how is this any different from a cult?

    Why do you believe that God would have an author use a word common to the people, yet give the word an entirely different meaning? What do you think it would communicate? '

    For example (illustration) - Scripture states that Jesus is God. If you say that the Holy Spirit meant as "a god" then you've become a heretic. But your system of redefining words allows for this type of thing where legitimate interpretation does not.
     
  5. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    193
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In what way is it "plainly obvious?" If I've goofed in my Greek grammar, you're free to point it out--if you know Greek. If you don't, however, you don't have a way to even adjudicate what I'm saying, other than to resort to the liar-liar-pants-on-fire when you disagree.

    As for the other drivel you've posted here in this post, it adds nothing to the conversation--except to attack me personally, which doesn't deserve a response other than to say having a level of expertise (though certainly not the highest of levels) does not a "complex" make.

    The Archangel
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't like it when people use "plainly obvious" because what follows is typically anything but (it's usually a way of trying to get the other guy to back down).

    Given the comment "2000 years ago" MB may just be pointing out the fact that we cannot be completely certain about how the language was used at that time so we need to be careful not to get dogmatic about the grammer.

    (I have not followed your conversation with MB, so that is the only part I'm addressing....I just noticed the comment)
     
  7. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    575
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You still have an atonement that does not deal with any sin. If it is supposed to pay for sin (the sin of rejecting Christ included), and is meant for all, it pays for no sin at all since most perish.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    575
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It doesn't matter what you are. If the atonement pays for the sins of all, and nearly all perish, it doesn't pay for sin.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I have an atonement that deals with ALL sin.

    The difference is in how one considers the Cross. Was it a business transaction or something else (in type)...perhaps something more that appeases the Father's wrath yet people remain in their sin aoart from Christ (Judgment is given to Christ)
     
  10. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    575
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All sin except.....? What sin not atoned for keeps Christ for saving all?
     
  11. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It doesn't and that would be an interesting thread (perhaps explain other views and prevent others from making the same error).
     
  12. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All sin except none.
     
  13. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    575
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Really? So election saves, not Christ's blood?
     
  14. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is a strange conclusion. I almost want to know your reasoning, but I suppose the answer wouldn't matter and would just be a tangent.

    We are purchased with the blood of Christ. What does Scripture say "saves" us? Blood? Not exactly. Election? Not exactly. Think about it before responding.

    What element, action, or decision does the Bible pull apart from the salvation of man (from God"s grace) to offer as the thing that "saves us" in and of itself?
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The most obvious difficulty with identifying with a human name is that some seem to have the need to make sure their leader gets the credit for the souls that were saved.

    yes its understandable but not right.
     
  16. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've been discouraging people from calling themselves "Joncists" much of my life. :Biggrin
     
  17. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    575
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jesus' blood is the basis for salvation. Not election or anything else. If so he died in vain.
     
  18. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    19,087
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Exactly!!!! The basis. But what single part of salvation saves apart from the rest (per Scripture)? Is it the blood? Is it faith? Repentance? Belief? Divine obedience? Rebirth (from above), forgiveness?

    The failure of your treatment of the "other view" is an unbiblical view of Salvation accomplished as a business type transaction at the Cross isolated from the whole of salvation as offered in Scripture.

    The answer is that salvation is the complete work of God from start to finish. Men are always wrong to pull it apart as if God took the "long way around".

    The fact is Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the world in toto necessitates neither universal salvation nor sins for which Christ did not die. The "other view" looks to all judgment being given the Son. That is really the primary difference.
     
  19. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,356
    Likes Received:
    473
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I was explaining my thinking as to why the interpretation, that Greek word translated "world" can be understood throughout the NT, understood to refer to "mankind," the human race. I am not expecting you to agree.

    It seems explicit to me that meaning can be understood in such references as John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.
     
    #139 37818, Jun 28, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2019
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good that's some progress, you are on my prayer list.:)
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...