User Tag List

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 233

Thread: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

  1. #76
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 310 Times in 226 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    107453
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    You miss my point. Because the word "your" in verse nine can only be in regard to "individuals" then the word "you" in verse two can only be speaking of the same thing, the election of "individuals."

    Nothing could be more confusing to anyone than the idea that Peter would use the pronoun "you" in verse two to be referring to "corporate" election and then later to use the pronoun "your" to refer to "individual" salvation.

    And of course the "you" is plural because Peter is addressing more than one person.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    So, "you" can also refer to the group, and not individuals.
    I'm going to jump back into this conversation, possibly against my better judgment . I've heard something a number of times about how the King James preserves the quantity value of second person pronouns, "thee" being singular and "ye" being plural. I don't know if it's always the case, but if true, it might shed light on your disagreement.

    Here's a quick cut and paste from a site that holds to this theory (emphasis mine).
    Spoiler
    Why Thee and Ye is So Important in the KJV

    John 3:7
    Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

    Just a comment to why the King James use of the thee, thou, etc is very important. In old English, thee, thine, and thou is singular, while ye, you and your are plural. In modern English, "you" can be either singular or plural.
    When reading the King James, by understanding thee and ye, I can immediately tell if the pronoun is singular or plural.
    In John 3:7, I can immediately tell from the KJV that it is plural or universal. The Lord Jesus is not directing His statement only to Nicodemus, but He is making a universal statement to everyone: "Ye must be born again." You can only tell this from the King James Version.
    If you look at the previous verses, you can tell that the Lord Jesus is speaking only to Nicodemus:
    John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
    Here is the rule:
    thee, thine, thou are singular.
    Ye, you and your are plural.



    By John McTernan: Defend and Proclaim the Faith

    Jesus conversation with Nicodemus was private and personal--Jesus was speaking directly to Nico and to no one else, but He was using phraseology that was applicable to multiple people, thus He went back and forth between singular and plural pronouns.

    With that info, I looked at the Greek from John 3:7, and the two words are:
    1. thee = σοί, which is the dative case of σύ, which is described as "Personal pronoun of the second person singular"
    2. ye = ὑμᾶς, which is the accusative case of ὑμεῖς, which is described as "Irregular plural of σύ"

    (These are lifted from Strong's Lexicon, about which you can form your own opinion, on blb.org, which I highly recommend. It compares favorably with Thayer's and Smith's).

    Ok, so what about 1 Pet 1:9? [1Pe 1:9 KJV] 9 Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls.

    First notice that the second "your" is added (though the added one would definitely scream PLURAL), so we're down to only 1 "your" in the verse, modifying faith. That "your" is ὑμῶν, which is the genitive case of ὑμεῖς, or the plural second person pronoun.
    Conveniently, 1 Pet 1:8 ([1Pe 1:8 KJV] 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory) is filled with "ye's". Which are they? Well, the words for "ye" are not standalone words, so I had to go look up personal endings (this is all new to me, by the way, so check my work). Apparently the personal endings are
    1. τε on ἀγαπᾶτε, for "ye love"
    2. τες on ὁρῶντες, for "ye see"
    3. θε on ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, for "ye rejoice"
    These endings all indicate a plural "you", from what I can tell (I'm less sure on #2, but #1 and #3 both work, according to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek/Basic_Verbs, and #2 just has that extra "ς" on the end, which is part of the singular "you" ending, but also may mean something else). So on this verse, also, KJV agrees with the spoiler.

    As far as I can tell, then, 1 Pet 1:9 can only be read as speaking to multiple people--it's not singular.

    By your logic then, Jerry, 1 Pet 1:2 must also only be applied to multiple people. Personally, I don't think your logic is correct, and this passage is not a proof text for group election, but neither can it be a proof text for individual election.

    And, happily, the plural/singular distinction in the KJV seems to hold, which makes it a unique translation compared to more modern ones for providing that information. Maybe we need a southern version that includes "y'all".

  2. #77
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,942 Times in 4,011 Posts

    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    So, "you" can also refer to the group, and not individuals.
    Is the word "your" in this verse referring to "corporate" faith and "corporate" salvation?:

    "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).

  3. #78
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,942 Times in 4,011 Posts

    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Ok, so what about 1 Pet 1:9? [1Pe 1:9 KJV] 9 Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls.

    First notice that the second "your" is added (though the added one would definitely scream PLURAL), so we're down to only 1 "your" in the verse, modifying faith.
    So do you deny that the first use of the word "your" in this verse is not referring to an individual's faith?:

    "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).

    I would say that the words in this verse are addressed to multiple people and it is speaking of those people's "individual" faith.

    I see no evidence anywhere in the Scriptures that speak of a "corporate" faith which results in a "corporate" salvation among Christians, do you?

    In regard to the article on the KJV we read: "thee, thine, thou are singular. Ye, you and your are plural."

    Let us look at these words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Nicodemus:

    "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
    (Jn.3:12; KJV).

    Why should anyone believe that the words "you" and "ye" in this verse are "plural" since the Lord Jesus was speaking to no one but Nicodemus?

    Thanks!

  4. #79
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 310 Times in 226 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    107453
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Since we cannot even begin to understand a state that is "timeless" then when the LORD reveals things to us He must put it in terms which we can understand. That is why He speaks of things being done in sequence.

    We can only understand things by our experiences in our four dimensional environment. But it is obvious that the eternal state is something entirely different from our present existence. For instance, Paul says this about things eternal:

    "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).

    We also know that flesh and blood bodies cannot enter into heaven and to do that we will be given bodies which are described as being "spiritual" bodies (1 Cor.15:44). These bodies are described as being heavenly bodies.

    So we do not really know anything except that in regard to the things of the eternal state. While our existence is made up of four dimensions the eternal state may exist in thousands of different dimensions as far as we know. Therefore, it makes no sense to base our arguments on the assumption that the environment in the eternal state is the same as the one in which we exist.
    I'm going with themuz on this one. What it seems like you've done is develop your own understanding of something that's not described in scripture, then you play the mystery card when I question it. Bad form, Jerry!
    The very nature of the Lord Jesus is that of being fully God and fully Man. And since He is the same yesterday, today and forever then that means that His nature has always been that of being both God and Man.

    According to what you said about this am I to conclude that you do not think that the nature of the Lord Jesus is that of "Man"?

    Thanks for your input, Derf!
    You astound me with this. Your argument, turned on its head, is used (pretty effectively imo) to argue against a rigid view of God's immutability. In other words, if the Logos actually took on a human nature (which He didn't have before), then it must mean that God is mutable in that sense--that He can acquire a nature that He didn't previously have.

    As you use it, it suggests that Adam was not the "first" man and Jesus was not the "last" Adam (contrary to [1Co 15:45, 47 KJV] 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. ... 47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.), which doesn't seem biblical to me. [Jhn 1:14 KJV] 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 13th, 2017)

  6. #80
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Is the word "your" in this verse referring to "corporate" faith and "corporate" salvation?:

    "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).
    You're trying to extract from the text what isn't there. By skipping verse 3-8, you're ignoring the fact that Peter has completed his opening statement, and moved on to the opening of his letter. The very fact that verse 1 and 2 are an opening statement should tell us not to try to extract too much from it.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  7. #81
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 310 Times in 226 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    107453
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    So do you deny that the first use of the word "your" in this verse is not referring to an individual's faith?:

    "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).

    I would say that the words in this verse are addressed to multiple people and it is speaking of those people's "individual" faith.

    I see no evidence anywhere in the Scriptures that speak of a "corporate" faith which results in a "corporate" salvation among Christians, do you?
    I don't personally hold to the idea of corporate faith bringing about a corporate salvation, except in the sense that a family (or nation) that upholds God's truths has a lot more people in that family (or nation) that will be saved. I don't believe God saves children based on their parents beliefs, for instance, but parents who diligently instruct their children in God's ways are more likely to have believing offspring. And children who are sent to atheistic schools end up with atheistic children.
    In regard to the article on the KJV we read: "thee, thine, thou are singular. Ye, you and your are plural."

    Let us look at these words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Nicodemus:

    "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
    (Jn.3:12; KJV).

    Why should anyone believe that the words "you" and "ye" in this verse are "plural" since the Lord Jesus was speaking to no one but Nicodemus?
    Well, the Greek seems to indicate the plural. Should anyone believe the Greek? Or do we ignore what's written and use our own interpretation despite what we read?

    The structure of the sentence was that Jesus "had" ("have" in the verse, used as an auxiliary verb to make it present perfect) told him these things before, possibly in other places at other times. Therefore, the "you" and "ye" could easily be the group he belonged to, the pharisees, whom Jesus had addressed on numerous occasions and told numerous "earthly" things, which they didn't usually believe.

  8. #82
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,942 Times in 4,011 Posts

    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    You astound me with this. Your argument, turned on its head, is used (pretty effectively imo) to argue against a rigid view of God's immutability. In other words, if the Logos actually took on a human nature (which He didn't have before), then it must mean that God is mutable in that sense--that He can acquire a nature that He didn't previously have.
    The Lord did not put on a new nature but instead was clothed in an earthly body. Here Paul likens our bodies to being "clothed upon":

    "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life" (2 Cor.5:1-4).

    Paul refers to the "inner man" and that is man's essence and his outward appearance is something that is likened to putting on clothes.

    I say that the Lord Jesus had two natures while He walked on the earth, being fully Man and fully God. And we read this about Him:

    "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).

    Since He remains the same then before He came to the earth He had two natures. According to your idea we must believe that the Lord Jesus remains the same as He was before even though He took on a new nature when He came to the earth. Let us look at this verse:

    "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).

    The Lord Jesus descended from heaven when He was the "Son of Man." That can only mean that before he came down to earth He was in heaven as the "Son of Man."

    The following verse also makes it plain that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as the "Son of Man" before He came to the earth:

    "What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?"
    (Jn.6:62).

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    As you use it, it suggests that Adam was not the "first" man and Jesus was not the "last" Adam (contrary to [1Co 15:45, 47 KJV] 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. ... 47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.), which doesn't seem biblical to me. [Jhn 1:14 KJV] 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
    Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true. The verses which you quoted can only be understood by this verse which precedes the verses which you quoted:

    "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly"
    (1 Cor.15:46).

    Paul is using these things to illustrate the principle that our first body is an earthly, natural body and we will be resurrected into a heavenly, spiritual body.

    So when Paul speaks of the first man being of the earth he is referring to the kind of body belonging to Adam. Then when He speaks of the Lord from heaven being the second man then he is speaking of the Lord having a spiritual body.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I don't personally hold to the idea of corporate faith bringing about a corporate salvation, except in the sense that a family (or nation) that upholds God's truths has a lot more people in that family (or nation) that will be saved.
    The verse is speaking of the salvation of the soul. So you must believe that the faith being spoken of in the verse is "individual." Right?

    Let us look at this passage again:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 21st, 2017 at 12:30 PM.

  9. #83
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,942 Times in 4,011 Posts

    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    You're trying to extract from the text what isn't there. By skipping verse 3-8, you're ignoring the fact that Peter has completed his opening statement, and moved on to the opening of his letter. The very fact that verse 1 and 2 are an opening statement should tell us not to try to extract too much from it.
    Let us look at this passage again:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 21st, 2017 at 12:46 PM.

  10. #84
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 310 Times in 226 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    107453
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true.
    Hey Jerry, please take a minute to review the statement in the quote. Does it need to be edited to say:
    "Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was NOT the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true. "

    If correct as written, then it seems the reference contradicts you, so check and see.

  11. #85
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,942 Times in 4,011 Posts

    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    No, what I wrote is what I mean. We cannot take what is said here in a literal sense unless we want to assert that the Lord Jesus was the second man:

    "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).

    Do you think that the Lord Jesus was the second man? In order to understand the meaning of this we must look at the context which is speaking of the two different bodies. Paul says that the "body" which is first is natural and that what is second is spiritual. So at 1 Corinthians 15:47 Paul continues that thought, using Adam to illustrate the "natural" body and the Lord Jesus "from heaven" to illustrate the "spiritual" body.

    Do you undertand that?

  12. #86
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Let us look at this passage again:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
    Nice Scripture Smash. Unfortunately, both contexts are plural, and thus corporate in nature. You're assuming the conclusion. If God elects by rule, by "whosoever believes", then God foreknows He will save those who believe, and those who believe become part of those who are foreknown.

    So, when we discard your assumption of the conclusion, your conclusion isn't naturally made.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  13. #87
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,942 Times in 4,011 Posts

    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Nice Scripture Smash. Unfortunately, both contexts are plural, and thus corporate in nature.
    Since Paul is writing to "multiple" people of course he would address them using a "plural" pronoun. No one disputes that.

    However, even though he was writing to multiple people he was telling them about things regarding "individual" salvation.

    Since you think that the "salvation" in this verse is in regard to a "corporate" entity are you willing to argue that the "belief of the truth" is also "corporate" in nature?:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

    Anyone who has the slightest bit of spiritual discernment knows that "salvation" and "believing" are both in regard to individual salvation, as the following verse demonstrates:

    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 15th, 2017 at 08:36 AM.

  14. #88
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Since Paul is writing to "multiple" people of course he would address them using a "plural" pronoun. No one disputes that.

    However, even though he was writing to multiple people he was telling them about things regarding "individual" salvation.
    As I said before, if we remove the assumption of individual election, it isn't to be found here, anymore. Even the last section you highlighted in 2 Thess 2:13 argues against you. They were chosen through their faith, meaning that because they believed, they became chosen.

    Yes, "believing" is individual. Election, however, is not.

    Since you think that the "salvation" in this verse is in regard to a "corporate" entity are you willing to argue that the "belief of the truth" is also "corporate" in nature?:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

    Anyone who has the slightest bit of spiritual discernment knows that "salvation" and "believing" are both in regard to individual salvation, as the following verse demonstrates:

    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
    (1) This actually says the man and his house, so if I were arguing against a corporate salvation, you'd have failed already.
    (2) You are now conflating salvation and election because you are assuming the conclusion. We become part of the chosen through believing. We aren't chosen before we believe.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  15. #89
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,942 Times in 4,011 Posts

    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    This actually says the man and his house, so if I were arguing against a corporate salvation, you'd have failed already.
    So are you saying that when the jailer believed then as a result his household was saved?

    Yes, "believing" is individual. Election, however, is not.
    You still have not answered what is in "bold" in this verse:

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"
    (1 Pet.1:1-2).

    The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

    Therefore, it is evident that 1 Peter 1:1-2 is speaking about "salvation" and nothing less.

  16. #90
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 310 Times in 226 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    107453
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    No, what I wrote is what I mean. We cannot take what is said here in a literal sense unless we want to assert that the Lord Jesus was the second man:

    "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).

    Do you think that the Lord Jesus was the second man? In order to understand the meaning of this we must look at the context which is speaking of the two different bodies. Paul says that the "body" which is first is natural and that what is second is spiritual. So at 1 Corinthians 15:47 Paul continues that thought, using Adam to illustrate the "natural" body and the Lord Jesus "from heaven" to illustrate the "spiritual" body.

    Do you undertand that?
    I understand what you're saying, but Jesus also had a natural body, so it wasn't a full dichotomy. Being the "second man" didn't mean the second in a line of men that are the same, but Jesus was starting a new line, one that didn't have the sin nature. Adam was the first "race" of man, and Jesus is the second--one that is not headed toward death.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us