Merits/Demerits of Reformed Theology VS. Jehovas Wittnesses.

[dacristoy]

I affirm that the JW view of Christ is heretical. However, their ultimate 'fatal error' when it comes to salvation is putting their trust in an organization, rather than having true faith in Christ.

What are the consequences of a "FATAL" error.

[Sentient 6]

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

Well, you would have to actually prove that the Reformed view of God misrepresents the nature of God.

...and I kinda getting the picture thats what you would like to try to do ?

[Sentient 6]

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

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

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

Makes no sense huh, now you need to fix the rest of the passage to receive your unique interpretation.

Do believe there is a greek word for " whosoever " ? There isn't. It is a phrase thats being translated.

In essense John is trying to convey the idea that those that believe will have eternal life. John 3:16 is not meant to be a commentary on the extent of who will be save per se. The immediate context is, just like those during the time of Moses who looked upon the serpent will be saved, so will it be for those that look to the Son.

[Sentient 6]

Immediate context takes precedent over extended context. Your conclusion makes no sense...

Both are needed to get the full perspective of the author. The goal is to understand what the author is saying in its immediate context of course, but it is also helpful to understand immediate circumstances in which the author writes.

[Sentient 6]

A big issue is, of course, that immediate context should dictate prior to other Biblical references. And it should also be noted that Revelation was written by John as opposed to Paul.

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

In other words, although historical context is important, we can't toss out literary context (historical background gives the setting, but can't be solely relied upon to determine the meaning)

I whole heartly agree that we need to understand the immediate context. I was simply taking this one step at a time here.

What you say about Paul is exactly the point that I was making. When Paul says in Romans 2 that " God does not show favoritism " Arminians mainly like to view this as a merely individual thing. When the context is that he is merely trying to express that God does not show favoritism by His including of the Gentiles in salvation. Pauls argument in the beginning chapters of Romans are to show that both Jews and Gentiles are just as sinful and in need of salvation as well.

[Sentient 6]

A big issue is, of course, that immediate context should dictate prior to other Biblical references. And it should also be noted that Revelation was written by John as opposed to Paul.

Yes. Pauls letters and Revelations were written by two authors, but inspired by the same Holy Spirit. The scriptures are internally consistent and reveal one cohesive revelation from God. So in my beliefs, I would expect the different authors to express similar ideas. I do not believe that Paul and John are in conflict with each other.

[Sentient 6]

Yep. It is interesting how I have had multiple conversations lately with someone who referred to 'context' - yet when pressed to look at the immediate context of a passage, either didn't know what to do or didn't want to. It seems that many people don't really understand the what context actually is.

The " all " passages have been mentioned. I am curious as to what part of the context of those passages show that we should interpret " all " as every single person who has ever lived, or ever will ? In the Arminian view, " all " is Pharoah and the people of Noahs time. As well as the Amalekites and the Caanites.

I am all for the context of a passage, but I don't ignore things like grammar and historical context. Our scriptures were not written in english, so sometimes we have to look at some nuances to really get at the heart of the text.

[Sentient 6]

In other words, although historical context is important, we can't toss out literary context (historical background gives the setting, but can't be solely relied upon to determine the meaning)

Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?

[37818]

dacristoy,

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

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

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

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

2 John 9, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." ( Here the "Whosoever" that "abideth not in the doctrine of Christ" are not the elect.)

[dacristoy]

Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?

The word "world" is most accurately used as a non exclusionary phrase. It does not exclude anybody, that distinction is made above our understanding.

[dacristoy]

Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?

It means that God is not a respecter of persons...
Acts 10:34

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

[dacristoy]

dacristoy,

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

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

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

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

2 John 9, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." ( Here the "Whosoever" that "abideth not in the doctrine of Christ" are not the elect.)

The underlining principle must be that God's elect are chosen through faith. Whosoever hath faith is one of God's Chosen, none are chosen to have faith... They are chosen through faith...

[dacristoy]

dacristoy,

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

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

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

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

2 John 9, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." ( Here the "Whosoever" that "abideth not in the doctrine of Christ" are not the elect.)

No disagreement on that, where I believe there is a fatal flaw in the Calvinist position is their belief that God created all, chose some for salvation, chose others for eternal damnation without any regard to anything pertaining to the person chosen... Personally I believe that God made salvation available to all that he created. Then chose faith as the way of salvation, then said "whosoever will let him come.

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

[phat8594]

Sure, and I agree. But lets look at Jesus when he was talking to Nicodemus. When the author talks about the " world " what is more likely meant ? Every single person that has ever lived, or will live ? Or was he simply trying to say that Gentiles will be part of the plan ?

In context of John 3, and other Yohanine literature - the use of 'world' is quite consistent.

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

[Sentient 6]

The word "world" is most accurately used as a non exclusionary phrase. It does not exclude anybody, that distinction is made above our understanding.

I got no problem with that as a general expression.