Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Merits/Demerits of Reformed Theology VS. Jehovas Wittnesses.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
    ..a denial of the Churches historical view of the nature of God and Christ.

    ....a works-based soteriology.
    Welcome Sentient 6! Glad to have you join us!

    What is this in reference to? The Opening Post or another post? In order to avoid confusion, if you will look in the lower left hand corner of a post you wish to respond to and select the "Reply With Quote" option, it makes it much more clear who you are responding to. Also, starting a post with "In regards to the OP:" would also have sufficed.

    Thanks!
    LJ
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
      Hi...

      In biblical exegesis, you must follow the context and train of thought to really nail down the intent of the author.
      John 1:7
      The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
      In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

      John 12:32
      And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
      In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

      Romans 5:18
      Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
      In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

      Would you please interpret/paraphrase these passages for me and let me know what limitations do you place on the phrase “all men”.
      Would you please do the same with the following passage with special attention shown to the word “whosoever”.
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
        That reminds me of RC Sproul who contends that "Arminians are Christians -- BARELY"
        Is this consistent with what you believe?
        Based on what errors do you marginalize the place of Arminians within the Christian community?
        Do you understand the Jehovah Witnesses’ understanding of the deity of Christ to be a fatal error when it comes to salvation?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
          Welcome Sentient 6! Glad to have you join us!

          What is this in reference to? The Opening Post or another post? In order to avoid confusion, if you will look in the lower left hand corner of a post you wish to respond to and select the "Reply With Quote" option, it makes it much more clear who you are responding to. Also, starting a post with "In regards to the OP:" would also have sufficed.

          Thanks!
          LJ
          Thanks.

          ...in regards to that post, its directed to the OP. I used to post here a few years ago as " Jaymz. "

          .....just pokin' around a bit.
          “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
            John 1:7
            The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
            In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

            John 12:32
            And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
            In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

            Romans 5:18
            Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
            In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

            Would you please interpret/paraphrase these passages for me and let me know what limitations do you place on the phrase “all men”.
            Would you please do the same with the following passage with special attention shown to the word “whosoever”.
            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.

            In general, one thing that effects how I interpret these passages is the historical context in which they were written. The Jewish mindset was that the Jews were chosen people and salvation was mainly for them alone ( with some obvious OT exceptions ). This is the context in which Jesus came and in which the Gospel was being established. In Jesus and in Pauls writing, here is the fulfillment of Gods covenant with Abraham that " all nations will be blessed through you. " I believe that this is the distinction that Jesus makes with Nicodemus when he talks about the " world. " For God so loved Jews AND Gentiles that he sent his Son. So from the Jewish mindset, it would be completely appropriate to say " all men " as meaning the Gentile world in addition to the Jews.

            Here is a couple of verses that kind of sum up what I believe Paul really has in mind...

            Rev 5
            for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
            from every tribe and language and people and nation,


            Romans 2
            There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
            “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
              Would you please do the same with the following passage with special attention shown to the word “whosoever”.
              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.
              From what I have studied on this passage, the most literal translation of Pas Ho Pisteuwn ( whosoever ), is better rendered " all the believing ones, " or " everyone believing. " Al those that believe, will not perish.
              “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                Is this consistent with what you believe?
                Based on what errors do you marginalize the place of Arminians within the Christian community?
                Do you understand the Jehovah Witnesses’ understanding of the deity of Christ to be a fatal error when it comes to salvation?
                I believe that Sproul was probably overstating what he believes in regard to Arminian soteriology.

                I believe the errors of the Arminian view can be traced back to Pelagius and semi-pelagianism, and his and his followers view of free will. Arminians are certainly " semi " in their view of free will, but that does not put them outside the Body of Christ in my view. I straight up view that you can come to love and serve God by your own will and power does.

                As far as the JWs are concerned, a false Christ cannot save and neither can a false Gospel, " which is really no gospel at all. " A Christ that is a created being is neither capable of fulfilling Gods purpose in salvation, nor worthy of our worship and adoration.
                Last edited by Sentient 6; 09-22-2014, 09:21 PM.
                “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
                  I believe that Sproul was probably overstating what he believes in regard to Arminian soteriology.

                  I believe the errors of the Arminian view can be traced back to Pelagius and semi-pelagianism, and his and his followers view of free will. Arminians are certainly " semi " in their view of free will, but that does not put them outside the Body of Christ in my view. I straight up view that you can come to love and serve God by your own will and power does.

                  As far as the JWs are concerned, a false Christ cannot save and neither can a false Gospel, " which is really no gospel at all. " A Christ that is a created being is neither capable of fulfilling Gods purpose in salvation, nor worthy of our worship and adoration.
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
                    From what I have studied on this passage, the most literal translation of Pas Ho Pisteuwn ( whosoever ), is better rendered " all the believing ones, " or " everyone believing. " Al those that believe, will not perish.
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
                      In general, one thing that effects how I interpret these passages is the historical context in which they were written. The Jewish mindset was that the Jews were chosen people and salvation was mainly for them alone ( with some obvious OT exceptions ). This is the context in which Jesus came and in which the Gospel was being established. In Jesus and in Pauls writing, here is the fulfillment of Gods covenant with Abraham that " all nations will be blessed through you. " I believe that this is the distinction that Jesus makes with Nicodemus when he talks about the " world. " For God so loved Jews AND Gentiles that he sent his Son. So from the Jewish mindset, it would be completely appropriate to say " all men " as meaning the Gentile world in addition to the Jews.

                      Here is a couple of verses that kind of sum up what I believe Paul really has in mind...

                      Rev 5
                      for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
                      from every tribe and language and people and nation,



                      Romans 2
                      There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
                      Immediate context takes precedent over extended context. Your conclusion makes no sense...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                        Is this consistent with what you believe?
                        Based on what errors do you marginalize the place of Arminians within the Christian community?
                        Do you understand the Jehovah Witnesses’ understanding of the deity of Christ to be a fatal error when it comes to salvation?
                        ?? I am a little lost on what you are asking me ??

                        I am by no means marginalizing the place of Arminians within the Christian community. The example I posted of RC Sproul was to show how some reformed theology folks see anything outside of the TULIP understanding of theology as unorthodox and seemingly heretical.

                        If you read my later post (or posts from an earlier time in this forum), you should clearly see that I am pretty much line up with the Arminian understanding of soteriology - and that I actually feel that it is the TULIP understanding which is outside of historical orthodoxy. That being said, I won't say that people who hold to TULIP are not saved. I don't believed we are saved through perfect doctrine, but by faith. Of course, doctrine should be refined as one walks out their faith.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sentient 6 View Post
                          In general, one thing that effects how I interpret these passages is the historical context in which they were written. The Jewish mindset was that the Jews were chosen people and salvation was mainly for them alone ( with some obvious OT exceptions ). This is the context in which Jesus came and in which the Gospel was being established. In Jesus and in Pauls writing, here is the fulfillment of Gods covenant with Abraham that " all nations will be blessed through you. " I believe that this is the distinction that Jesus makes with Nicodemus when he talks about the " world. " For God so loved Jews AND Gentiles that he sent his Son. So from the Jewish mindset, it would be completely appropriate to say " all men " as meaning the Gentile world in addition to the Jews.

                          Here is a couple of verses that kind of sum up what I believe Paul really has in mind...

                          Rev 5
                          for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
                          from every tribe and language and people and nation,


                          Romans 2
                          There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

                          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)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                            Immediate context takes precedent over extended context. Your conclusion makes no sense...
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                              ?? I am a little lost on what you are asking me ??

                              I am by no means marginalizing the place of Arminians within the Christian community. The example I posted of RC Sproul was to show how some reformed theology folks see anything outside of the TULIP understanding of theology as unorthodox and seemingly heretical.

                              If you read my later post (or posts from an earlier time in this forum), you should clearly see that I am pretty much line up with the Arminian understanding of soteriology - and that I actually feel that it is the TULIP understanding which is outside of historical orthodoxy. That being said, I won't say that people who hold to TULIP are not saved. I don't believed we are saved through perfect doctrine, but by faith. Of course, doctrine should be refined as one walks out their faith.
                              Apologies if I misunderstood you, as I obviously did. Again I would like to ask, "Do you understand the Jehovah Witnesses’ understanding of the deity of Christ to be a fatal error when it comes to salvation?"
                              Last edited by dacristoy; 09-24-2014, 12:14 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                                Apologies if I misunderstood you, as I obviously did. Again I would like to ask, "Do you understand the Jehovah Witnesses’ understanding of the deity of Christ to be a fatal error when it comes to salvation?"
                                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.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X