quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

I wouldn’t say that John quickly pivots here, I just think that kosmos refers to God’s creation which of course includes every living thing. Verse 10 doesn’t mention sin and rejection, only that the world didn’t know Christ. Verse 11 is speaking about the Jewish people rejecting him. I’m keeping my response short here because I don’t think this is a central point of your argument and there’s a lot to respond to.

I agree with a lot of what you posted here but your conclusion doesn’t follow. When we keep reading through 53:11 it says “make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” and verse 12 says “yet he bore the sin of many”. It doesn’t say he bore the sin of every person who ever lived, which is what your position is.

1) You said, “I wouldn’t say that John quickly pivots here, I just think that kosmos refers to God’s creation which of course includes every living thing. Verse 10 doesn’t mention sin and rejection, only that the world didn’t know Christ. Verse 11 is speaking about the Jewish people rejecting him.”

1a) How much quicker can you pivot than “the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know him”?

1b) It may not be central to my argument, but it is central to yours that “world” in John 3:16 isn’t referring to people.

1c) So now I do have you agreeing that “world” (kosmos) — God’s creation — INCLUDES EVERY LIVING THING. “Every living thing” would have to include people who don’t believe.

1d) Applying your definition to John 3:16-17: “For God so loved His creation which includes every living thing, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever in His creation which includes every living thing believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

1e) Likewise with John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of creation which includes every living thing.” Everything in creation may have been affected by sin, but only people have sin.

2) You say Isaiah 53:6 “doesn’t say he bore the sin of every person who ever lived” (which you think is my position). What I think isn’t under discussion; it’s what the verse actually says:
“All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.”

2a) Are you saying the verse is wrong in saying “the iniquity of US ALL fell on Him”? And if “us all” doesn’t mean everyone, then the first part of the verse (“all of us have gone astray”) would also mean not everyone has gone astray. I’m not asking you to believe what I think — I’m asking whether you believe the Bible when it says, “All of us have gone astray but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.”

2b) Using Isaiah 53:11-12 (“many”) to limit 53:6 is like the heretic using 1 Timothy 2:5 to prove Jesus isn’t almighty God. Isaiah 53:6 stands on its own. Do we believe Isaiah when he says “all of us have gone astray”? If we do, we must also believe the iniquity of us all fell on Him.

3) You’re addressing 1 John 2:2 by pointing to verses 12-14 (little children, fathers, young men) and concluding “ours” refers to a specific group of believers, so kosmos = “believers throughout the world.”

3a) You can’t say based on John 1:29 that 1 John 2:2 refers to “believers throughout the world.” You based your reading of John 1:29 on John 1:9-10. I pointed out that John shifts from “creation” to people who did not know the Creator. So, no, “world” can’t refer to “believers throughout the world” — especially since just a few verses later in the same letter John tells his readers not to love the world (1 John 2:15). John was writing a letter to communicate clearly to his readers; he would have used consistent definitions and not shifted from one meaning of “world” to a different one a few moments later.

3b) That still leaves the question: who exactly is the “ours” in “not for ours only”? I laid out the immediate context in 1 John 2:1-2 and 2:12 — John is writing to believers (“my little children,” “we have an Advocate,” “your sins have been forgiven”). You’re free to show why that context is wrong and identify the group “ours” refers to instead.

3c) What either of us believe regarding limited atonement has no bearing on whether we are Christians saved by grace. It is only one of the many non-essential beliefs deemed important to be an identifying characteristic of various Christian denominations. You can be grateful that handling poisonous snakes isn’t an important distinction for your denomination, but those snake handlers are no less saved than us if, indeed, they believe in Jesus.

4) You also challenged me on Ephesians 5:25 and several other verses, saying I must avoid an “argument from silence.” But you brought up Ephesians 5:25, so it is incumbent on you to show that it excludes unbelievers from the atonement. I don’t have to prove that it includes unbelievers. It would be the same as asking me to prove Jesus is almighty God from 1 Timothy 2:5 — especially when that verse refers to Jesus as a man and distinguishes Him from God. All Ephesians 5:25 says is that Jesus gave Himself up for the church, just as 1 Timothy 2:5 says Jesus is a man. The latter is not proof that Jesus isn’t God; likewise, the former is not proof that Jesus didn’t die for all.

ETA:
4a) Quoting me as saying I love my wife and would die for her doesn’t mean I would die only for my wife but not my children. Similarly, quoting the Bible as saying Jesus loves the church and gave Himself up for her does not negate the clear statements that “the iniquity of us all was laid on Him” so that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

I truly appreciate the time you’re taking and your charitable tone. God bless you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rey HRH,

quote:

Originally posted by ReyHRH: 1a) How much quicker can you pivot than “the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know him”?

I assumed by pivot you meant a segue or transition to another topic. John is simply pointing out that the creation doesn’t know the creator.

quote:

1b) It may not be central to my argument, but it is central to yours that “world” in John 3:16 isn’t referring to people.

It’s not central to my argument or even a part of my argument. My central argument is simply reading the text as written that the Son was given to those who believe so that they would have eternal life.

quote:

1c) So now I do have you agreeing that “world” (kosmos) — God’s creation — INCLUDES EVERY LIVING THING. “Every living thing” would have to include people who don’t believe.

The fact that God created all things and all people doesn’t mean that we can translate kosmos as “all people” You yourself pointed out a place where kosmos clearly means something other than “all people” in 1 John 2:15. I could point out a dozen other places where this is the case but the fact is that context determines the translation and interpretation of kosmos. If I said that I’ve travelled the whole world, would that mean I went to every country or every GPS point on Earth? If I said I’ve met people all over the world, does that mean I’ve met every single person who ever lived?

quote:

1d) Applying your definition to John 3:16-17: “For God so loved His creation which includes every living thing, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever in His creation which includes every living thing believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Yes, that’s exactly right. He gave His only begotten Son for whoever believes.

quote:

1e) Likewise with John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of creation which includes every living thing.” Everything in creation may have been affected by sin, but only people have sin.

Same response as 1c

quote:

2a) Are you saying the verse is wrong in saying “the iniquity of US ALL fell on Him”? And if “us all” doesn’t mean everyone, then the first part of the verse (“all of us have gone astray”) would also mean not everyone has gone astray. I’m not asking you to believe what I think — I’m asking whether you believe the Bible when it says, “All of us have gone astray but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.”

Are you saying verses 11-12 are wrong? You didn’t address those verses. You said that when Isaiah was written “us all” referred to Israelites so I think you can understand the position that “us all” doesn’t always mean “everyone who ever lived”. Of course everyone who ever lived has sinned (Romans 3, Romans 5), but that doesn’t mean that you should use that as your hermeneutic for Isaiah 53 and read “us all” as everyone who ever lived. Futhermore, when Peter quotes Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2:21-25 he says that Christ bore the sins of his sheep (believers) and doesn’t say that he bore the sins of everyone who ever lived, so is Peter wrong?

quote:

2b) Using Isaiah 53:11-12 (“many”) to limit 53:6 is like the heretic using 1 Timothy 2:5 to prove Jesus isn’t almighty God. Isaiah 53:6 stands on its own. Do we believe Isaiah when he says “all of us have gone astray”? If we do, we must also believe the iniquity of us all fell on Him.

Reading the entire chapter of Isaiah isn’t being heretical, it’s reading the context to properly exegete scripture. Isaiah 53:6 doesn’t stand on its own, it’s part of a larger text. But I appreciate you saying this because I’m better understanding why you are misinterpreting so many things. You need to read verses in context. Don’t focus so much on chapter and verse divisions, those aren’t part of inspired scripture. As far as “all of us” I addressed that in the previous point.

quote:

3a) …John was writing a letter to communicate clearly to his readers; he would have used consistent definitions and not shifted from one meaning of “world” to a different one a few moments later.

But you yourself believe the definition of kosmos changes here. Unless you believe that John is telling people not to love all people, which contradicts what Jesus taught. Do you think John uses kosmos in verse 15 to instruct his audience not to love “all people”?

quote:

3b) That still leaves the question: who exactly is the “ours” in “not for ours only”? I laid out the immediate context in 1 John 2:1-2 and 2:12 — John is writing to believers (“my little children,” “we have an Advocate,” “your sins have been forgiven”). You’re free to show why that context is wrong and identify the group “ours” refers to instead.

I think I addressed this previously but I’m happy to readdress it. John is writing to several specific groups of believers in chapter 2, not just believers in general. We know this because in verses 12-14 he says in each stanza “I’m writing to you, little children…fathers…young men…children” So in each of these verses the “you” is that specific group of believers. In verse 13a “I’m writing to you, fathers, because you know him…” the “you” is “fathers” Do you agree? Likewise in verse 12, the “you” is “little children”. We can’t say “little children” just means “believers” which is how you are reading the text. Going back to verse 1-2 the audience is “little children” so when the word “ours” is used we can’t assume it must mean “believers”. The better interpretation given the context is that John is speaking about his audience when he says “ours” and then when he says the world, he’s referring to the world of believers outside of his audience. As I mentioned in my last post, my interpretation is consistent with John’s gospel as well as the rest of scripture.

quote:

3c) What either of us believe regarding limited atonement has no bearing on whether we are Christians saved by grace. It is only one of the many non-essential beliefs deemed important to be an identifying characteristic of various Christian denominations. You can be grateful that handling poisonous snakes isn’t an important distinction for your denomination, but those snake handlers are no less saved than us if, indeed, they believe in Jesus.

I agree. I’m thankful that I’m saved by grace and a Baptist by conviction.

quote:

4) You also challenged me on Ephesians 5:25 and several other verses, saying I must avoid an “argument from silence.” But you brought up Ephesians 5:25, so it is incumbent on you to show that it excludes unbelievers from the atonement.

It specifically excludes unbelievers because it says Christ gave himself up for his church. The church (ecclesia) excludes unbelievers by definition.

quote:

I don’t have to prove that it includes unbelievers. It would be the same as asking me to prove Jesus is almighty God from 1 Timothy 2:5 — especially when that verse refers to Jesus as a man and distinguishes Him from God. All Ephesians 5:25 says is that Jesus gave Himself up for the church, just as 1 Timothy 2:5 says Jesus is a man. The latter is not proof that Jesus isn’t God; likewise, the former is not proof that Jesus didn’t die for all.

I’m not asking you to do the impossible and prove that Ephesians 5:25 includes unbelievers, I was just curious about how you reconcile all of these passages I listed that speak of Christ only giving himself for believers with your view that he gave himself for everyone. It seems like the answer is to fall back to an argument from silence.

quote:

4a) Quoting me as saying I love my wife and would die for her doesn’t mean I would die only for my wife but not my children

Let’s think through your example to its logical conclusion. it doesn’t mean you would only die for your wife but not your children, and your friends, and your neighbors, and all the people in your city, and all the people in Arizona. But that’s not what you intended to convey when you said you would die for your wife. In fact, we can’t even draw an inference that you would die for all the people in Arizona from your statement about your wife. But that’s exactly how you are reading Ephesians 5:25 and the verses I cited in John. That’s not how we should exegete scripture.

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. I hope you are well, God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
I assumed by pivot you meant a segue or transition to another topic. John is simply pointing out that the creation doesn’t know the creator.

1) You say that “John is simply pointing out that the creation doesn’t know the creator.”

1a) It seems you’re not seeking to understand my arguments because I said the creation cannot fail to know its Creator. The stones would have cried out in praise if the people had been silent (Luke 19:40). The disciples were amazed that Jesus quieted the storm (Matthew 8:26-27).

1b) The only part of creation that wouldn’t know its Creator would be people. It’s the world consisting of sinners that didn’t know its Creator.

1c) Even setting that aside, your position still has a consistency problem. You cannot say that in 1 John 2:2 the “world” refers to “believers throughout the world” when just a few verses later John tells his readers not to love the world (1 John 2:15). When “world consisting of sinners” is used in both places, the reading becomes far more consistent internally. We still have John 1:29 as being consistent with Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world consisting of sinners.

2) You say, “Yes, that’s exactly right. He gave His only begotten Son for whoever believes.”

2a) You’re misquoting the verse; the verse doesn’t say “He gave His only begotten Son for whoever believes.” The verse says, “He gave His only begotten Son, THAT whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

2b) I have to point out your presupposition has been coloring your argument all along and you’re not really looking at the issue critically from an objective point of view when you state that He gave His only begotten Son FOR whoever believes. Can you, at least, admit that?

2c) Quoting Ephesians 5:25 or John 10:15 as saying Jesus died for the church or His sheep does not prove He died only for them and no one else. I prove my point with a simple analogy: Quoting me as saying I love my wife and would die for her doesn’t mean I would die only for my wife and not my children.

3) Setting aside for the moment as to who is incorrect, you didn’t answer my question: Do you believe Isaiah 53:6?
“All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.”

3a) Who is “all of us” who have gone astray? Just those who believe? Was Paul not including everyone when he said “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)?

3b) Whoever “all of us” who have gone astray, that’s whose iniquity was laid on Him. You agree that all who had ever lived has sinned and that would fit “all of us like sheep have gone astray.” If you would suspend yourself from your presupposition of limited atonement, then “the iniquity of us all” falling on Him would be consistent.

3c) I didn’t say reading the entire chapter is heretical. Please don’t twist what I said. I said that pointing out that Christ died for His church which is true but using it as an argument to say Christ died only for His church is like the heretic using 1 Timothy 2:5 to argue that Jesus is only a man and not God.

3d) Pointing out how Christ bore the sins of believers (as in 1 Peter 2:21-25) isn’t an argument that He didn’t bear the sins of all. 1 Peter 2:25 echoes Isaiah 53:6 about believers continually straying like sheep. So the question returns: are believers the only ones who have strayed? No — all have sinned.

3e) The New Testament epistles were letters written to believers, so of course the letters would be written with them in mind. The exception is 1 John 2:2, where the sins of the world are mentioned. You have to switch to two different meanings of “world” just a few sentences apart simply to avoid accepting the idea that Christ’s death sufficiently covers all of mankind’s sins.

3f) You say we can’t simply say “little children” just means “believers.” But who else besides believers has Jesus as an Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1)? Who else besides believers has Jesus as the propitiation for their sins (1 John 2:2)? Who else besides believers has their sins forgiven (1 John 2:12)? If “little children” doesn’t refer to believers in this context, then who exactly does it refer to?

4) As to who is incorrect in understanding the passages is inherently the issue of our debate. It’s similar to when I pointed out to you that we don’t “know” world doesn’t refer to people; it’s what’s at issue. You do know not all Baptists believe in limited atonement, right?

4a) Saying Christ gave Himself for the church does not exclude unbelievers simply because “church” doesn’t include them by definition — any more than saying “I will die for my wife” excludes dying for my children simply because children are not part of the definition of spouse.

4b) Your attempt to extend my analogy by bringing in “all the people in Arizona” misses the point. I never claimed that saying I would die for my wife means I would die for everyone in Arizona. You are the one asserting that when the Bible says Christ gave Himself for the church, it necessarily means He gave Himself only for the church and for no one else. My example shows that this exclusive conclusion does not logically follow from the particular statement.

4c) How would your life change if and when you realize the doctrine of limited atonement is incorrect? I honestly cannot imagine how the doctrine is affecting your life right now. If you are actively involved in sharing the gospel and making disciples of all nations, I don’t think you personally get an indication that this person’s sin Christ died for and therefore you should share the gospel with them, while this person’s sin Christ didn’t die for and you shouldn’t waste your time with them. If you are carrying out the Great Commission, I imagine you have to share the gospel with everyone assuming Christ died for their sins since you’re not privy to that information, correct? Is this how you share the gospel with people or do you wait for some sign that Jesus died for their sins? I’m genuinely curious how the doctrine affects your Christian living.

I truly appreciate the time you’re taking and your charitable tone. God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

Thanks for your reply. I won’t post your original message, only my replies for the sake of brevity. I’ve tried to condense some of these points where possible and kept most answers deliberately short since you have many points.

1a 1b. I understand your argument and understand why your presupposition needs to translate kosmos as “world consisting of sinners”

1c. You yourself say that John uses the word kosmos or “world” in 2 different ways a few verses apart in John 1:9-10 and John 1:29, yet when I recognize that kosmos is used 2 different ways in 1 John 2 I have a “consistency problem” Not only is it possible to use the same word 2 different ways a few verses apart, it’s the proper to do so in John chapter 1 according to you.

2a. If using the word “for” changes the meaning, then please explain the meaningful difference in God giving the Son so that believers have eternal life and God giving the son for believers to have eternal life.

2b. One of us has been making his argument using presuppositions and it’s not me. The reason I used the word “for” is because we disagree on who Christ died for. You believe he died for unbelievers and believers alike and I believe he died for believers. There isn’t a difference in dying “so that” believers have eternal life and dying “for” believers to have eternal life. Your presupposition has caused you to see the word “world” and assume that the Son died for the world. Can you at least admit that?

2c. I explained why your interpretation and example are logically incoherent. I would caution you to stop reading the Bible this way because you could make it say anything you want it to say using this illogical hermeneutic. I think this is the most important point of this conversation and I truly hope that you will understand the flaw in your reasoning here.

3. I absolutely did answer your question. I believe that every Israelite sinned and everyone who ever lived has sinned.

3a. 3b. I addressed this previously but I’ll address it briefly. You yourself said Isaiah was referring to the Israelites or God’s chosen people in this passage and I said I agree. I then pointed out in 1 Peter 2:21-25 that Peter quotes from Isaiah 53 in his inspired epistle. You should be using 1 Peter 2 to interpret Isaiah 53. Using Romans 3:23 as your interpretive lens for Isaiah 53:6 is not a proper hermeneutic.

3c. I don’t read scripture the same as how a heretic reads scripture. Not even close.

3d. Do you notice how each time you read a passage of scripture that says Christ died for believers you have to add your presupposition that he died for unbelievers as well?

3e. What I wrote in 1c covers this point.

3f. As I said previously, “little children” refers to a specific group of believers. The “little children” have all these things because they are indeed believers. I hope you would agree that unbelievers don’t have these things but I don’t think you will.

4. Oh yes, I’m aware.

4a. Using the word church absolutely does exclude those outside of the church. The church is the body of Christ (Col 1:18, Eph 1:22-23) and it’s important to not include unbelievers in this body. When Paul uses the word “church” it’s for a good reason. He means the body of Christ., not everyone who ever lived. I repeat my same hope for you to understand this as point 2c.

4b. It doesn’t miss the point, it is the point. Let’s say I call up my buddy Rey and say “Hey Rey, I haven’t seen you in months let me buy you a coffee at the little coffee shop in town tomorrow at 7:00” Then tomorrow comes and I arrive about a quarter after 7 to see a hundred people in line at the coffee shop. After a minute, I finally see my buddy Rey in line to get coffee and I say “Wow Rey I don’t remember this coffee shop ever being this busy, do you know why there are so many people here today?”. Rey says “Oh, these are all my friends and family I brought with me. When you said you would buy me a coffee you didn’t say ‘only’ me so I assumed you would buy a coffee for all of them” I reply “No, Rey, when I said I would buy you coffee I didn’t mean you and all your friends and family” This upsets Rey who replies “well you did NOT say you would NOT buy us all coffee”. Rey and I are at an impasse. Who is wrong here?

4c. I’m not able to give an answer to a question that contains a false supposition. With regard to evangelism, I share the gospel with all people (please don’t take “all” here to mean each and every person on Earth). I’ve never heard or seen someone who believes that Christ died only for believers share the gospel differently or share a different gospel. I usually start with the fall in Genesis 3 and mention sin and its penalty (Romans 3:23, 6:23). I mention that Christ died for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8) and we’re saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). I explain to unbelievers that Christ is the only path to salvation (John 14:6). I pray that God would grant unrepentance to unbelievers (2 Tim 2:25) as he did for me.

Hopefully I haven’t typed too much and you’re able to read everything. I’m praying for you. God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

Thanks for your reply. I won’t post your original message, only my replies for the sake of brevity.

1) Simply saying you understand my presupposition isn’t addressing the point and doesn’t explain why my understanding of the passage is incorrect. You say John 1:10 is simply pointing out that creation doesn’t know its Creator. My argument is that creation does know its Creator. The stones would have cried out in praise had the people kept silent (Luke 19:40). The only way verse 10 makes sense is to understand that John shifts from the whole world of creation (made through Jesus) to the world of sinners not knowing Jesus. Verses 9–11 are enveloped by references to people. So where is your argument that the “world which did not know Jesus” doesn’t mean people? I gave my argument supporting my assertion — you haven’t invalidated it.

2) You ask for the meaningful difference between “God gave the Son so that believers have eternal life” and “God gave the Son for believers to have eternal life.”

The difference is that John 3:16 does not say God gave/sent His Son for believers to have eternal life. The verse says He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. The invitation to believe extends to whoever in the world — which is exactly why we share the gospel on the practical basis that the sins of the person in front of us were covered by the blood of Jesus. Your theological belief is nullified by the practical application of evangelism: you have to proceed as if every person you share the gospel with had the penalty for their sins paid by Christ.

3) If you believe Isaiah 53:6 that every Israelite has sinned (“All of us like sheep have gone astray”), what keeps you from believing the rest of the verse when it says every Israelite’s sin fell on Him (“but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him”)?

To the Jews who didn’t believe in Him in John 8:21-24, Jesus didn’t say they would die in their sins because His death wasn’t going to cover them. He gave the corollary to John 3:16: “unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

4) You finally agree that 1 John 2:2 is speaking to believers when it says “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Yet you have no basis for asserting that “the whole world” refers only to the rest of the believers in the world other than your presupposition. There is no reason, when writing to a group of believers, to contrast them against the rest of the believers in the world. There is nothing in the phrase “the whole world” that limits it to believers only other than your insistence it does.

5) I’m not including unbelievers when the Bible says Jesus died for His church. I agree with the verse. You are the one using the verse to say Jesus died for the church and only the church, and that He didn’t also take away the sins of the whole world. You are going beyond what the verses actually say.
Your analogy falls short again. The more accurate analogy is this: I paid for your coffee and Peter’s coffee. Someone writes a letter to you saying how I paid for your coffee and doesn’t mention Peter because he’s writing only to you. That letter proves I paid for your coffee, but it is not proof that I did not pay for Peter’s coffee. As a matter of fact, that letter to you is not proof that my resources were so limited that all the coffee I paid for was only yours and Peter’s. Jesus is so wealthy He could pay for everyone’s coffee — and all they have to do to receive their free coffee is tell the barista, “I believe in Jesus.” That whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

6) I do appreciate this back and forth because it’s causing me to think more deeply. I remember that all sin can trace its roots to the first sin of Adam. In the same way it was imputed that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek while still in the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:9-10), all men sinned in Adam. The evidence, Paul says in Romans 5:13-14, is that people continued to die from Adam even until the Law of Moses.

Romans 5:18-19 explains my viewpoint as it reconciles the two related issues in our discussion. It says, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

I believe this passage reconciles how life to all can be justified because of what Jesus did while only many, not all, will be made righteous. I’m interested to see how you understand this passage and the difference between “all men” and “many.” Surely, Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would not have written “all men” when he didn’t mean not all, especially when the one transgression resulted in “all men” being condemned.

To summarize: “all men” were condemned through the one transgression of Adam but Jesus’ act justified life to “all men” so that the “many” will be made righteous.

I truly appreciate the time you’re taking and your charitable tone. God bless you.

Gen Z drives surge in Catholic church attendance

quote:

After losing members during the clergy sex abuse scandal and COVID, is the Catholic church making a comeback? Parishes in the Pittsburgh area and across the nation are reporting a significant increase in new members, driven in part by Gen Z as people in their 20s search for deeper meaning in life.

quote:

Originally posted by ReyHRH: 1)My argument is that creation does know its Creator

1. As I said previously, God’s creation (kosmos) includes people and the text is saying that the kosmos that Jesus entered into didn’t know him. If you want to say the opposite of what the text says, I can’t stop you. I agree with virtually every English translation here that kosmos should be translated as “world”. I disagree that it could or should be translated as “world consisting of sinners” or that there is any inference by John that he is pivoting to a different use of the word kosmos here. I’m going to use your consistency hermeneutic here and interpret the word kosmos the same way each time in verses 9-10. I don’t think we will agree on the interpretation of kosmos so I’ll move on to the next point.

quote:

2) John 3:16 does not say God gave/sent His Son for believers to have eternal life. The verse says He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

2. You restated the two statements but you didn’t explain how they are meaningfully different. Is the difference that one statement says “whoever believes” and the other says “believers”? Please explain. I understand you think my view is inconsistent with evangelism, but let’s focus on the text please.

quote:

3) If you believe Isaiah 53:6 that every Israelite has sinned (“All of us like sheep have gone astray”), what keeps you from believing the rest of the verse when it says every Israelite’s sin fell on Him (“but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him”)?

3. I believe the sins of God’s people (including Israel from Genesis 35 onward) were covered by the lamb under the covenants of Adam, Abraham, and Moses. (Genesis 3, Genesis 22, Exodus 12, Exodus 24, Numbers 28, Isaiah 53, etc.) According to the new covenant made by the blood of Christ (Matthew 26:26), the sins of all who are in the new covenant are laid upon Christ. All who are in the new covenant are those who believe in Christ. Christ sacrificed himself for the sins of his people under His covenant as described in Hebrews chapters 8-10. I encourage you to read these three chapters.

4. I went through 1 John 2 and explained the different groups of people (little children, fathers, children, etc) he’s clearly addressing as the basis for my interpretation of 1 John 2:2. If you disagree that he’s addressing these groups of people, you’re welcome to disagree, but please don’t falsely claim that I didn’t address the text and only stated my belief based on presupposition.

quote:

5) I’m not including unbelievers when the Bible says Jesus died for His church. I agree with the verse. You are the one using the verse to say Jesus died for the church and only the church, and that He didn’t also take away the sins of the whole world. You are going beyond what the verses actually say.

5. I’m not the person here adding anything to the text. Scripture doesn’t need to put the adverb “only” in front of every noun for us to understand the meaning. The person adding to the text is you when you say that Christ also died for those outside the church. I’m just reading what is written. You are basing your interpretation on what is not written, which is not proper exegesis.

A Sigforum-like example would be that my rifle says “Caliber .223 Rem”, it doesn’t need to say “Cailber 223 Rem only” for me to understand that it exclusively means .223 Rem.

quote:

The more accurate analogy is this

It’s not accurate because you start with the premise that you paid for both mine and Peter’s coffee, which is the point of our disagreement that Christ paid for everyone’s sins. Using your conclusion as the foundation for an argument is circular reasoning. After that you went back to your argument from silence when you said it “doesn’t mention Peter” and “not proof that I did not pay for Peter’s coffee”. I mean this in the kindest way possible, but your reasoning is based on multiple logical fallacies.


6.
Let’s take a look at Romans 5, but as usual let’s start at the best place to start which is the beginning. Paul writes “since we (believers) have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. So we know that only those who have faith in Jesus are justified. When we continue reading down in verse 8 it says “while we (believers) were still sinners Christ died for us (believers). Verse 9 says “since therefore we (believers) have now been justified by his blood”.

Then in verse 14 we see that Paul says that Adam is a type of the one (Jesus) who was to come. This is important because it provides some context for the following verses. In 1 Cor 15:47 Paul refers to Christ as the second Adam or second man. Here in Romans 5:15-21 Paul will compare and contrast those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ. Paul compares the free gift (Chist’s righteousness that is given to believers) to the trespass (sin inherited from Adam) but mentions these 2 things are not alike.

Adam’s covenant was a covenant of works (i.e. do this and live) whereas Christ’s covenant is a covenant of grace. Verses 16-17 explain that all have inherited sin Adam, but those who believe in Christ have received the free gift of Christ’s righteousness imputed to them, therefore their sin will not be counted against them (justification). Those who do not believe do not have Christ’s righteousness imputed to them. They remain under the covenant of Adam and will die in their sin. Verse 17 makes it clear that all under Adam reign in death and all in Christ will reign in life.

Now we get to verses 18 and 19 where Paul again brings into focus Adam’s breaking of the covenant to Christ’s keeping of the righteous covenant of grace. In verse 18 Paul restates how in Adam all men are condemned to death but all men under Christ’s covenant receive justification and life. In verse 19 Paul says the same thing in a slightly different way by explaining that Adam disobeyed by breaking the covenant thereby making sinners of many, but Christ obeyed and therefore many will be made righteous.

But we know that “all” have sinned, not just “many”. So is Paul contradicting himself and the entirety of scripture here? Is this some sort of new doctrine where Paul is distinguishing between those who have justification and life and those who are made righteous? Not at all. Paul simply uses the words pantas “all” and hoi polloi “the many” to refer to groups of men in contrast to one man. The point he’s making is that there are two groups of people, each with a representative. Those represented by Adam and those represented by Christ.

We can’t read the text as “all people receive justification and life” out of context, which is the way a universalist would try to read it. We also can’t interpret the text how you did when you said “Jesus’ act justified life to “all men” so that the “many” will be made righteous” because that isn’t what the text says and because the group of people who are justified and have life and those who receive Christ’s righteousness are the same group of people. If you want to try to say Christ justified life to all men, please refer back to Romans 5:1-10 to see who are justified and how they are justified. The blood of Christ doesn’t justify all people. It’s only believers who are justified and we are justified by the blood of Christ. I hope you can see this precious truth of scripture.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to reply and for putting your views out for evaluation and critique. Many/most Christians are not open to discussion, much less criticism in open forum. You continue to be in my prayers. God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:
Gen Z drives surge in Catholic church attendance

quote:

After losing members during the clergy sex abuse scandal and COVID, is the Catholic church making a comeback? Parishes in the Pittsburgh area and across the nation are reporting a significant increase in new members, driven in part by Gen Z as people in their 20s search for deeper meaning in life.

Yes... And that's a good thing!

Amen.

quote:

driven in part by Gen Z as people in their 20s search for deeper meaning in life.

Hopefully they promptly understand and surrender, regarding the "meaning in life" in accordance with scripture...

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." Matthew 16:25

Also Matthew 10:39, Luke 9:24, and John 12:25

Two quick comments:

First, a friend who was formerly Catholic shared with me a compelling story of the Eucharist. He was bed ridden in the wake of a significant surgery. He was not showing meaningful signs of progress, primarily because he wasn't eating. The doctors said they'd need to install a feeding tube if he didn't start feeding himself.

A priest visited not long after and asked him if he wanted to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. He received the sacrament and was up and moving around the next day.

I found this personal testimony compelling.

Second, regarding the back-and-forth between Rey and Talon: I don't really take issue with the idea of limited atonement so much as I take issue with unconditional election and irresistible grace. This may betray a lack of understanding on my part. It seems logically and theologically sound to me that God, knowing who would ultimately believe and who wouldn't, would "activate" atonement only for those who believe. Therefore Christs death would not atone for the sins of unbelievers, and they'd suffer the just consequence.

Unconditional election, however, I find quite bizarre. God picking names "out of a hat" before creation, to elect who'd be saved seems to lack characteristics of love. There's little love I can perceive in that sort of election, other than the fact he loved us enough to grant some of us ultimate communion with him rather than just condemnation. It seems to neuter the love we're able to express to Him, which puzzles me at this point in my understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Two quick comments:

First, a friend who was formerly Catholic shared with me a compelling story of the Eucharist. He was bed ridden in the wake of a significant surgery. He was not showing meaningful signs of progress, primarily because he wasn't eating. The doctors said they'd need to install a feeding tube if he didn't start feeding himself.

A priest visited not long after and asked him if he wanted to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. He received the sacrament and was up and moving around the next day.

I found this personal testimony compelling.

Second, regarding the back-and-forth between Rey and Talon: I don't really take issue with the idea of limited atonement so much as I take issue with unconditional election and irresistible grace. This may betray a lack of understanding on my part. It seems logically and theologically sound to me that God, knowing who would ultimately believe and who wouldn't, would "activate" atonement only for those who believe. Therefore Christs death would not atone for the sins of unbelievers, and they'd suffer the just consequence.

Unconditional election, however, I find quite bizarre. God picking names "out of a hat" before creation, to elect who'd be saved seems to lack characteristics of love. There's little love I can perceive in that sort of election, other than the fact he loved us enough to grant some of us ultimate communion with him rather than just condemnation. It seems to neuter the love we're able to express to Him, which puzzles me at this point in my understanding.

How can he be a former Catholic after experiencing such a wonderful grace?

A couple things on the matters discussed here:

As to the atonement discussion; this is a perfect example of why the Church's authority is necessary. It's also why Jesus left a Church and not a "Bible."

As to the Eucharist, it's so essential to our oneness with Christ, that as soon as our Lord announced it in the Gospel, it began to be the test of Fidelity of His followers. I'm paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen in that, but you get the idea.

I'd also love to share a link to a new video on the previously discussed Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. Check out this short clip, but feel free to watch the entire interview. I think the young man in the video makes an air tight case for Catholicism using miracles. Certainly a brilliant kid, who is a recent convert to Catholicism.

https://youtu.be/AaQpDfRevQk?si=gmLRdQaobplE--1P

quote:

How can he be a former Catholic after experiencing such a wonderful grace?

He had a very personal experience with corruption and sexual deviancy in the Catholic Church. He was not a victim, but had intimate knowledge of a perpetrator and his activities.

For the person that started this thread it has helped a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

How can he be a former Catholic after experiencing such a wonderful grace?

He had a very personal experience with corruption and sexual deviancy in the Catholic Church. He was not a victim, but had intimate knowledge of a perpetrator and his activities.

Ah, that is an unfortunate and disgusting reality of the modern church. I have had several instances in my life where I was completely and totally shocked and disgusted by the acts of clerics. I don't know if you heard of this or not, but Bella Dodd was at one time a communist operative who had infiltrated the Catholic Church and had been involved in the recruitment of communists and gays to the seminaries. The goal was to disrupt the church from within with anti Catholic teachings and sexual immorality. I'd say that operation was a success to a disheartening degree. The good thing is that there seems to be a major correction that has taken place. Seminaries are now filled with traditional, conservative men. New priests are almost exclusively conservative and take their vocation seriously. Oh, and Bella Dodd was converted to the Catholic faith by Bishop Fulton Sheen.

Anyway, I won't say that I don't understand people who leave the Church after experiencing or gaining knowledge of some of the evil men who have infiltrated the church. I'd also argue that leaving the church because of them is like an early disciple leaving the church over Judas.

quote:

The goal was to disrupt the church from within with anti Catholic teachings and sexual immorality. I'd say that operation was a success to a disheartening degree. The good thing is that there seems to be a major correction that has taken place. Seminaries are now filled with traditional, conservative men.

Yes, I'd say so. There was certainly an acceptance, even recruitment of sexual deviants in the past. But I think we are seeing a correction.

Also, I think married priests are not a bad idea. I know a former Lutheran minister who was married and allowed to become a Catholic priest.
It's not common but I think married priests can better relate to family issues.

quote:

It's not common but I think married priests can better relate to family issues.

The Holy Ghost can grant whatever perspective is necessary to "relate".

If the Lord can work through a servant in the Church to transubstantiate the Eucharist, then He can give the same man the wisdom and understanding with which he can counsel someone.

Can God? God can.

That is to say that I think it's hogwash to think that a celibate priest can't council a married couple with kids because he's never been married with kids.

quote:

That is to say that I think it's hogwash to think that a celibate priest can't council a married couple with kids because he's never been married with kids.

Well, that's not what I said.

Father Greg Lockwood is a great guy. He used to do the Latin mass at Assumption. My son liked to serve the Latin mass for him. He gives great homilies.

Unusual path leads Father Lockwood to K.C.
https://catholickey.org/2011/0...her-lockwood-to-k-c/

True. Sorry for my rather extreme language.

As I hope has been made clear, I am not an "anti-Catholic". This is one of the particular topics that I go to bat for the Catholic Church on.

It's not uncommon for folks to leverage celibate priests' "inability to relate" against the Catholic Church. I think it's absurd, and betrays a lack of belief in the power of God and the Holy Ghost, and the truth of Christ.

I understand your presentation of that unique case. I understand why the Catholic Church, despite our confidence in the power of God, would (ands perhaps should) reconsider their policy of celibacy.

I perceived the opportunity for more casual consumers of the discussion to be confused, and wanted to make my position known.

If a priest or pastor "can't relate" I think it is a matter of a problem in their relationship with Christ, rather than a lack of personal relevant experience.

Paragraph 1845 in the CCC:
"The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon Christians are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord."

Combine that with Matthew 6:33, James 4:8, Proverbs 3:5-6, Psalm 84:11, John 15:5, etc, and we have a recipe for success or failure determined by obedience.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

It's not uncommon for folks to leverage celibate priests' "inability to relate" against the Catholic Church. I think it's absurd, and betrays a lack of belief in the power of God and the Holy Ghost, and the truth of Christ.

Celibate priests are not the problem. It was the acceptance of homosexuality and deviancy in the seminaries that was the problem.
The culture in the seminaries in the '70's, '80's and '90's was certainly not celibate.

quote:

Also, I think married priests are not a bad idea. I know a former Lutheran minister who was married and allowed to become a Catholic priest.
It's not common but I think married priests can better relate to family issues.

This comment seems, to me, to indicate the idea that there's potential for the "real world" experience of a married priest to grant them an edge in counselling. It suggests that a married priest can do something "better" for his congregation than a celibate one. So, in this instance, one could perceive a "problem" with celibate priests.

I suggested that there should be no problem in this regard, so long as the celibate priest is in a right relationship with the Lord, as evidenced by the CCC paragraph and scripture I referenced.

I agree that celibate priests are not a problem. I was merely commenting on the fact that your comment implied that some can, and do, perceive a problem with celibate priests in regards to counselling families.