tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.comments2012-08-30T18:52:54.904-07:00Freedom Over the ClayIvan Ortegahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03287492344434899622noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-10754357322293569152012-08-13T07:18:19.557-07:002012-08-13T07:18:19.557-07:00You're saying self sacrafice doesn't make ...You're saying self sacrafice doesn't make sense without a Christian worldview...<br />not only does that exclude other religions - people fly planes into buildings and bomb public places under the guise of self sacrifice - but you haven't looked into real people who make sacrifices and what they actually think about it. Christian views are definitely not a requirement.<br />And stop applying Darwinism to everything!<br />Instinct is a thing,<br />value of others and want for social things is a thing!<br />Many many many many many animals sacrafice themselves to have their children and to raise them.<br />Do you realise that family is one of the strongest things in evolution, that young will save their parents, parents will use themselves as food for their young, they will starve themselves, they will spend a ridiculous amount of time on them, they will swim up waterfalls, they will do almost anything to: maintain a herd/tribe/family to use numbers to their advantage, find the best place for their young, to give them the best start... seriously, not only are you applying Darwinism where it shouldn't really be applied (ie. human thought process), but you are applying it where if it was a thoughtless act there are hundreds of thousands of examples in nature where it exists.<br /><br />I don't get it at all.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02367558287363128968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-85788381392043987312012-08-12T06:12:23.568-07:002012-08-12T06:12:23.568-07:00Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f53...Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f53E18pwcAI&feature=g-u-uMARIOLANDbloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02647143738737141738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-90907387711908692742012-03-18T15:40:51.486-07:002012-03-18T15:40:51.486-07:00Good stuff right here!Good stuff right here!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-45656327455066572012010-11-17T11:54:44.279-08:002010-11-17T11:54:44.279-08:00how does God wanting every single person to come t...how does God wanting every single person to come to repentance connect with the point that "God is patient towards <b>you</b>?"<br /><br />you want to say that "you" actually means every single human being. but the context is certainly not that - "you" has more to do with the church/believers as distinguished from "them" (the scoffing unbelievers - and again, peter is reminding the church that the scoffers have been judged in the past and will be dealt with in the future in v6-7). God is not delaying Jesus' coming on behalf of "them", the scoffers.<br /><br />so is God being patient toward those who already believed at that point? no. they didn't need Him to be patient, they wanted Him to come immediately, to spare them from suffering.<br /><br />so if God is not being patient with "them" - the unbelieving scoffers, nor the subset of the church that believed at that point in history, then the best explanation is that God is looking ahead to those who will certainly believe, who were chosen from the foundation of the world. from God's point of view - speaking through His Word to the church throughout time - He is patient towards His sheep (but not the goats).<br /><br />"A much simpler way to understand the passage is that it's making a broad statement about God's charachter (He does want any to perhish but rather that all should come to repent.)"<br /><br />it's simpler and it does make God seem nicer. <br /><br />but here's another basic problem with that (besides the fact that the context of 2peter3 includes a promise of judgment for the scoffers), it doesn't fit with what the rest of the bible teaches.<br /><br />look at 1 samuel 2, for example. eli's sons are evil and eli rebukes them for it…but…<br /><br /><i>v25His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death.</i><br /><br />why didn't eli's sons repent as their father asked them to, according to the bible? because they chose not to of their "free will?" it's true enough that they chose not to repent, but the foundational reason listed in scripture contradicts your take on 2pet3:9 pretty directly. <br /><br />God could have waited until they were 70 and maybe they would have looked back on their youthful foolishness and repented...but He wasn't obligated to and He didn't. eli’s sons did not listen to their father and repent <b>because</b> God wanted them to perish.<br /><br />Further, God forced a very unwilling jonah to go and preach to ninevah which led to some repentance there (Matt12:41). but in contrast, you have a situation like luke 10:13:<br /><br /><i> Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago...</i><br /><br />Had God compelled someone like jonah to go preach to them, they <b>would have</b> repented. but He didn't, so they didn't. if you are contending that 2pet3:9 teaches that God really wanted them – as He does every single person - to repent, that doesn't fit with the text.<br /><br />-charlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-70377320669437050232010-11-16T12:38:28.390-08:002010-11-16T12:38:28.390-08:00Charles,
The point that I was trying to makes was...Charles,<br /><br />The point that I was trying to makes was that the us/them distinction in the context does not support the catigories of elect/non-elect, but rather the believers/unbelievers. This becomes escially relivant in the case of the elect who have not yet believed and the funny thing is the passage in question is all about those who have not yet believed, not about those who already have. So none of the contextual evidence supports the given interpretation, since the focus on the unbelieving elect (i.e. those who have not repented).<br /><br />A much simpler way to understand the passage is that it's making a broad statement about God's charachter (He does want any to perhish but rather that all should come to repent) and this broad statement is the reason He is giving an opportunity for the unrepentant to repent. The context is broadened in that it gives a general statement about God and His dealings with the world as a whole.<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-25547582858162118142010-11-16T08:49:37.263-08:002010-11-16T08:49:37.263-08:00probably should have put quotes around the "t...probably should have put quotes around the "them" in that first paragraph in the previous post...i do completely agree with the dichotomy between the "you/us/we" and the "they/them/scoffers" that form the context of peter's comments in v9...<br /><br />-charlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-16206227823798152132010-11-16T08:45:38.036-08:002010-11-16T08:45:38.036-08:00"Well now I am even more confused. Is the pas..."Well now I am even more confused. Is the passage a statement about God's decree that only the elect shall repent or His evangelical command that all men repent and believe?"<br /><br />to recap the post: peter is primarily responding to a church body that eagerly desires Jesus to return "right now" - most likely due to persecution. peter encourages these believers to ignore <b>them</b> - the unbelieving scoffers who will be subject to judgement. <br /><br />but rather, to understand that Jesus is not returning "right now" (the point of the passage) because there were some alive at that time who would absolutely be brought to repentance in the future and God refused to close the door on any of His chosen people. they should not be frustrated by God's patience but equate it with the salvation of those still being gathered into the people of God.<br /><br />but God is not merely waiting because someone <b>might possibly</b> believe...He will close the door of time when the last elect person repents and believes (even though some will not have had much time to hear and choose at that point.)<br /><br />if your understanding fits better with the larger context then go with that. (although peter doesn't sound very apologetic about God's fiery judgement on the ungodly in v7, for example) but do consider the larger context rather than merely a sentence fragment in developing your understanding of scripture (which i'm sure you already know).<br /><br />-charlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-21350223560648056122010-11-16T08:20:10.084-08:002010-11-16T08:20:10.084-08:00not a big deal, but it is helpful to clarify that ...not a big deal, but it is helpful to clarify that it is written concerning the "elect" - those who have believed and who will certainly come to belief in the future - rather than "christians" per se.<br /><br />i might also point out that 2pet3:15 affirms that the patience of God referenced in v9 means salvation, for certain and not merely a vague hope. for a church which was suffering greatly under persecution, this is a great promise. they are not suffering for nothing.<br /><br />-charlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-72366762283513460412010-11-15T11:02:05.072-08:002010-11-15T11:02:05.072-08:00I must admit I found myself routing against the Pa...I must admit I found myself routing against the Pat's in their 'perfect seasons'. But as long as your not an Eagles fan, it's all good. I think the Pat's are better off w/o Moss. <br /><br />You can probably already tell why I have reservations about that interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9, so no need for me to repeat them.<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-70877878594106090142010-11-14T00:35:48.777-08:002010-11-14T00:35:48.777-08:00The passage means that God will certainly bring al...The passage means that God will certainly bring all of His elect to repentance, The elect that already have come to repentance and the elect that haven't. This is the only consistent way to take "patient towards you," given the context.<br />I'm a Pats fan, it's not easy because everybody hates them.Ivan Ortegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287492344434899622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-64731539875440864762010-11-13T05:05:55.692-08:002010-11-13T05:05:55.692-08:00JJ's passing the team to his son scares me a b...JJ's passing the team to his son scares me a bit - there's no end in sight to his influence on the Cowboys. I wouldn't be supprized if he makes Steven Jones the GM sometime soon, but I know who will be calling the shots.<br /><br />So what team do you like?<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-12552538289040686222010-11-13T05:01:19.430-08:002010-11-13T05:01:19.430-08:00Well now I am even more confused. Is the passage ...Well now I am even more confused. Is the passage a statement about God's decree that only the elect shall repent or His evangelical command that all men repent and believe?<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-68737597130532702912010-11-12T11:24:14.515-08:002010-11-12T11:24:14.515-08:00Almost. But It applies to the church as a whole...Almost. But It applies to the church as a whole. It would be weird to say repent! and then say, wait you christians, you already repented so you don't have to.<br /><br />Jerry Jones should coach the team he already practically does.Ivan Ortegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287492344434899622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-56392656674027875122010-11-12T08:28:00.745-08:002010-11-12T08:28:00.745-08:00Ivan,
Thanks, I understand about Wade, but I don&...Ivan,<br /><br />Thanks, I understand about Wade, but I don't know why they are going with Garret. It's not like the office was doing great or something. Seems like Jerry just plays favorites sometimes.<br /><br />So your saying the passage is about the church, but not all the church, but only those who are just fronting, but not all that are just fronting, but only the elect who will eventually stop fronting and become the real deal?<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-3528937896283840742010-11-11T11:51:48.279-08:002010-11-11T11:51:48.279-08:00Dano,
The calling for repentance is the means by ...Dano,<br /><br />The calling for repentance is the means by which God brings in His elect. In a congregation that fact is we can't know the state of a soul by a mere profession of faith. Hence the call for repentance. In 2 Peter 3:9 he is referring to the inner effectual call that brings repentance. God will certainly get his wish. <br />Good luck with Jason Garret!Ivan Ortegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287492344434899622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-77794648202169272802010-11-11T09:05:46.170-08:002010-11-11T09:05:46.170-08:00Ivan,
When Peter says that God "is patient t...Ivan,<br /><br /><i>When Peter says that God "is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance," he is referring to Christian's</i><br /><br />Haven't Christians already repented? <br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-27130832668507639372010-11-09T15:38:34.439-08:002010-11-09T15:38:34.439-08:00Great commentsGreat commentsIvan Ortegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287492344434899622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-57809040567502646462010-11-09T11:28:39.854-08:002010-11-09T11:28:39.854-08:00The only thing I would suggest is extending the co...The only thing I would suggest is extending the context to v.7 - Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for "all kinds" of people, and for that reason, Paul was called to reach the gentiles.<br /><br />But yes - this is a common issue when dealing with interpreting “all” (greek “pas”) or “world” (“kosmos”).<br /><br />Instead of looking at the context and nature of the issues confronting the early church (primarily whether gentiles could be Christians <b>at all</b> without first becoming jews), many people simply assume that “all means all” and these words must be referring to every single person. But as you've discussed, "all" does not always mean every single individual example without exception.<br /><br />1Tim6:10For the love of money is the root of <b>all (“pas”)</b> evil (KJV)<br /><br />Here is one example of “pas” in Pauline correspondence. Is the love of money the root of every single kind of evil? Did David commit adultery for money? Or do more modern translations understand the greek more accurately when they translate this verse as “For the love of money is a root of <b>all kinds</b> of evil.” <br /><br />Acts2:17In the last days, God says, “I will pour out my Spirit on <b>all (“pas”)</b> people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy…” <br /><br />This prophecy of Joel was fulfilled at Pentecost, yet none of the unbelievers received the Spirit. Here again “all” does not mean “every single person” – “all” means “all kinds”: men and women, young and old, but specifically the people of God or “elect.”<br /><br />Or another example where some choose to ignore the surrounding context:<br /><br /><i>Heb2:9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for <b>everyone (“pas”)</b>. <br />10In bringing <b>many sons</b> to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of <b>their</b> salvation perfect through suffering. 11Both the one who makes men holy and <b>those who are made holy</b> are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them <b>brothers</b>. 12He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.” 13And again,<br />“I will put my trust in him.” And again he says, “Here am I, and <b>the children God has given me</b>.”<br />14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but <b>Abraham’s descendants</b>.</i> <br /><br />The "all" or "everyone" in Heb2:9 is defined and clarified by the surrounding context. Jesus died for the "sons/ brothers/ children/ those who are made holy/ Abraham’s descendants (c.f. Gal3:29)." <br /><br />But sorry if I'm jumping ahead... :)<br /><br />-charlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-14215955782265195552010-11-02T09:40:47.905-07:002010-11-02T09:40:47.905-07:00Charles,
Believers, not Christ’s enemies, are the...Charles,<br /><br />Believers, not Christ’s enemies, are the object of Christ’s perfecting work. My overall idea on that passage is that when Christ cleans a sin, it’s gone forever. In the past, when Christ started cleansing their sins, the sins He cleaned were completely removed. Now, as they sin, He continues to clean them and removes those sins too. <br />All this is based on His sacrifice. And based on His sacrifice, He could clean others sins to, but He doesn’t, since His blood is only applied to believers.<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-87282138319308475352010-11-01T20:39:16.317-07:002010-11-01T20:39:16.317-07:00"As for 1 John 2:2, I don’t think you should ..."As for 1 John 2:2, I don’t think you should infer that the scope of advocation and propitiation are co-extensive, given the phrase ‘not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world’."<br /><br />When John was writing this about 2000 years ago, things were a little different: there was a division in the church. And the bible teaches us that John was sent specifically to the jews (Gal2:9).<br /><br /><i>James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.</i><br /><br />Are you a member of a jewish congregation? The necessity of continuing circumcision and jewish food laws was the biggest issue in the church two millennia ago – this is made clear in Acts15 and Galatians among many other texts…As an apostle to the jews, of course John would need to remind his congregations that Jesus died not only for the circumcised but also the uncircumcised. Even Peter needed reminding many times over. (Mark 7:19; Acts10; Gal2:14)<br /><br />Seems logical enough that John was writing to one of the jewish congregations for which he was responsible - so "ours" referred to the sin of jewish christians like John, while the "whole world" reminded those jews that the dividing wall of hostility had been knocked down and the gentiles were being grafted in.<br /><br />As referenced in the blogpost, John stated the exact same idea as 1John2:2 in John11:51-52 by saying that Jesus died not just for the believing jews but “for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one”...and this is the same unity Jesus prayed for His church in John 17 – for believers then and in the future (v.20) – but again, Jesus specifically refused to pray for the “world.” (v.9)<br /><br />John is very consistent. But he ought to be read as a man of his time in the 1st century and as a man of his culture.<br /><br />Again, if there were any plausible reason elsewhere in the bible to believe that the sins of unbelievers has been propitiated or atoned, you might have a point, but as John teaches elsewhere "the wrath of God remains on the unbeliever." (John3:36) Jesus did not become a curse for those who will later be cast out as "accursed."<br /><br />You're simply losing something in the translation when you put too much emphasis on modern egalitarian notions of what the word "world" means. <br /><br />-charlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-60471002666299158322010-11-01T18:30:20.221-07:002010-11-01T18:30:20.221-07:00"Have they been cleansed once and for all, or..."Have they been cleansed once and for all, or are they now being cleansed?"<br /><br />yes. atonement/justification was accomplished at the cross for the bride of Christ. peace with God became a settled matter for every single one of the elect.<br /><br />the elect are being sanctified in space and time. we are being conformed by the Spirit into the image of the Son.<br /><br />but i'm not clear at all on your take on the passage - it says by one offering, He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. who is the object of His work? what did He accomplish in the past <b>for them</b> and what is He continuing to do now? <br /><br />it makes sense to me that "those who are being sanctified" now - in a continuing sense - are the elect: those who come to saving belief in Jesus.<br /><br />in what sense did Jesus "perfect" in the past or "is sanctifying" in a continuing sense the "unbelieving world." and the verse is clearly referring to a group of people who are the beneficiaries of His offering to the Father. who makes up that group? His enemies that He is waiting to be made his footstool? 1) that doesn't seem like what you would typically consider a loving posture (does it?) and 2) in what sense are you saying that His sacrifice perfected His enemies?<br /><br />my justification/sanctification understanding might be wrong, but i need a better explanation that addresses the identity of the direct object in v14 (and how that group can possibly include those in v13)...<br /><br />-charlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-255131688453213382010-11-01T16:54:42.802-07:002010-11-01T16:54:42.802-07:00Cool dano. I think it's obvious where we disag...Cool dano. I think it's obvious where we disagree, and that we both think the other is lacking exegesis. I will post an article about the testimony of Hebrews some time in the future. Theres always 2011 for the Cowboys!Ivan Ortegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287492344434899622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-38242630727095475032010-11-01T14:43:53.457-07:002010-11-01T14:43:53.457-07:00Thanks. The Cowboys season is turning an all out ...Thanks. The Cowboys season is turning an all out freefall of expectations. Yes, I think Christ died for everyone but only intercedes for believers. As for 1 John 2:2, I don’t think you should infer that the scope of avocation and propitiation are co-extensive, given the phrase ‘not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world’. At a minimum, we should allow the rest of the context to determine if the extent of propitiation is greater than that of avocation. <br /><br />As for John 3:16, again, if you mean all sinners, OK, but if you mean only believing sinners, then you have the same problem (i.e. God so loved believing sinners that whosoever believes…). Most of the rest of your objections here are theological rather than exegetical and while I would love to get into the questions of ‘does God fail’ and ‘does foreknowledge amount to the same thing’ and ‘double payments’, I think these topics would be tough to give justice to quickly and in a combox. It was a pleasure chatting with you and I will let you have the last word on this exchange. Nice blog you have here; I may show up to comment from time to time.<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-22970732335357450062010-11-01T14:42:42.597-07:002010-11-01T14:42:42.597-07:00Dan, I am not sure if you agree that Christ only i...Dan, I am not sure if you agree that Christ only intercedes for the elect. To separate the atonement and it's application is to say the Christ's blood is rendered ineffective for the non-believer after He died for their sins. Your interpretation has Jesus dying for people he knew would never come to Him. It also has people paying again for their sins in Hell. My arguments about 1 John 2:2 don't rest on another use of world as Christians. Rather they rest on the context of world in 1 John 2:2, namely that Christ is the advocate/intercessor for only believers, as you said Romans 8 mentions, and therefore he is the propitiation only for believers. If Jesus fails to perfect those for whom the sacrifice is made, then how is it better than OT sacrifices since they failed in the same way? I would also paraphrase John 3:16 to say, for God so loved sinners. God be with you Dan and the Cowboys, they need it!Ivan Ortegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287492344434899622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-190563411331943095.post-7508448359304507822010-11-01T11:07:32.169-07:002010-11-01T11:07:32.169-07:00Ivan & Charles,
Regarding Hebrews 10:14, “has...Ivan & Charles,<br /><br />Regarding Hebrews 10:14, “has perfected” is in the past while “are being sanctified” is in the present. Have they been cleansed once and for all, or are they now being cleansed? We must resolve this somehow. One way to look at it would be that they are being cleansed now, but they don’t need to be re-cleansed for the same sins again. This perfect cleansing is based on Christ’s one time and completed sacrifice. The OT sacrifices could not perfect and had to be repeated (verse 1-3) and didn’t cleanse sins (verse 4). Thus Christ stands in contrast to the OT sacrifices in that His sacrifice does not have to be repeated and He does remove sin. <br /><br />Now that the sacrifice is complete, Christ sits at the right hand of God and intercedes for believers (Romans 8), asking the Father to accept His sacrifice on their behalf, which applies His blood to the sinner and cleanses them. <br /><br />The key is to keep distinct the sacrifice and the application of the blood. Just like in the Passover, the sacrifice can save; the application of the blood does save.<br /><br />God be with you,<br />DanGodismyjudgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310455924556730920noreply@blogger.com