FK: Once again, if that is so then either Christ is a colossal failure or a satanic teaser. Christ came already knowing the specific names of all those who ever lived who would never believe. Why would He string them along?
That's what the Bible says—for the whole world, for all mankind. Take it up with Him.
"and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." [1 John 2:2]
Apparently that's what the Apostles believed and you believe what they wrote.
And if your theory is correct, why would the Bible say
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent"? [Acts 17:30]
Was that a sign of a colossal failure or evidence of a satanic teaser, FK?
Or how about your favorite?
"even so through one act of righteousness there resulted in justification of life to all men." [Rom 5:18]
Surely you believe when Paul says it, don't you?
"...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Tim 2:4]
or
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
or
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men," [Titus 2:11]Obviously
even Paul here says that He is the Savior of all men especially but not exclusively of believers! I guess you will just have to get more instructions from the Reformed Police to explain these. :)
But all in all it seems that the Scriptures reflect (imagine!) what the Apostolic Church teaches! Are we reading the same Bible?
Kosta: That still doesn't explain why divide a son form his father. That makes no sense.
FK: Because non-believers pose a temptation to believers, especially among family members
That quote comes from Micah 7:6
"For son treats father contemptuously,
Daughter rises up against her mother,
Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
A man's enemies are the men of his own household"
But what is Micah 7 about? It's about Israel in mystery..."the godly have been swept away" form the land, not one upright remains..." Either Israel described by Micah is morally corrupt, or he is suffering from a major case of depression.
Then he adds the following:
5 Do not trust a neighbor;
put no confidence in a friend.
Even with her who lies in your embrace
be careful of your words.
6 For a son dishonors his father,
a daughter rises up against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man's enemies are the members of his own household.
7 But as for me, I watch in hope for the LORD,
I wait for God my Savior;
my God will hear me.
Obviously this is not God speaking but a man about the sad state of moral demise of Israel. But Matthew choreographs it to make it look like God came down to earth to set a son against his father, and a daughter against her mother...
"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" [Mat 10:35]
This is a completely altered meaning of the OT verse. It says Christ specifically came with the purpose of driving the wedge between them. The original, of course,had no such message.
FK: 15:19 : "if you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."I'll just let the Gospels speak for themselves.
You know that's not why the world hates you or anyone else.
FK: It is better to be hated than concede the true faith to make peace.
Oh boy! That sounds positively jihadist!
FK: Then from now on I will assume that you think it is better to concede your faith than to be hated by others. Is this an attitude in all of Orthodoxy?
No, the Orthodox Church doesn't teach that we should concede faith in order not to be hated. I think Orthodoxy is a living proof of that principle, having suffered more than other churches, and is still suffering in places like Iraq, Kosovo, and Somalia. I was simply making an observation that your sweeping generalization can be applied by jihadists as well.
That's non sequitur. Jesus made comparisons all the time. Do you deny He was making one here? I will assume you're sticking with "Matthew lied".
No, the author we ascribe to Matthew wrote post facto (around 70 AD) when the expression "carry your cross" was already used as a synonym for suffering. We just know that Jesus did not use the word "carry your own cross" before it became a synonym for suffering because of His own Crucifixion. So, whoever wrote that verse didn't lie. He believed that's what Jesus would have said.
1 Cor 3:14..."If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." So according to this, there ARE two separate judgments.
The book of Hebrews says otherwise. It says it is appointed for man to die once and then the judgment (9:27).
There is only one judgment. The nature of the judgment following physical death is the same judgment we will receive at the end of times. God doesn't change His mind.
You are correct to understand for each person there is only one judgment, but which judgment seat will depend upon if the person is a believer who has been raptured and at the bema seat or if the person is an unbeliever finding themseleves before the Great White Throne Judgment.
Yes, Christ's propitiation is capable of redeeming the entire world, every single soul who has ever been or will be born.
And yet not all men are saved. Therefore, we must look deeper into the Scriptures to understand what God is telling us because we know that if Christ has paid for a man's sins, those sins have been forgiven by God and that man has been redeemed. So we keep reading John and find verse 5...
"But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." -- 1 John 2:5
So John draws the same distinction Christ drew in John 17 -- those who are His believe in Him and keep His commandments. And that belief and the keeping of those commandments are part of the good fruit of the Spirit, by which "know we that we are in him."
John reiterates this distinction a few verses later...
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." -- 1 John 2:19
Faith is the evidence of our regeneration by the Holy Spirit; a lack of that faith "manifests" and testifies that "they were not all of us."
Universal salvation does not exist just by looking around us, as well as considering what the Scriptures say about Judas and those who depart from the faith of Christ and all those who seek destruction.
Universal atonement does not exist, or else every sin of every man would be forgiven, and all men would be saved.
Therefore, Scripture is telling us that Christ's atonement is specific, personal and transformative. His sacrifice was sufficient for all the world, while efficient only for those whom God has given Him to gather, those who are called by His name.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:9-10,20"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
To deny the particular redemption of Christ is to do the devil's work by making the grace of God ultimately ineffectual, turning it from a specific declaration to whom God wills into a general nudge in the right direction, capable of being ignored by men who are somehow stronger than the Holy Spirit.
That is not the God of Scripture. He gets what He wants because it's all His anyway. Some men are given saving grace and are healed by His stripes and receive the love of the truth, while some men are not. Paul agrees with Christ...
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" -- 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Everything gets back to the first cause, one way or another. And one way or another, everything works to glorify God, either by displaying His mercy or His perfect judgment.
That is simply one of many outward calls. They are distinguished from inward calls in that they do not signify God's intent to act. If outward calls DID signify God's intent to act, then He would truly be as weak as many Christians believe He is. Thank God it is easy to tell the difference, as with the good verses that Dr. E. posted.
Or how about your favorite? "even so through one act of righteousness there resulted in justification of life to all men." [Rom 5:18] Surely you believe when Paul says it, don't you?
Sure. Paul understood that Adam's act affected literally ALL men. He also understood that Christ's sacrifice literally affected ALL believers. All men are subject to the bad, but only believers are subject to the good. Otherwise, all men would be saved. So, common sense tells us that we cannot go with your interpretation. It just doesn't match what we know to be true.
even Paul here says that He is the Savior of all men especially but not exclusively of believers! I guess you will just have to get more instructions from the Reformed Police to explain these. :)
Well, one option we have is to take all of your interpretations, look at the real world, and then throw out the Bible due to impossibility. Another option we have is to interpret correctly and realize that these terms refer to the whole "world" of believers. Suddenly, all of those verses make sense and match what we know to be true from our own observations.
But all in all it seems that the Scriptures reflect (imagine!) what the Apostolic Church teaches! Are we reading the same Bible?
No no no. :) That's what I'm saying. IF we go with your interpretation then it fails because it is impossible. Your interpretations do not mean that all men COULD be saved, they mean that all men ARE saved. We know that can't be the case. Fortunately, I suppose, your interpretations force going too far, so far in fact that it is impossible. All men simply are not saved. That's why I offered a more reasonable alternative.
That quote comes from Micah 7:6 - "For son treats father contemptuously, Daughter rises up against her mother, Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man's enemies are the men of his own household" But what is Micah 7 about? It's about Israel in mystery..."the godly have been swept away" form the land, not one upright remains..." Either Israel described by Micah is morally corrupt, or he is suffering from a major case of depression.
Yes, Israel was morally corrupt. The righteous were so few that it was as if there were none at all. They went through several cycles like this. Another good example of mass error consuming an entire people. It DOES happen. :)
[On Micah 7:5-7] Obviously this is not God speaking but a man about the sad state of moral demise of Israel. But Matthew choreographs it to make it look like God came down to earth to set a son against his father, and a daughter against her mother.............. This is a completely altered meaning of the OT verse. It says Christ specifically came with the purpose of driving the wedge between them. The original, of course,had no such message.
It's not an altered meaning at all. The Micah passage does not address the cause of all this, it is silent. Matthew simply answers that question. Everything that Micah is talking about happened BECAUSE it was a part of God's design. It fits perfectly. :)
FK: 15:19 : "if you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."I'll just let the Gospels speak for themselves.
You know that's not why the world hates you or anyone else.
Jesus' words ring true to me. There is no problem with impossibility here. We Christians certainly experience persecution. If not what He said, then, what do you suppose He really meant?