HEY CALVINISTS! Are we "Totally Depraved" from birth???

you forgot one:

the Bible says the apostles are children of God, where does it say that about us?

Bro. Dallas

 

Well, for one thing the misspelling isnot perceived. It is a fact.

For another, since you are arminian, you already know how you (mis)use the verse, and don't need me to explain it to you.

For yet another thing, the issue is whether the Calvanist application is warranted when taking the verse in context. It has been demonstrated that it is. Does your question mean that you won't address that? </font>[/QUOTE]You are simply quite wrong about me, I am not an Arminian (Armenian), nor a calvinist. I am Christian...unhyphenated. Leave it at that!

 

Where does it say you have to be an apostle to be saved?

The "mystery" you're talking about is the inclusion of the Gentiles. Where does it say you have to have that mystery revealed to you directly from God in order to be saved?

It says that about non-apostles in 1 Corinthians (apparently it doesn't say it in your whitespace edition of the Bible.)

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Where does it say you have to be set apart to be an apostle in order to be saved?

1 Corinthians 12, earlier in the chapter.

I don't. So you've demonstrated that the apostles are different in some respects. What you have completely failed to demonstrate from scripture is that they are elected and saved differently than we are.

 

Yelsew,

If you want to dodge the question, go for it. I will take your answer to mean that you really are not interested in discussing the verse. You wil discuss anything else but that apparantly.

Your remarks about being an "un-hyphenated" Christian are irrelevant. Your theology is Arminian whether you accept that designation or not.

Bro Bill.

The apostles are certainly not like the rest of the Body in that they have a particular function within the body that is given to them and them only by the Holy Spirit (Rp. 12:3-8).

However that does not mean they are saved by different means or are otherwise above the rest of us. Indeed the Body theology of Paul denies this very thing. See 1Co 12.

 

Bro. Bill.

I am sorry you feel your view is being mischaracterised. Let me address your concern.

As a matter of practice we DO assume that what Jesus says to the apostles he says to us. It is called submitting to the autoirity of Christ and His Word.

As a matter of exegesis we keep that assumtion that what is said to them is equally applicable to us, unless the context indicates a narrowng of the audience.

In your example of John 15:16 does not provide such a case. Jesus words in John 15:15 begin all the way back in John 13 and finishes at the end of John 17. Are we to look at all of that and say we cannot apply anything that Jesus says there because it is said to the apostles?

Of course not.

So why John 15:16? Is ther a specific reason? None in context. John 15:16 is in the vine and branches discourse about bearing fruit for God. That passage appplies to all believers, not simply the apostles. All believers are chosen in order to bear fruit. That is not true merely of the apostles. Therefore the broader application to all belivers is valid.

But what of the application to soteriology? Is there soteriology here? After all this is about bearing fruit for Christ. There is! John 15:16 reads: "You did not choose me but I chose you, and appointed you you that youwould go and bear fruit..."

There are two things happening then, choosing and appointing. The appointing is to bear fruit. What do you suppose the choosing is for? It is not identical with the appointing. Since the choosing comes before the appointing to bear fruit it seems quite reasonable that what us in view here is choosing for salvation, particulalrly in light of the other mention of chosing in John 6:60-71, where believing and salvation are very much in view (see 6:63,64, 65, 68,79).

It seems to me that you allow your a priori assumptions to govern the text more than is waranted.

 

1Co. 12 is not about inspiration to write scriture as such. Not everythig an apostled did was uniquely do able by apostles. And lets not forget that the writing of Scripture was not restricted to the aposltes themselves.

 

I don't think anyone could do otherwise and be honest. Iit is obvious though we differ as to what constitutes a compelling reaon to see such.

I think the oppostie for the same reason. This is why my criterion is immediate context. What you do is superimpose a system over individual texts, or at least smacks of it too much for my liking.

I disagree. Those scriptures, particulalrly the ones dealign with spritual gfifting, give warrant for seeing the apostles as being like us. Not that everything they do is what we do, but the disjunction you propose is not tenable biblically.

Sure.

Nothing. There is no warrant for seeing the apostles as not being representative of believers generally. Considering what the church as a whole has done since Christ's ascension, it seems obvious that the words of Christ have rung totally true.

That is a truism. It is also applicable to any other member of the Body.

That would be the triumph of a system of thought over immedate context, and as such, in error.

You are comapring apples and oranges. When it comes to soteriology, choosing is choosing. But within the body different eople are appointed to differnet functions. Unfortunately what you try to do is take the fact that we are chosen to do different tasks to deny that we are chosen to salvation.

You argue in a circle in that way.
So what I see is flawed thinking. You argue inacircular manner, foist the demands of your theoogical prinicple on the text regardlss of the indications of the immediate context, and you confuse appointment to a function in the body with appointment to the Body.

 

I see. God takes over the will of those He needs to manipulate in order to guarantee the integrity of the Gospel message. On the other hand, He is not as interested in making sure the people He calls with the Gospel message will actually respond to it, so He ducks out and lets them decide.

That's a new twist on the character of God. Spelling is more important than eternal destiny.

 

Ro 11:32 For God hath concluded [sugkleivw: to shut up together, enclose, of a shoal of fishes in a net, to shut up on all sides, shut up completely] all [pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, collectively some of all types] in unbelief [apeitheia: obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will], that he might have mercy upon all [pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, collectively some of all types].

 

It's the same word, but that doesn't mean it must refer to the same scope. It could be all (everyone) were bound, so that all (of the elect) are shown mercy. Or all (of the elect) are bound so that all (everyone) is shown mercy. Or all (everyone) is bound so that all (everyone) is shown mercy. Or all (everyone) is bound so that all (who choose of their own free will) are shown mercy.

I'm sure you can figure out which it must be based on something the Bible does not say.

 

Yes, because your debate tactics are based on logical fallacies. All you said was that it is subjunctive, and then added the non-sequitur that it follows that X interpretation is not possible. But it is possible, and my point that the "all" does not tell you the scope remains the same. So I'll gladly modify my text accordingly:

It's the same word, but that doesn't mean it must refer to the same scope. It could be all (everyone) were bound, so that God might have mercy on all (of the elect). Or all (of the elect) are bound so that God might have mercy on all (everyone). Or all (everyone) is bound so that God might have mercy on all (everyone). Or all (everyone) is bound so that God might have mercy on all (who choose of their own free will).

Happy?