T h e o • p h i l o g u e

Home » Uncategorized (Page 24)

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Did Nicholas of Cusa Teach Sola Fide? ::: justification debates

Tim Enloe entitled his post, “Nicholas of Cusa on Justification by Faith Alone,” giving me the impression that he thinks the Reformation doctrine sola fide was taught 30 years before Martin Luther by Nicholas of Cusa.  Unfortunately, it appears to me to be a misunderstanding (read my comments in the thread).  It really all depends on what you mean by sola fide, what you mean by justification, what you mean by faith alone, and how you understand the nature of justifying righteousness, whether you distinguish between present and future justification, etc.  The doctrine of justification was not articulated exactly the same way by all the famous Reformers during the Reformation (read: they didn’t believe the same thing), although it was crystalized later in orthodox creeds.  Much confusion surrounds the debates about sola fide and historical investigation is usually highjacked by people with noticeable agendas other than historical objectivity (and this is human nature).

———————————–Evangelical Catholicity———————————

::: The New Anglican Church :::

In cased you missed it, the Anglican Church has been debating the ordination of openly gay Anglican priests. After so much debate, a large group has decided to go ahead and just make their own, New Anglican Church. We’ll see how it plays out.

————————————–New York Times————————————–

Welcome to Our World … lions now hunting humans

Man-Eating Prides

b l o g • s h o t ___–__–_–_-_ 4

Many well known bloggers are moving to belief.net.  Scot McKnight.  Tony Jones.

A well known Muslim blogger, Aziz, posts his thoughts about the attacks in India.    

Feel Blog reports that Rick Warren like’s Matthew Elliot’s new book Feel.  If you haven’t read it yet … you need to.

Celucien L. Joseph calls for bloggers to post about Racial Reconciliation. Why not? It’s an important part of God’s new creation, the new humanity. Big deal.

Just for laughs, check out the Elf dances from the Emergent guys on The Crimson Window.

———- Try Sin* ————side effects may include DEATH, etc.

—————————————HT: Flame——————————————–

$$$ Get Money … or … Ray Comfort’s gospel tracts

The SEAL Youth’s Sportin’ some Ray Comfort Bills.

pb100114

I don’t even know where they gotem’ from, but they will probably keepem’ forever.  If for no other reason than just to put on a front.

John 3:16 Teaches Limited Atonement? ::: Calvinism Gone Wild

Passages which seem to contradict a limited view of the atonement do not actually contradict it. Some of these passages do just the opposite.

For example, consider the classic proof text for a general atonement: John 3:16. This passage teaches that God gave Christ to the world so that believers might be saved. All believers are elect and all the elect eventually believe. Therefore, even John 3:16 teaches a limited intention for sending Christ into the world—to save the elect (i.e. all who believe). One does not need to interpret “for God so loved the world,” to mean “for God so loved the elect,” for this to hold true. The purpose clause “so that” is limited to the elect regardless of how broad the scope of meaning for the term “world.”  God loves the world, but he sends his son for the benifit only of whosoever believes, and whosoever believes is elect.  

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, so that whosoever believes in him would have everlasting life.”

John Owen notes that the meaning and usage of those terms which are universal in form—such as “world” and “all”—must be weighed very carefully for this reason: “Upon these expressions hangs the whole weight of the opposite cause, the chief if not the only argument for the universality of redemption.” [1] Once the full range of meaning for these words is closely examined, however, the biblical objections to limited atonement are less convincing. The word “world” (kosmos) in Scripture does not always refer to every person in the world without exception. There are many passages where kosmos simply cannot mean every individual human being (Jn 7:7; Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 4:9; 11:32). If one is to believe that Christ died for everyone without exception on the grounds that the Bible says he died for the sins of the kosmos, she unwittingly gives good reason to think that everyone alive in the first century was a follower of Jesus, since the Pharisees exclaimed, “Look, the world [ho kosmos] has gone after Him” (Jn 12:19).

Even more important, kosmos often refers only to those who believe. For example, Paul taught that Israel’s sin of rejecting Christ means “riches for the world” (ploutos kosmou, Rom 11:12). Can we say then, that every person in the world without exception has received the ploutos Paul has in mind? It seems clear that Paul is using the word “world” to distinguish between Jew and Gentile, and that he would intend us to understand only those who believe in Christ as the recipients of the riches Paul has in mind in this context. Such an interpretation, however, leads us to conclude that kosmos actually refers to a minority group among the people in the world—the few that find the ploutos in Christ (i.e. the elect).

When the apostle John admonishes his readers not to think of Christ’s death as for them only but for the “whole world” (1 Jn 2:2), the grammatical structure is strikingly similar to statements found in his gospel (Jn 11:51-52). On the basis of this parallel one might conclude that “whole world” in his epistle simply refers to God’s people, the elect, scattered throughout the whole world. 

Although many passages describe the death of Christ as being for “all” (pas, Rom 5:18; 1 Cor 15:22; 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Tim 2:4-6; Heb 2:9; 2 Pt 3:9), like the word “world,” the word “all” in Scripture does not always refer to everyone, but it must be determined by context. Sometimes the word “all” simply refers to all those within a certain group defined by the context. For example, Romans 5:18 teaches that just as one sins led to condemnation for “all,” so one act of righteousness results in justification for “all.” Here, even within the very same context, one must interpret the former reference to “all” as virtually universal, and the latter as limited only to believers. Without allowing for such fair distinctions based on context, the interpreter has no way to object to the conclusion that all people without exception are justified before God. Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2:6 that Christ was given as a ransom for all can simply mean “all kinds,” (indiscriminately with respect to Jew, Gentile, male, female, slave, free). In fact, Paul’s usage of the word “all” is best understood this way based on the way he uses it in the context (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-2). “All” in Titus 2:11 can be taken in a similar way based on context (cf. Tit 2:2-4, 6, 9).

—————————

[1] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, reprinted 1999), 190.

[2] I owe this insight to John Piper. John Piper, Tulip: The Pursuit of God’s Glory in Salvation (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Desiring God Ministries), 31.

If reformers were more reformed ******

If reformers were more reformed, they would be more refined in the graces of kindness, gentleness, meekness, compassion, and the rest of those fruits of the Spirit that amount to nothing more than love.

If theologians were more theological *****

If theologians were more theological, they would spend more time developing a theology of love rather than debating endlessly about things that don’t matter much.