Dear Neogillist,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neogillist  Because the words "world" and "all men" in the Bible are quite ambiguous, and definitely more so than the word "works", |
Linguistically speaking words are not "ambiguous"
per se. Almost every word we use has more than one meaning, but that doesn't make them ambiguous. How do we know which meaning a word takes when it is used? The answer (scientifically) is
context. Hence, when we see words like "works", "justification", "all", "world" used, it is the
context that determines their meaning. This is just standard linguistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neogillist [...] the doctrine of limited atonement is actually easier to prove (at least in my perception) from Scripture than that of justification by faith alone. |
I struggle to agree with this. All one has to do is look at the Christian tradition to see the disagreement over limited atonement and justification. It is the former that has cause way more of a stir.
Your problem with James 2:24 is easily solved when contextually we see that James uses the word "justification" in a very different sense to Paul. In context James is talking about how one
shows they are Christian (justification = "to prove righteous"), whereas in context Paul is talking about how one
becomes a Christian (justification = "to declare righteous"). Tyndale, Calvin, et. al. showed that a long time ago. It's never been a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neogillist And yet, Arminians and those Bible thumbers who have thrown these "universal" passages in opposition to Christ dying for the elect [...] |
Arminians may use those passages "in opposition" to the particular passages, but the vast majority of the early reformed tradition formulated a harmony between them. That's precisely the point.
God bless you.