Results 421 - 440 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 162866 | ||
Dear Atdcross, I'm glad at second thought you were able to see things clearly. I continue to look forward to seeing the Scriptures you use to support the position you espouse. In Him, Doc |
||||||
422 | Help!!! | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 162933 | ||
Dear Nghk, Every time I see your screen name I always wonder if it is your initials or your name. If the latter, I think about how the French ought to loan you folks a few vowels -- the French always have vowels to spare! :-) Tsukahira, in his book, is making statements from the Q'oran. Mohammed, was not a literate man. He dictated his visions to another who committed them to writing. The Q'oran contradicts the Bible in many places. The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, consequently it is important to them to displace the position of Isaac as the father of the chosen people. If you talk to an Imam they will tell you that the Bible has been corrupted. Nevertheless, they quote from it heavily. If you ask why they quote from a corrupted source, they assure you that only about 97 percent of the Bible is corrupt. They can give no further evidence of this corruption, except to assert that it was done intentionally as a Jewish plot. The Q'oran has its origins in a single human being -- unlike the Bible. The Bible predates the Q'oran by some 500 years. (In fact, it is interesting that some of Mohammed's descriptions of Christianity stem directly from at least two heretical groups that date right to the time of Mohammed!) The Q'oran has never been subject to the scrutiny that the Scriptures have been. Indeed, any such effort is vehemently and violently resisted by Muslims. (See, for example, what happened to a man named Salman Rushdie.) Since Peter Tsukahira is basing his thesis in the Q'oran rather than the Holy Bible, my tendency would be to chuck the entire work. He is simply doing what so many do, taking a current event and trying to wrap spiritual significance around it. People tried to do that around Christ, and His response was always, "Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish." Salvation is by grace alone, through Christ alone, by faith alone. That faith comes only from the Word of God. "As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." (Colossians 2:6-10) In Him, Doc |
||||||
423 | if you are saved are you always saved? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 162948 | ||
Dear AGM, There are, indeed, other words that can and are used to describe the various aspects of salvation. We've had pretty extensive discussions on the forum regarding the "ordo salutis." (cf post #151193) In Him, Doc |
||||||
424 | Help!!! | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 162994 | ||
Dear Ngkh, You'll also need to understand American culture. What you are seeing may be an over-reaction to problems here in our country. The idea of religious tolerance is really a fine one. It has helped believers in different religions from killing one another. However, here in the United States, the definition of tolerance is being changed. Tolerance here means that you aren't even to disagree with someone, let alone say that you disagree with someone! It is considered a cardinal virtue. Consequently, if you say that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life," you are being intolerant, even if you aren't speaking to anyone in particular. Making such a statement even gets you labeled as judgmental as well as interolerant. Ultimately, if Christians are muzzled, how will they hear the Word of Truth? In Him, Doc |
||||||
425 | Help!!! | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 163005 | ||
Dear Ngkh, Fortunately, the efficacy of the Gospel is not dependent on the presentation! Indeed, we are told that it will bring offense. Faith only comes by hearing the Word. We are praying for the Muslim world. In our own country their numbers are increasing. Our hearts desire is to see them saved. You can pray for Americans, too, Ngkh. Ours is a population of "Christians" who do not know the Lord. In Him, Doc |
||||||
426 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 163073 | ||
Dear Atdcross, The tenacity with which you hold your view is nothing if not remarkable. Would you, please, offer a Scripture passage or two on which this doctrine might be supported? In Him, Doc |
||||||
427 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 163087 | ||
Okay... okay... how about just one verse? Just one? | ||||||
428 | "nun" verse at Psalm 145:13 not in NASB | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 164641 | ||
Dear Commandmentkeeper, You are mixing issues of translation and textual criticism. Would you please be more specific: Where does the NASB introduce corruption and how do you define corruption? Where have editors "added to the Bible?" It isn't often that the forum draws participants with sufficient knowledge of the science of textual criticism or expertise in ancient Biblical languages to make these kinds of assertions. It is rare, indeed, to have someone with expertise in both disciplines. Welcome to the forum. In Him, Doc |
||||||
429 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166097 | ||
Hi, MJH... How, then, do you deal with the account in Acts 15? Certainly the apostles would not have missed something as crucial as 99 percent of the dietary laws. Nevertheless, they only give two guidelines: eschew fornication and do not eat strangled animals. I'm really just curious how you deal with those directives given your perspective. In Him, Doc |
||||||
430 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166108 | ||
Dear MJH, As you said, we need to take care not to read into a passage what was not there in the first place. Fortunately we have Scripture to interpret Scripture. If your interpretation be so, then why don't we find Paul reiterating these principles in greater, explicit detail in his epistles? On the contrary we read his words from the Holy Spirit: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17) ...and on the topic of meat offered to idols he gives the general statement... But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. (1 Corinthians 8:8) ...and the "doctrines of devils"... Forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:3-5) Furthermore we have the whole epistle of Galatians warning against adopting the ceremonial law as a means of righteousness, impugning the power of the atonement of Christ. Not least of all we have the great weight of 2,000 years of a vast variety of believers interpreting the dietary requirements of the Mosaic Covenant as ceremonial rather than moral. That puts your perspective in the uncomfortable position of having to admit that the Holy Spirit was negligent in speaking this to the rest of the church, but has singled out you -- and Garner Ted Armstrong and Ellen G. White -- to receive this special revelation. (By the way, in your previous posts I've not heard you espouse the doctrines of the WWCG or the SDA.) Spiritual perception arises out of community (Hebrews 3:12-13), it does not arise in isolation. (This is the value of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.) In Him, Doc |
||||||
431 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166132 | ||
Dear MJH, You asked, "What is WWCG?" The World Wide Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong. You wrote, "My personal believe is still that Gentile believers are not held to the dietary laws of Moses." (sic) Well, I've got egg on my face, then... I thought you were arguing the contrary. I'm sure getting old! In Him, Doc |
||||||
432 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166820 | ||
I always thought that the great deceiver was self deceived, as well. | ||||||
433 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166824 | ||
"God 'works all things after the counsel of his will' (Ephesians 1:11).This 'all things' includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28). "From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, 'If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?' (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, 'The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD' (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, 'Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?' (Job 2:10). "Oh, yes, Satan is real and active and involved in this world of woe! In fact Job 2:7 says, 'Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.' Satan struck him. But Job did not get comfort from looking at secondary causes. He got comfort from looking at the ultimate cause. 'Shall we not accept adversity from God?' And the author of the book agrees with Job when he says that Job's brothers and sisters 'consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him' (Job 42:11). Then James underlines God's purposeful goodness in Job's misery: 'You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful' (James 5:11). Job himself concludes in prayer: 'I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted' (Job 42:2). Yes, Satan is real, and he is terrible - and he is on a leash." --John Piper |
||||||
434 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166844 | ||
Dear Atdcross, It's pretty presumptuous of me to attempt to account for the words of someone like John Piper, but I'll do my best. You wrote, "Amos 3:6. The calamity is with reference to judgment and not moral evil." I'm confused. I don't know of any case where God's judgment does not always involve matters of morality. You wrote, "Job 1:21; 2:10. As seen 'behind the scenes' of Job's story, it is Satan and not God who has 'taken away' and 'covered [him] with boils.'" God is sovereign. If the book of Job doesn't teach that, it doesn't teach anything. Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold. And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. (Job 42:11-12 ESV) You wrote, "Eph 1:11. Note, it does not say God 'causes all things' especially moral evil and every tragedy and sickness that occurs." This interpretation would be in keeping with the rest of Scripture. In addition, another authority, John Gill, comments on this verse, "...according to a purpose of God, which can never be frustrated; and according to the purpose of 'that God', as one of Stephens's copies reads, that is the author of all things but sin; of the works of creation and of providence, and of grace and salvation; and who works all these according to His will, just as He pleases, and according to the counsel of it, in a wise and prudent manner, in the best way that can be devised; for He is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working; wherefore His counsel always stands, and He does all his pleasure: and hence the inheritance which the saints obtain in Christ, and are predestinated to, is sure and certain." You wrote, "Matt 10:29. It does not say God caused the sparrow to fall." If the fall of the sparrow is not subject to providence, then who does have such power? That's pretty frightening to think that there is something out there that can force God's hand! I bet if you try you can think of some Scripture passages that do assert God's control over all of nature. Here's a couple to start with Psalm 104:21-30; 1 Kings 17:4-6. You wrote, "Prov 16:33. As I see it, God may intervene in the roll of dice, however, there is no indication that his control over the affairs of men are as exhaustive and minute. As the TEV suggests, the men throwing the dice are doing so 'to learn God's will' (that is, they are in a posture of submission to God) and, therefore, 'God himself determines the answer.'" So what you are saying is that God only works in the lives of men when they are in submission to Him. Are you sure you want to stand on that doctrinal position? If you are unsatisfied with my answers, I'd commend you to the website of John Piper (www.desiringgod.org) where you can personally question his theology. If you are interested in a relatively short explanation of the orthodox doctrine of the sovereignty of God you might read A. W. Pink's "God's Sovereignty Defined." If you want to get it fully down pat, I'd encourage you to read Pink's book "The Sovereignty of God." Thank you for your questions. In Him, Doc |
||||||
435 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166907 | ||
Dear John, It is an interesting analogy. However, it has two significant problems: 1. Evil is more than the absence of good, it is chosen 2. It isn't Scriptural -- light exposes deeds, darkness hides them; light and darkness are aspects of knowledge and ignorance, not good and evil In Him, Doc |
||||||
436 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166911 | ||
Dear Ocelot, No, there is no mention of Calvinism. The doctrine of the Sovereignty of God is not a Calvinistic distinction. Furthermore, the Sovereignty of God is not a denominational distinctive. Had it been, I would have so stated that fact, rather than obviscate the origins of my perspective as is the manner of some. In Him, Doc |
||||||
437 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166972 | ||
Dear atdcross, I see what you are saying regarding Amos 3:6. Yes, I concur, the evil in that passage is not the moral variety. As Piper says, "..the most painful situations..." I'd venture that he would agree. I wonder if when the Ninevites were destroyed they thought of it as evil? Regarding Ephesians 1:11, Gill would have most certainly agreed with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which states, "God hath decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree. (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5)" (chapter 3, paragraph 1) I don't think I could express it any better. You wrote, "Matt 10:29. It’s pretty frightening to picture the hand of God just smashing a helpless, innocent bird to the ground for no reason." This is what is a logical fallacy called a "strawman fallacy." It is a rhetorical technique that caricatures an opponents argument in order to make it easier to attack. The logical response is for you to document the source of these words you've put into my mouth. As you ignored my explanation, I'll assume you have not looked at the other passages I suggested, and that my further explanation would. Your other comments simply reflect opinion, hence the use of phrases like "I think" and "it seems". I'd like to kindly, but firmly, remind you that we are here to study the Bible, not opinion. Thank you for your time. In Him, Doc |
||||||
438 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166974 | ||
Dear Ocelot, I understand your consternation. Theodicy is, by no means, a simple topic. However, asserting one attribute of God in order to explain away another attribute simply doesn't wash. This is one of the reasons that systematic theologies seek to carefully balance the truths of Scripture in such a way that we do not neglect one truth by letting it overshadow or displace another. (Theology proper is the study of the attributes of God as He has revealed Himself in the Word.) You are correct that our God is loving. Not only are we told that He is loving, He demonstrates it clearly in the Incarnation, death, resurrection, and glorification of His Son. This also manifests His mercy, another of His attributes. God's omniscience, wisdom, faithfulness, goodness, love, mercy, holiness, peace, righteousness, jealousy, wrath, will, freedom, omnipotence, perfection, blessedness, beauty, and glory are the "communicable" attributes carefully explained to us in the Word. However, Ocelot, we must never construe that these attributes are every conflicted in any way. On the contrary, God is always wholly and completely what He is. When He extends mercy, His justice is appeased. When He is jealous, His righteousness is not compromised. When He pours out His wrath, He does not cease to be a God of love. Indeed, we can describe Him accurately by combining attributes in different ways as we meditate on our wonderful Lord. He is perfectly free and freely perfect; jealously loving and lovingly jealous; righteously wise and wisely righteous; mercifully wrathful, and wrathfully merciful; etc. etc. Furthermore, God cannot be other than what He is. He cannot be different than His nature. He cannot cease His truthfulness. He cannot cease His holiness. He cannot cease His justice. He cannot cease His love. Etc. Etc. Nor can He, Ocelot, cease His Sovereignty. Since He is perfect, He would never choose to be otherwise, even if He could change in any way. As N. T. Wright put it in his commentary on Colossians, "There is no sphere of existence over which Jesus is not sovereign, in virtue of His role both in creation (1:16-17) and in reconciliation (1:18-20). There can be no dualistic division between some areas which He rules and others which He does not." God is sovereign over the entire universe (Psalm 103:19; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11). God is sovereign over all of nature (Psalm 135:6-7; Matthew 5:45; 6:25-30). God is sovereign over the angels, including Satan (Psalm 103:20-21; Job 1:12). God is sovereign over nations (Psalm 47:7-9; Daniel 2:20-21; 4:34-35). God is sovereign over human beings (1 Samuel 2:6-7; Galatians 1:15-16). God is sovereign over animals (Psalm 104:21-30; 1 Kings 17:4-6). God is sovereign over "accidents" (Proverbs 16:33; John 1:7; Matthew 10:29). God is sovereign over the free acts of men (Exodus 3:21; 12:25-36; Ezekiel 7:27). God is sovereign even over the sinful acts of men and Satan (2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1; Genesis 45:5; 50:20). Consequently, Ocelot, whoever teaches that God ever "sets aside His sovereignty" knows nothing of the God of the Word. Instead, he is teaching something that has its origins -- at the very best -- in the imagination of fallen men. In Him, Doc |
||||||
439 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166978 | ||
Dear atdcross, Okay. The Bible says God is Sovereign, your teaching to the contrary is wrong. Better? I'm very certain you don't agree with the LBCF. Your position(s) have been pretty heterodoxical, so that would only stand to reason. To know the LBCF you'd actually have to read it first -- not forgetting to go and read the actual Scripture references on which every line is based -- in order to determine if it were unbiblical or not. You know, you might be able to find a Study Opinion Forum. Have you Googled "forum general opinion?" In Him, Doc |
||||||
440 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 166982 | ||
Dear Atdcross, As you wish. :-) While you ignore me, when you post, could you actually cite a Scripture or two to support your assertions? It lends an air of actual *study* and *Bible* to the forum. Thank you! In Him, Doc |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [302] >> |