Results 181 - 200 of 629
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Man Could Have Been Made Solitary | Gen 2:18 | Lionstrong | 48642 | ||
Dear Forum: A Meditation God could have made man a solitary creature. While it was God’s command that man fill the earth and subdue it, he could have made man a solitary creature. Man is not an animal, but he is nonetheless a creature, a creature of body and spirit. God made some creatures without bodies. They are only spirits (like God is). The Bible calls these spirits angels. God made some creatures with bodies that are bisexual. They don’t have to mate with another of their kind in order to reproduce. God could have made man’s body that way. He would not have needed another man (a female of the race) in order to reproduce. Man could have been a solitary creature, but God said it was not good that man should be alone. So He made the female of our kind from the body of the first man as a helper, and one suitable to him so that he would not be alone. Peace, |
||||||
182 | A Christian View of Science | Acts 17:28 | Lionstrong | 48504 | ||
Dear Parable, 2 Cor 5:7, do you quote this verse to mean that Scripture teaches that faith is irrational? Faith (the act of believing an understood proposition) by its very definition cannot be irrational. Biblical faith requires reason. We must understand the Gospel before we can believe it. (Rom 10:11-17) Just because the things we believe are invisible does not make our faith irrational (except to the world, but their reasons for concluding that our faith is irrational are invalid or they start with the wrong premises). Second, Phil 4:7 says the peace of God transcends OUR understanding, not logic. It does not teach that God's peace transcends logic; it transcends the limits of our ability to understand it. Because calculus transcends a first grader's understanding, does it mean that calculus is beyond mathematics? Logic is the structure of God's mind. God did not create it and then gift man with it. It is eternal because God is eternal. We are rational because we are created as the image of a rational God. The centurion was commended by Christ for his great faith because he logically reasoned to a valid conclusion (that Chirst did not have to come with him because Christ had the authority to command reality) and believed it, a faith demonstrated by the request he made of Jesus.(Notice his premise and conclusion.) (Mat 8:5-10) Peace, |
||||||
183 | A Christian View of Science | Acts 17:28 | Lionstrong | 48423 | ||
"There is no logical reason logic is valid, i.e. to use logic as a means of making decisions or deriving understanding, yet we seem to think that in many areas, logic is the best way to proceed. " To make any rational statement requires logic. To proceed rationally (i.e. logically) is the ONLY way to proceed. You can't understand the first word in the Bible without logic. See the discussion below. Three Laws of Logic The three laws of thought are universal, irrefutable, and true for reasons already stated. Without these laws, it is impossible to imagine how anything written or spoken could be intelligible. More to the point, the laws are the basis of necessary inference, for without them, necessary inference vanishes! To repeat, the laws of logic are universal, irrefutable, and true. By "universal," we mean allows for no exception. "Irrefutable" means that any attempt to refute them, makes use of them; thus, establishing them as necessary for argument. "True" means not only "not-false," but not-false because they are grounded in the Logos of God, the source and determiner of all truth. Moreover, the laws stand together as a trinity; to fault one, is to fault all, and to uphold one, upholds the others. Together, these laws establish and clarify the meaning of necessary inference for logic and all intelligible discourse. Here is a brief statement of each. 1 The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A. 2 The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A. 3 The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A. Without the first, identity or sameness is lost; without the second, confusion begins; and without the last, irrationalism is in full residence. To recapitulate. Logic is the science of necessary inference. The basic elements are propositions in arguments. A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. An argument is composed of propositions some of which are premises, one of which is the conclusion. The premises are reasons given to support the conclusion of an argument or a position. Arguments are classified as either inductive or deductive. With Deductive Argument, we ask: "Does this conclusion follow as a necessary consequence from these premises?" If the answer is affirmative, the Deductive Argument is valid; otherwise, the argument is invalid. Deductive Arguments are either valid or invalid. Also, if the argument is not invalid, then it is valid. If the argument is not valid, then it is invalid. Three reasons for the study of logic are (1) correct thinking requires it; (2) discerning minds necessarily depend on it; and (3) man is a rational being in the image of his Creator. Logic is universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. Man's mind was formed on the principles of identity, excluded middle, and contradiction. These three laws are the basis for all intelligible thought. Without them, all rational discourse vanishes. (http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/carranza/study1.htm) Much more needs to be said about your comments, but I will stop with your confusing statement about logic. Peace, |
||||||
184 | A Christian View of Science | Acts 17:28 | Lionstrong | 48410 | ||
A Christian View of Science: An Excerpt from a tract Science: In Him, Not Matter, We Live Those who put their trust in science as the key to understanding the universe are embarrassed by the fact that science never discovers truth. If the Bible is the source of all truth, science cannot discover truth. One of the insoluble problems of the scientific method is the fallacy of induction; induction, in fact, is a problem for all forms of empiricism (learning by experience). The problem is simply this: Induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a logical fallacy. No matter how many crows, for example, you observe to be black, the conclusion that all crows are black is never warranted. The reason is quite simple: Even assuming you have good eyesight, are not colorblind, and are actually looking at crows, you have not, and cannot, see all crows. Millions have already died. Millions more are on the opposite side of the planet. Millions more will hatch after you die. Induction is always a fallacy. There is another fatal fallacy in science as well: the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put the matter this way: All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true. This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing.’’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based. Recognizing that induction is always fallacious, philosophers of science in the twentieth century, in an effort to defend science, developed the notion that science does not rely on induction at all. Instead, it consists of conjectures, experiments to test those conjectures, and refutations of conjectures. But in their attempts to save science from logical disgrace, the philosophers of science had to abandon any claim to knowledge: Science is only conjectures and refutations of conjectures. Karl Popper, one of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers of science, wrote: First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it.... [W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses.... [I]n science there is no "knowledge’’ in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton’s, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement:...our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;...it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths. Observation and science cannot furnish us with truth about the universe, let alone truth about God. The secular worldview, which begins by denying God and divine revelation, cannot furnish us with knowledge at all. What Is Christian Philosophy? is a Trinity Foundation publication. For additional copies of this pamphlet, or for further information about the Bible and Jesus Christ, please write to The Trinity Foundation, Post Office Box 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692. What Is Christian Philosophy? copyright 1994, John W. Robbins. The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche. Peace, |
||||||
185 | The Bible and Science, #1 | Gen 1:1 | Lionstrong | 48394 | ||
Dear Parable, What other theories does the science of Cosmology suggest? Peace, |
||||||
186 | An Argument from Silence and A Thought | NT general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 48257 | ||
An Argument from Silence and A Thought on the History of the Doctrine of the Trinity It is interesting to note how the Pharisees do NOT argue against Christ’s claim of deity. Their argument was based on the humanity of Jesus. Their argument was that for a man to claim deity or equality with God is blasphemy. Jesus, a man, claims, by calling himself the Son of God, deity or equality with God. Therefore, Jesus is guilty of blasphemy. There argument was not based the unity of God. They did not argue: God is one. ANYONE else (man or angel) claiming to be God makes two gods, which is false and blasphemous. Someone else, Jesus, claims, by implication of certain affirmations, to be God. Therefore Jesus is guilty of blasphemy. Even after you had a sizable number of Jews who believed Jesus to be the Son of God, and thereby his claim to deity and equality with God, there does not seem to be, among the Jewish believers at least, a problem with the unity of God and the plurality of Persons, to include the Holy Spirit. And it would seem if anyone would have a problem that it would be the Jews who have had millennia of history with the “Here O Israel. The Lord our God is One Lord.” Instead, it is when the New Testament Israel become predominantly Gentile that the unity of God in a plurality of Persons becomes a problem that they had to dig through the Scriptures to come up with a biblical formulation. But nonetheless, I thank God for their labors. Comments, corrections welcomed. Peace, |
||||||
187 | The Father of the Faith Wept. | Gen 23:2 | Lionstrong | 48130 | ||
Gen. 23:1,2 Now Sarah lived one hundred and twenty-seven years; these were the years of the life of Sarah. And Sarah died in Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. The Father of the Faith Wept. He didn’t plaster a stupid grin on his face and rejoiced that Sarah was with the Lord. No, he had known her as his half sister since childhood and as his wife had loved her for scores of years. Now friend, wife and lover is gone, and the father of our faith and friend of God mourns and weeps for the departure of Sarah. Peace, |
||||||
188 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 48069 | ||
Dear CDBJ, Here's my response to Dud M3 about the role of evangelism in Calvinism: (ID# 4035) How can we influence who is saved? Answer 1 Pet 2:9 Lionstrong Wed 04/25/01, 11:38pm Hi Dud M3! Let me add my theological two cents in trying to answer your question. I believe God has chosen His elect in Christ, so I've thought about evangelism in this context. My answer partly echoes yours and that is God commands it and that's enough. But fortunately God does not leave us with His command to evangelize (which again is reason enough), but His given us some additional reasons for the command to evangelise. Twally in the above tree gives a reference, but I think it's helpful to quote it:(especially v. 14) Rom 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." Rom 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? Rom 10:15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" Rom 10:16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. And also this reference: Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. OK, my point and my answer, as I understand and believe God's word: Q. 1 If God in his wisdom has already chosen those whom will be saved, then, what is the point of sharing the Gospel with others? A.1 God has not only ordained the end (in this case the salvation of the elect), but He has also ordained the means to that end (the call, the preaching-evangelizing-in which that call is given, the hearing, the justifying, the glorification). This makes our evangelism necessary, and we should be happy that God has ordained to use us, even though we're weak jars of clay. Q.2. "Why bother? Some will be saved, some won't, I can't change what God has preordained." A.2 Same as A.1, but let me add a negative. Not only will we miss an opportunity to be an instrument in someone's salvation, but as we do not warn others of the wrath to come, we will be held accoutable. No you can't change what God has ordained, but you can be a wonderful part of it! Q.3 ought I find inspiration in that thought? A.3 Yes! As God has ordained the elect to salvation, then He has ordained success in evangelism! So you can get out there and share the gospel with confidence in an almighty and loving God. Thanks for the question, Dud M3. In Christ, Lionstrong. |
||||||
189 | How can God (Jesus) increase in wisdom? | Luke 2:52 | Lionstrong | 47556 | ||
Dear Nate, When my Jehovah Witness neighbors deny the deity of Christ by saying he is the SON of God, not God, I explain to them that a son always shares the nature of his father. If a giraffe has a son, will it have the nature of a hippopotamus? If an ape has a son, will it be a dog? If a man has a son, will he have the nature of a bird? Jesus is both the son of man and the Son of God. He has both a true and full human nature and a true and full divine nature. He is truly God and truly man. The Pharisees understood his claim, but because they didn’t believe it was true, they wanted to stone him for blasphemy. And of course, if Jesus' claim to be God’s Son was not true, the Pharisees were right in wanting to put him to death for blasphemy. The Pharisees understood what Jesus meant when he said he was the Son of God, and this is what I try to get my Witness friends to understand. Do you understand Jesus claim to be the Son of God, Nate? John 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Peace, |
||||||
190 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Lionstrong | 47509 | ||
Dear jawz, You write, "If you read them with the same English grammar interpretation "until" in Matthew 1:25 they make no sense." Could be, but "until" in the usual sense makes perfect sense in this context. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife. They loved each other. And they did what husbands and wives do after Jesus was born. And they had kids. So, what's the big deal with all this? Is this just a precursor to Maryolatry? Peace, |
||||||
191 | Who'd Be In Charge? | Gen 24:5 | Lionstrong | 47504 | ||
Dear Momma, Thanks for your interest and response. Abraham had tasked Eliezar with finding a wife in his hometown for Isaac. I think the way to understand this is that Abraham was NOT giving Eliezar instructions on where he was permitted to take Isaac AFTER his death. What I think he is saying is that if the woman was not willing to leave Ur to come to Canaan to be Isaac's wife, Eliezar was not permitted to take Isaac there to be her husband. Now if Abraham was in fact giving post mortum instructions to Eliezar, then Eliezar would indeed have had authority. But I now think that Abraham was not doing that. Also, I think that God's commands to us does give us authority to do what it takes to keeps them. For example, His commands to me as a father gives me certain authority over my children to raise them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Peace, |
||||||
192 | Who'd Be In Charge? | Gen 24:5 | Lionstrong | 47498 | ||
Dear Second Sam, Thanks for your reply. Yes I understand your point that Abraham did not want Isaac to leave the Promised Land, but that does not address my question. Is Abraham speaking as if upon his death Eliezer and not Isaac (who was at least in his mid-thirties by now) would be in charge of the household? This is not an important question. It just strikes me as curious that it seems that Abraham would be leaving his top servant in charge instead of his adult son. Abraham had tasked Eliezar with finding a wife in his hometown for Isaac. I think the way to understand this is that Abraham was NOT giving Eliezar instructions on where he was permitted to take Isaac AFTER his death. What I think he is saying is that if the woman was not willing to leave Ur to come to Canaan to be Isaac's wife, Eliezar was not permitted to take Isaac there to be her husband. Thanks for your interest, Second Sam. Peace, |
||||||
193 | How do we interpret scripture? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 47335 | ||
Dear Parable, Your concerns are noted. Again, this need not be a review of the Doctor's book. But I await your answer to the question. Peace, p.s. I'm sorry to see that "this thread has been temporarily restricted." What happened while I was away? I guess if we want to open this question to the forum, we can start a new thread. What do you think? |
||||||
194 | Job DID charge God foolishly? | Job 1:22 | Lionstrong | 47213 | ||
Dear Emmaus, I think the author of your article was confusing truth with sincerity. Sincerity neither makes an affirmation true nor necessarily acceptable to God. What Job said about God was right, but not because he was sincere in his pain, but because what he said was right. Contrary-wise, Job's friends saying what was not right about God had nothing to do with their sincerity. In fact, insincerity cannot be proved for either party on either side of the debate. What Job’s friends said about God was not insincere. It simply was not right. They said God orders suffering only for the wicked, and Job's suffering was ordered by God for some great wickedness on Job's part. Job's error was not what he said about God, but what he maintained about himself. He was righteous in his own eyes. Job 32:1 The Protestant or Reformed believer sees no righteousness in himself, but by faith hopes in the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ on the cross to cover all his unrighteousness and to cover him with a perfect righteousness that is totally alien to himself. So that they might say with Paul, "and [that I] may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9 The article also exults emotion over reason, a fatal an anti-biblical error. Peace, |
||||||
195 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 47144 | ||
Dear Parable, I went to reasons.org. Tell me, how does Dr Ross by a straight forward reading of the Bible without imposing non-biblical premises on it, conclude that creation is millions of years old? Peace, |
||||||
196 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 46810 | ||
Dear Parable, Actually, I made no statements about the Doctor’s conclusions. I don’t know what they are. I said “IF” one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions. And what’s the problem with the plants and the stars? Now, I understand that plants need earth, water and light to grow, but are we forgetting that God created light on the first day? So there was light for the plants on the third day even if light was not localized in luminaries until the fourth day. The Bible is its own authority. To “demonstrate the accuracy” of God’s Word by some other supposed authority makes that authority superior to Scripture and thus it becomes the rule of our faith and practice rather than the Bible alone. I agree with what I think is your motivation, Parable, that we need to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and to gently and respectfully give our neighbors a reason for the hope that is in us. But the Word of Christ does not need to be proved, as some people count proof. It needs to be explained, taught, understood, believed, preached and practiced to the glory of God. Peace, |
||||||
197 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 46793 | ||
Dear Parable, It sounds like the Dr. is simply imposing unbiblical premises on the Bible to make it conform to the current winds of scientific doctrine. In other words if the Bible were read as it is written, it is clear that it would not agree with current scientific opinion. What we do not need is a rubber Bible. If a straight forward reading does not happen to agree with our present cultural/scientific norms, then so much the worse for our norms. Good scholarship does not mean bending the Bible. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the entrance of His word gives light (Pro. 9:10, Ps. 119:130). If one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions. What Moses wrote was not from the human, earthly perspective. It was revelation from God. God revealed the order in which he created the universe. The revealed order of creation was not a mistake (i.e., false). God was not compensating "early man's" "unscientific" worldview. God cannot lie. So God created by fiat (not by some long process) the luminaries on the fourth day, which may be contrary to current scientific opinion. But so be it. The Bible is true not only in “religious” matters, but also in its historical details. What we have in Genesis is history, revealed history, but true space/time history nonetheless. It happened the way God through Moses said it happened “in the beginning.” If clearing a path to faith means compromising the truth of Scripture, then the supposed stumbling blocks must be purely imaginary, and we must ask ourselves what faith are we making a path for? Peace, |
||||||
198 | What is God's covenant with believers | Hebrews | Lionstrong | 46663 | ||
Dear John, The WCF is talking about the Covenant of Grace, not to be confused with the covenant God made with the "church under age." All believers, before and after the work of Christ, are under the Covenant of Grace. The Old Covenant given by Moses to the OT Church fits under the umbrella of the Covenant of Grace. It is that different administration of the Covenant of Grace the Confession talks about. Hope this helps. Peace, |
||||||
199 | Job DID charge God foolishly? | Job 1:22 | Lionstrong | 46651 | ||
Dear Baptistbred, Thanks for letting me dust off the book of Job. I have found this study profitable. We are both agreed that the sovereignty of God is a central theme in Job, although we are not agreed on if there are any errors in Job's theology. Nonetheless I've enjoyed it and wish you Peace, |
||||||
200 | Job DID charge God foolishly? | Job 1:22 | Lionstrong | 46505 | ||
I think that we are closer to agreeing on what the text says. I maintain that Job did not charge God foolishly and you maintain that we do not know why God rebuked him. Ok, but what is going on here. Job's friends say of God what is not right (42:7). They say that God orders suffering for the evildoers only, not the righteous. Job says no, that God (in his own sovereign prerogative) has struck him though he is righteous, and though it would prove fruitless, he would defend his righteousness before God. This is how I understand the gist of the debate. Now, Job overstated his case, but the overstatement was not a misstatement about God, but a misstatement about his righteousness. Job was righteous in his own eyes (32:1). But he spoke what was right about God in that he does order suffering for the righteous, Christ being our chief example (1 Pet. 2:21). What think ye, Baptistbred? Peace, |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [32] >> |