Results 261 - 280 of 629
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 34432 | ||
So, let me get this straight, Curt: "Free will is (very basicly) the principle that God calls us to Himself, and we have the... choice to respond to Him." So, are you saying that free will is the principle, or are you saying free will is choice? Or are you saying free will is both the principle and choice? If free will is choice, is it simply choice or is the choice free? Then the focus would be on "free." What does "free" mean in the choice? Thanks, Lionstrong |
||||||
262 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 34429 | ||
Ooooo Kaaaaay But what is free will, Zach? Still waiting, Lionstrong |
||||||
263 | how can we loose our salvation. | NT general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 34380 | ||
Hi Zach, You view misleads a believer (and others) into thinking that his salvation is dependent upon himself, rather than wholly on the power of God and the sufficiency of Christ's finished work on the cross. If your confidence is in yourself to not lose what God has given you, then maybe you haven't received it at all. Christ alone is the author and finisher of our faith. Where is your faith? Do you have faith in yourself to maintain your salvation? If you do, then your faith is not in Christ. If you believe in yourself to stay saved, then you don't believe in Christ that HE will lose none that the Father has given him (John 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.) If you believe that by your lack of effort that you will perish, then you don't believe Christ that none to whom he has given eternal life will ever perish (John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.) The salvation you teach depends on God and man. The salvation the Bible teaches belongs to God alone. Rev 19:1 After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; Lionstrong |
||||||
264 | Define Faith. | Heb 11:1 | Lionstrong | 34301 | ||
Yes, Elder, I agree, But what are your thoughts on the definition of faith? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
265 | Define Faith. | Heb 11:1 | Lionstrong | 34299 | ||
Thanks, CDBJ But what's your point with respect to the topic of this tree? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
266 | Define Faith. | Heb 11:1 | Lionstrong | 34298 | ||
Thanks for your response, Charis Maybe you don't see that what's given in Heb 11:1 is not a definition. OK. Maybe later. In the meantime, Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
267 | Define Faith. | Heb 11:1 | Lionstrong | 34256 | ||
Charis, What I mean by "description of the nature of faith" is that this verse tells us ABOUT faith, but it does not tell us its meaning. "A dog is man's best friend" is (aside from the truth of this statement:)) telling us something about dogs, but it is not a definition. A definition would be something like, "a hairy four-legged mammal that barks and bites mailmen." When God tell us that faith brings assurance and conviction of our hope in Christ, He is in deed telling us something about saving faith, yes, but He is not giving us a definition of this important term. He is saying that this ought to be the EFFECT of true saving faith. This agrees with what Paul says in Rom 5:1-5. True faith results in hope. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. The test of a definition is to substitute the word with the definition. Try it, and you'll see that Heb 11:1 does not fit. It wasn't meant to; it is not a definition. If this verse were a definition then faith is a certain kind of assurance and a certain kind of conviction, which does not fit the way Paul uses the term in his epistles. While these things accompany saving faith (like good works) they are not what saving faith is. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
268 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 33944 | ||
Hi Zach, Thanks, but what has robots got to do with anything? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
269 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 33756 | ||
You write, "Free will is (very basicly) the principle that God calls us to Himself, and we have the "free will" or choice to respond to Him." This is not a correct definition, Curt. I don't mean you can't use this definition if you like, but that, properly speaking, a definition should not contain the same word as being defined. You say "Free will is..., and the free will...." If you had stop at "...God calls us to himself," although it would not have been the definition I expected, it still would have made more sense. As it is, I'm still at a loss as to what you mean by the term free will. I hope Zach gives me his meaning as well. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
270 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 33581 | ||
Hi Zach, God has made us new creatures: 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. He has given us a new heart: Ezek 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. He has sealed us with His Holy Spirit: Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, Eph 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. And HE controls that new heart: Phil 2:13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. Because the Father controls the new heart that he has created in us, he will not let us chose to forsake him. So don't fear that you will lose yourself to God; He alone has the power to save and he alone has the power to keep. 1 Pet 1:5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Because... "...it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Rom 9:16 Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
271 | Plan of Salvation Scriptures? | John 3:16 | Lionstrong | 33561 | ||
Hi Curt, You might find the discussion under the following thread interesting: A Wonderful Plan? How do you know? (?) Lionstrong Thu 10/25/01, 7:17pm Feel free to add your thoughts or questions! One way to find this thread is to type "love wonderful plan" in the Quick Search box toward the upper right of this window. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
272 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Lionstrong | 33460 | ||
First, Curt, Welcome to the forum! It's good to see another reformed face in this crowd, even though you're from the outrageously liberal PCUSA:( (My prayers are for you, brother!) Francis Schaeffer wrote a little book "No Final Conflict." (I can no longer find my copy of it.) If I remember it correctly, he seemed to be making points similar to yours, but I no longer hold that position. I accept the definition of science you quoted, and I believe science and Christian scientists have a legitimate place. But that place is not that of revealing (natural revelation in the case of science) truth. In this position I disagree with another reformed member of this forum, Joe, who I highly regard, and many other fine believers here. Nonetheless, this is what I believe about science at this point. I was playing on your word "match," which you've happily improved it to "agree," "support" and "intersection." Should they agree? Not necessarily. One problem as you mentioned is world view. Because of an unbelieving scientist's world view, he may not even "see" the data properly. The other is, as I've said, since science does not discover truth it is not in the same ballpark as Scripture. It's only when Christians or unbelievers try to use it to "prove" or attack Christianity that it becomes an issue. Got to go. Pick up on this latter, if you're willing, Curt. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
273 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Lionstrong | 33411 | ||
No, you didn't, Curt. You raised more. You said, "science is the study of the physical world...." Then you go on to give an example of how the truth of Scripture and science match by saying, "Now, let me give an example of science and Scripture matching. First, a simple one: God said, "Let there be light, and there was light". When we look around, there is light! Science and Scripture are in harmony." Curt, is the presence of light science? You gave a definition of science, but this does not seem to fit it. Your more complex example raises more questions. I understand that we are not talking about conclusions drawn from the data but the observed data itself. So, what observed Flood data from Scripture and geology match? For example does a "significant flood" (which I take is the scientific data) match, "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died."? Gen 7:19-22 If your examples of science are examples of "the study of the physical world," then it is unclear what you mean by science, and therefore it is unclear how the truth of Scripture and science match. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
274 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Lionstrong | 33396 | ||
Hi Curt, You write, "As Christians, I believe we should be about the business of showing how they [the truth of Scripture and science of the universe] do match." What is an example of the truth of Scripture and science matching? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
275 | word of God or Word? | Luke 1:2 | Lionstrong | 32690 | ||
3 : ORDER, COMMAND -don't move till I give the word 4 often capitalized a : LOGOS b : GOSPEL 1a c : the expressed or manifested mind and will of God 5 a : NEWS, INFORMATION -sent word that he would be late b : RUMOR From Webster's on-line dictionary. Notice "news." In our case, the Good News. Peace, Ray Lionstrong |
||||||
276 | word of God or Word? | Luke 1:2 | Lionstrong | 32624 | ||
Well Ray, I've yet to see any convincing argument that the word "word" refers to Jesus as it clearly does in John 1. And I've seen no argument that would militate against understanding this term in one of its usual dictionary definitions, that is, a message. In this context, the message is the Gospel. I never saw verse three as an affirmation of Luke being an eyewitness to the risen Lord. Still don't. But it's not important. Luke's account is inerrant, reliable, faithful and infallible history nonetheless, even though the Bible does not call him an apostle. Incidentally, an eyewitness does not exclude what is heard. One can be a witness of what is seen and also of what is heard. (Acts 22:15 'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.) Peace, brother Lionstrong |
||||||
277 | word of God or Word? | Luke 1:2 | Lionstrong | 32562 | ||
Hi Ray, Of course, an interlinear translation has no more weight than a regular translation on this issue. As I see it, this is the Gospel (the message, the word of God, the Good News) of Luke who was "set[ting] forth in order a declaration of those things...they delievered... unto us, which were... eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word [of God, the gospel]." Incidentally, Ray, Luke wasn't an eyewitness. The "which" refers to the "they," not to the "us." Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
278 | word of God or Word? | Luke 1:2 | Lionstrong | 32522 | ||
Hi Ray, The word "word" in Luke refers to the message (gospel) not the man (Christ Jesus). Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
279 | Adam and Eve, no fall from grace? | Gen 2:16 | Lionstrong | 32422 | ||
Hi Emmaus, You ask, "If Adam and Eve had that grace and lost it through free will, how can we say that we can not loose it in the same manner by a free will rejection just as they did?" Well, first, they never had that grace. And second, Whomever God is powerful enough to save by his grace, He's powerful enough to KEEP saved by his grace, because grace does not depend on him to who it is given; but on Him who gives it. You, write, "Unless Jesus has destroyed our free will in the restoration of grace." First, since grace was not lost it cannot be restored. Second, in the Fall we lost our freedom to chose good. (Gen 6:5 "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Has man become any better since then? (See Rom 3: 10-18 for the answer.) Because believers are in a state of grace, they now are free again to CHOSE good, although it takes the power of the Holy Spirit for us to DO good: Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. Gal 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. You say, "I still say your version is tanatmount to saying we have to sin in order to merit sanctifying grace and so is a wierd type of works righteousness." You say this, Emmaus, because I say grace is for the needy only. Hmm, sounds very similar to how Paul was slandered for preaching grace. Be careful, Emmaus! Rom 3:8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just. (You've modified your original tern by adding the adjective "sanctifying." But, no matter...) I STILL SAY that God's grace (sanctifying or otherwise) is not for those who don't need it, but for sinners alone. In fact, "...where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom 5:20,21) "a wierd type of works righteousness," you say? It may be weird in your mind, Emmaus my friend, and maybe you don't know this "weird type of works righteousness," but it's called the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21) and it's given by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone. He is the one who did all of the WORK to earn this righteousness for all his believing people, for they were "dead in [their] trespasses and sins, Eph 2:2 in which [they] formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
280 | Adam and Eve, no fall from grace? | Gen 2:16 | Lionstrong | 32348 | ||
Our First parents, Emmaus were created holy. They were not created "in a state of grace." Holy is what they were, not something given to them after they were created. Again, they were not given holiness by unmeritted favor; they were made in the image of God and therefore were holy being created as such. We are made holy by the grace of God, AFTER we lost that holiness through Adam's fall. I understand your point, Emmaus. As Protestants, we don't apply that expression to our pre-fall parents. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [32] >> |