Results 381 - 400 of 629
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20119 | ||
"...And all the trees of the field will clap their hands." Isa 55:12 Dear Sir Pent, I referenced that verse (Mat 10:16) in my first post and gave my opinion. Please review it and give me your thoughts. But I think the real issue is what is man. If one agrees that what sets man apart from the animal is the image of God, AND that the image of God is rationality, then the issue of animal rationallity would be settled. My post was to make that issue explicit. Animals are not the image of God and are therefore not rational. This is in contrast to what our culture wants us to believe, namely, that there is no qualitative difference between man, machine, and animal. So, if you're not convinced by the clear and explicit Scripture I quoted about the non-rationality of animals, then we must go to the threads (or start our own) which discuss the image of God. So, Sir Pent, do you agree that it is the image of God that sets man apart from the animal? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
382 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20110 | ||
No, Dear Sir Pent, I think we actually disagree. I do not accept your distinction of spiritual and physical rationality. There's no such thing. Animals are non-rational (physical or otherwise). Fallen man is rational, only he uses his reason to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness," which has resulted in further darkening of his understanding (Rom. 1:18, 21) Weren't the verses I presented on the non-rationality of animals sufficient? Why do you believe that animals can think? What's your Scripture? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
383 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Lionstrong | 20108 | ||
Dear CDBJ, The surest method of understanding Scripture is to compare Scripture with Scripture, because the authoritative interpreter of Scripture is Scripture. Therefore to determine if the verb in Gen. 1:2 is "was" or "became" look at what the Scripture says about creation. What Scripture says is that God created EVERYTHING in the space of six days. Ex. 20:11 Therefore the verb is "was" not "became." Thanks for you detailed explanation of the gap theory, CDBJ, but it is not possible. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
384 | who and why | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20042 | ||
"Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!" ........... ¶ Dear Hank, I think to lampoon someone's thoughts or questions on the Scripture WITHOUT offering biblical reproof or correction (II Tim. 3:16) in love (Eph 4:15) is to sit oneself in the seat of scoffers, don't you? ........... Peace, Lionstrong | ||||||
385 | Enter the Dragon! | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20036 | ||
"What we have here," Jensen, "is a failure to communicate!" .......... ¶ Since Satan, devils and demons are part of “the rulers, ... the powers, ...the world forces of this darkness, ... the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12), they are part of those beings whose realm is one more of the heavens. These heavens and everything in them were created sometime between the first and the sixth day. (Ex 20:11) ............. ¶ So I don't know what you mean by saying these creatures where created in some other time or some other kind of time. Or are you saying that they were created in THIS time but live in ANOTHER kind of time? Either way, I don’t understand it. The only being that I understand to be outside of time, i.e., eternal, is the eternal God. I do not see how a creature can be outside of time. (Sometimes you said "outside of time," and then you said a time different than ours.) ......... ¶ And in the case of Moses and Elijah, why do you think that “to be absent from the body and present with the Lord” necessarily means that the passage of time changes? It sounds like you think our spirits might show signs of aging while we wait for the resurrection of our bodies! That, also, I do not see. .......... But I enjoy our exchange! ............ ¶ Peace, Lionstrong | ||||||
386 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Lionstrong | 20032 | ||
Dear CDBJ, ............. Since the universe is less than a million years old, this proves that it does not take millions of years for petroleum to form. Therefore there was pitch before the Flood (maybe not in great quantities) and the gap theory is impossible. ............. Peace, Lionstrong | ||||||
387 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Lionstrong | 20025 | ||
Dear CDBJ, The catastrophe, of course was the Flood. There's no evidence that pitch was found in great abundance in the days of Noah. Noah did find enough to finish the ark though. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
388 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20016 | ||
Welcome to the Forum, Spark: You as a non-believer cannot be expected to accept a qualitative difference between man and the rest of creation. But I was surprised at Sir Pent's answer. So, you see that we represent a diverse spectrum of opinions in the Forum! I'm sorry for the confusion, but I'm asking you to do an impossible task. I'm asking someone who doesn't believe the Bible to decide whose view is in agreement with the Bible, Sir Pent’s or mine! Now it’s clear that you agree with Sir Pent. That's not the issue. The issue is, does Sir Pent's view square with the Bible's. But I do, however, agree with Sir Pent in saying that your restrictions on our source for answers are unreasonable. Granted, that you don't believe the Bible, but where ever you get your views from, it would be unreasonable for me to demand that you not refer to them. First, I'm not trying to convince you of my position, though I would hope that you would be persuaded. Nor do I expect you to believe the Bible, though I wish you would, since it's the Word of God and therefore true. I'm trying to present a consistent position, and if you see any inconsistency or contradiction, please let me know. Fist of all, the animal in question was not in control of itself. It was under the control of Satan who spoke through it. So, even if for the sake of argument the animal could speak, it was not speaking, but Satan was. In the Biblical worldview, there are three types of personal beings, 1) the Triune Creator God; 2) heavenly beings, i.e. angels, demons, etc; and 3) men. Men are spirits who have bodies; God and heavenly beings do not. Just as men can sometimes persuade or control other men, pure spirits can have even more effect on men. In one case Jesus commanded some demons to leave a man over whom they had taken control and gave them permission to go into a herd of pigs. They did and sent the pigs on a mad rush to their deaths in a nearby lake (Matthew 8:28 and following). In another case, God used a donkey to speak to a wayward prophet (Numbers 22). Because my second point is very important, I will not go into much detail, but it is the point on which you, Sir Pent and I disagree. Sir Pent and I would use the same words regarding what Man is, but we don't agree as to what those words mean. We agree that whatever God made man to be it distinguishes him from the animal, but we don't agree what that distinction is. The words are "Man is made in the image of God." Animals are not. This is what makes man qualitatively different from animals. (Again, I’m not asking you to agree, but to see if what I say is consistent with itself and non-contradictory.) And the image of God, which man does not share with the animals, is RATIONALITY. The biblical view of animals is that they are non-rational. Ps 32:9 says, "Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding, Whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in check, Otherwise they will not come near to you." 2 Pet 2:12 says, "But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed..." Conclusion: An animal need not have the ability to speak in order for a rational spirit to use it for the purpose of speaking. Animals are not rational and therefore incapable of rational communication. Therefore is in NOT absurd for Satan's serpent to be a brute. Thanks for your interest and attention. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
389 | Enter the Dragon! | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 19993 | ||
Thanks for your thoughts, Jensen, I won't ask you how a creature can be outside of time. But if you ascribe to the gap theory, which is where such believers put the fall of Satan, then that would be IN time, not out of it. So, basically this is a denial of Ex. 20:11 that God created everything IN THE HEAVENS and on earth in the space of six days, that Satan fell outside of our time. Nice try, Jensen. But this, again, assumes that Satan was created morally good. Do you have any thoughts on my main question? Thanks again. I appreciate your input. Lionstrong |
||||||
390 | Enter the Dragon! | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 19812 | ||
Dear CD, .......... If you like, I would be happy to go to Ezk 28 and discuss (translate: debate) this issue with you there, but not here. Just let me know. The same goes for the gap theory: just pick an appropriate verse and let me know what that verse is. ........ Thanks, Lionstrong | ||||||
391 | Enter the Dragon! | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 19811 | ||
Thanks, Steve, I forgot to add that I don't believe in a creation before creation either. I would be happy discuss (translate: debate) this with you under another thread :-). Just let me know where you are posting it. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
392 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 19703 | ||
MORE CRAFTY: ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE The animal Satan chose to use was the most intelligent of all the animals in that class of animals, which was the beasts of the field. To say that animals are intelligent (or shrewd, as in Mat. 10:16) is not to say that they are rational, a quality only God, angels and man have. The degree of intelligence ascribed to an animal is based on the degree that its behavior mimics that of a rational being. Otherwise, the bahavior of an animal is totally instinctive, having nothing to do with rationality. Animals, in other words, do not think. Our present culture would like us to believe that men are essentially animals (or machines), and that what we call thinking is no different than the mental processes of an animal. They would have us believe that the difference in our mental process and theirs is only a matter of degrees, not a qualitative difference, only quantitative. |
||||||
393 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 19701 | ||
OF THE CLASSES OF ANIMALS the serpent at this time did not belong to those that crept on the ground. He belonged to the class of beasts of the field. Classes of animals: (Gen. 1: 24, 26) • Fish of the sea (animals whoes domain was bodies of water) • Birds of the sky (animals whoes domain was the sky) • Beasts of the earth (wild land animals) • Cattle (domestic animals) • Creeping things (bugs, low crawling animals) Lionstrong |
||||||
394 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 19610 | ||
I forgot to write my conclusion, Tim, Conclusion: While the NT uses the word propitiation and its forms, it does not define it. Hence, the meaning of propitiation in the NT has no significance beyond the usual meaning, which does not include its extent, but simply means the act of appeasing, or of rendering favorable, or of turning aside wrath. Therefore, with respect to the debate at hand, the EXTENT of Christ's propitiation cannot be determined_BY_the definition of propitiation alone. Nevertheless, without an understanding of the meaning of propitiation one cannot discover the extent of it. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
395 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 19568 | ||
I'm sorry, Brother Tim, That you see it as straining at gnats. I see it as making sure that you yourself see what you're calling a definition of propitiation. As your definition assumes the point at issue, it does not violate the text of any of the eight verses. However, your analysis of the eight verses does not warrant such a definition. 1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. -says who the propitiation's for and the extent(which is our point of contention). Does not say what propitiation is. ********************************* 1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation FOR OUR SINS. -says why the propition was necessary (God's wrath incurred by our sins), but does not say what propitiation is. ************************************* Luke 18:13 "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' -is a repentant sinner's request for God to be propitious. God is the object of Christ's propitiation, but this verse does not define the term. ********************************** Heb 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. -the office in which Christ executes the propitiatory sacrice (the office of priest). One note (in my favor :-) ): following the OT figure, the propitiation is made for the people--the Philistines? No, God's people, Israel. So like wise in the NT, propitiation is not for everyone, but for the people of God only, those who are his by faith in our Lord. But still, propitiation is not defined. *************************************** Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; -faith, the instrument by which the propitiation of our Lord is applied to us. Propitiation is "in his blood" alone "through faith" alone. This excludes unbelievers. But again, this verse does not define our word. ******************************************** Heb 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. -the lid on the Ark was called the propitiation. Who alone had access to the Holy of Holies? And for whom did he enter once a year--for the Egyptians? No, God's people. Again, an OT figure for the reality in Christ who went into the true Holy of Holies with his own blood for God's people. Nope, no definition. *************************************** Heb 8:12 "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." -God will be propitious. The context is the New Covenant. How do we become partakers of the New Covenant wherein God will be propitious toward our iniquities and remember our sins no more? By faith alone! NOT for unbelievers. But it doesn't define propitious. ************************************ Matt 16:22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." -Lord have mercy! Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
396 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 19555 | ||
Read them again, Tim, And you will see that they are not the same. Maybe the quotes and parenthesis confused you. 1) Propitiation MEANS Christ has appeased God's wrath against the sins of every man, woman, and child, who has ever lived, or ever will lived. 2) The propitiation of Christ appeased God's wrath against the sins of every man, woman, and child, who has ever lived, or ever will lived. One is a definition, and the other is simply a statement of a doctrinal view. Further more, your definition is not the same as the one you referenced. Morris' definition is simply "removing the deivine wrath." (period) He never defines it in terms of its extent. To repeat, Mr. Morris does not write "His propitiation was for all (I John 2:2)" but, "His propitiation is ADEQUATE for all." Yours definition is (and I quote): "propitiation MEANS [my caps] that Christ has appeased God's wrath against the sins of every man, woman, and child, who has ever lived, or ever will lived." In other words your definition assumes the point you are trying to prove. So, again, my question: Is yours a definition, or simply a restatement of the Arminiam view of Our Savior's propitiation? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
397 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 19527 | ||
Sorry, Tim, I meant Rom. 1:18. Note that Mr. Morris does not write "His propitiation was for all (I John 2:2)" but, "His propitiation is adequate for all." I understand your definition, but I agree with Morris', who simply defines it as "removing the deivine wrath." With your definition, of course, you don't need I John 2:2 to prove your point! :-) It's one thing to say propitiation means "Christ has appeased God's wrath against the sins of every man, woman, and child, who has ever lived, or ever will lived," and another thing to say that the propitiation (which means removing the deivine wrath) of Christ "appeased God's wrath against the sins of every man, woman, and child, who has ever lived, or ever will lived." So is yours a definition or simply a restatement of the Arminiam view of Our Savior's propitiation? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
398 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 19513 | ||
Correction, Tim, That wasn't my post. It was Kalos'. I did a cut and paste for you consideration. Peace, Lionstrong P.S. But I bear you no animosity :-) |
||||||
399 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 19502 | ||
Dear Tim, This post address some of the issues in your post. Peace, Lionstrong Note: this writer shares your belief of unlimited atonement. Pay attention to point 1) of his summary. ************************************* Someone writes: "The only sin that Chris... kalos Tue 04/24/01, 10:45pm Note: Someone writes: "The only sin that Christ didn't pay for is the sin of unbelief....sin of unbelief. That is the one sin that MUST be repented of... That sin, unbelief in Christ, cannot be forgiven, it must be repented of." . . . It is not clear to me who wrote the above question. . . . Whoever wrote it, you are very much mistaken to say that there is a sin that Christ didn't pay for. There is not one sin that Christ did not pay for. To say or imply otherwise borders on blasphemy. . . . Then to say: "That sin cannot be forgiven, it must be repented of." Repentance and confession are always required and go together with forgiveness. To say it's either forgiveness or repentance makes no sense, neither biblically nor in any other way. . . . We need to take great care when we word our questions and comments concerning God's Word and the atonement of Christ. Carelessness can lead to erroneous statements that could confuse Christians and deceive non-Christians. . . . To summarize, 1) Christ's death on the cross paid for every sin, not every sin but the sin of unbelief. 2) To make forgiveness and repentance opposites, to make them two mutually exclusive things, is confusing and not true. 3) No matter what the sin, repentance is required before forgiveness can be granted. 4) Unbelief is NOT the "one" sin that must be repented of. Every sin must be repented of. . . . Then you write: "You must change your mind about who Christ is. This is the illusive 'unpardonable sin.'" . . . "This is the illusive 'unpardonable sin.'" No, it isn't. It is not. The only unpardonable sin Jesus ever labeled as such is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is, ascribing to Satan the work or activities of the Holy Spirit. Who are we to ignore what Jesus clearly taught about the unpardonable sin and then make up our own definitions? One last thing: I have no personal animosity toward you. I strongly disagree with what you wrote. But I value you as a brother Christian who apparently loves the Word and is doing his best to understand it, as we all are. |
||||||
400 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 19501 | ||
I have nothing but praise, Brother Tim, For your research in the Word of God. If more of us forum members followed your good example, our debates would be more, maybe much more, productive. You started off admirably to see how propitiation was used in the NT to try to develop a biblical definition. Why didn't you finish? You should have concluded with something like, "So we see from these verses that protiation means...." I wish you had, for then you would have seen that its meaning demands that I John 2:2 be applied to believers only in the whole world. If you had, then you could consistantly hold 1 John 2:2 and Rom 2:18. So, what does propitiation mean? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [32] >> |