Results 401 - 420 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | Reformer Joe | 70940 | ||
John sees the glorified Christ in Revelation 1. Philippians 3:20-21 tells us how our own bodies will be changed to be in conformity with His glorious one, implying that He still has a body. First Corinthians 15 describes this in more detail. --Joe! |
||||||
402 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | Reformer Joe | 70710 | ||
Indy: Thanks for your input, and congratulations on the new addition to your family! I rejoice with you. You wrote: "The essence of obedience is doing what we don't want to do." In a certain sense, I can see your point. Faithful obedience, in my view, is indeed wanting to yield to God's will, even at great personal cost. It is the joyful acknowledgement that God knows best and works all things together for my good. That is the truth of the matter; whether my own thoughts consistently correspond to thet turth is another issue entirely... You also wrote: 'Given the Bible's emphasis on Jesus' obedience, perhaps we can conclude that Jesus (fully human and fully God) and the Father (fully God) had "differences of opinion" arising from Jesus' humanity that would never escalate to the level of dispute or outright rebellion.' When the early church was wrestling with these issues and eventually came up with the Chalcedonian Definition in 451 (http://www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html), the way they saw the resolution to this problem is what while the human nature of Christ and His divine nature were in perfect union, they remained distinct. In other words, there is no mixture of the two natures. Some theologians refer to this as a hypostatic union between the two natures in one Person. There is communication of information, however, from one nature to the other. Jesus displayed His knowledge of some things that only God could know, and asserted His ignorance of other things. We are treading on holy ground when we talk about this, but Jesus' human nature was not omniscient, while His divine nature always has been so. His true humanity lends a very unique variable to the equation, one that God is His sovereignty has not condescended to explain fully to us. --Joe! |
||||||
403 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | Reformer Joe | 70694 | ||
John: Thanks for your response! You wrote: "I would interpret this passage in the following manner: Jesus was still human at the time." As a side note, I believe that the Bible shows us that Jesus is STILL human. "It's not a sin or even a question of a conflict of wills to ask the Father for something to be done if it's within His will to do so. Jesus wasn't saying He wouldn't do it." Oh, I agree that Jesus isn't saying He wouldn't do it; but it seems pretty clear that part of Him wasn't WANTING to do it -- at least not in this way. He prays that, if the Father is willing, the cup would pass from Him. God apparently says, "No." It is passages like this one that makes it obvious that Jesus is more than "God wearing skin." Jesus, being completely human (minus sin), possessed human emotions, a human intellect, and with respect to His humanity, finite knowledge (Mark 13:32). That is why I think we are walking on very precarious ground when we try to "psychoanalyze" Jesus, assuming He is always speaking and reacting from His divine nature (which he undoubtedly does often -- Luke 10:18; John 8:58) when He may not be doing so. A similar case would be Lazarus. Jesus intentionally let Lazarus die and lie in the grave for days before coming to see the family. He knew that He was going to raise Lazarus from the dead, and that the sadness of Mary and Martha was only to be momentary. Yet Jesus himself wept, and John offers no explanation as to why Jesus would weep if He orchestrated the whole death-resurrection scenario Himself. It is more evidence that Jesus and His emotions and His will during His earthly ministry are much more complex than we acknowledge at first glance. --Joe! |
||||||
404 | Matt. 23:37 Calvinism or Arminianism? | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70665 | ||
Tim: You wrote: "I freely concede that it is possible that 'you would not' could refer to the Pharisees. Grammatically, it could also refer to the children. Contextually, it could also refer to everyone throughout history in Jerusalem who resisted God, as Calvin took it. Personally, I think that the later is more likely than the first two!" I personally hold, with regard to the latter, that Jesus is lumping the Pharisees not with every Jew who has resisted God's call, but rather with everyone who has silenced God's messengers. Abel, for example, was not a Jew nor the ancestor of the Jews, and yet the blood of Abel is on the head of the head of the Pharisees and all their kind (v. 35). What Jesus condemns in this verse is not their own rejection of the message but the shedding of righteous blood in order to shut God's people up, the attempted squelching of God's message. You wrote: "Let's go back to the time of Jesus. Was anyone actually prevented from hearing from or seeing Jesus? No!" Of course some were! As you menitoned in your posts, the Pharisees could not completely prevent the gospel from reaching the ears of their "children," but to say that they were completely ineffective in doing so would be just as wrong as saying the Chinese government doesn't prevent a large number of individuals from ever hearing about Jesus. "The pharisees were afraid of the crowds, which was why they were forced to sneak around and figure out a way to kill Jesus." That didn't stop them, however, from throwing people out of the synagogue, or threatening to do so for listening to Jesus. Not to mention the countless times that Jesus was openly challenged by the Pharisees in public, only to leave them stuttering and red-faced with anger. The gospel accounts indicate that the Pharisees were very openly opposed to Jesus and attempted to guard their flock from Him. This seems to be just what Jesus is referring to in verse 13: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in" It is quite clear that one of the seven woes is the scribes and Pharisees not allowing their flock to be exposed to Jesus' teachings, and preventing them from following Him. "No matter the 'who' in 'you would not', God willed, but they resisted. :-)" ...which brings me to the other issue: is the will of Jesus in His humanity the same as the will of the Triune God in this case? That is the crux of my question from earlier today regarding Luke 22:42, where Jesus says, "Not My will, but Your will be done." In what I consider to be a parallel passage to Matthew 23:37, we find other interesting aspects of this situation revealed: "When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, 'If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.'" --Luke 19:41-44 Here again we see Jesus lamenting, even WEEPING, and addressing Jerusalem as a single entity rather than as a group of individual Jews. He expresses a wish that she had "known the things that made for peace." And the heart of his lament is that they are now HIDDEN from her eyes. For its continuous silencing all of the OT prophets testifying to the Messiah, and now the imminent silencing of the Messiah Himself, and the prophets Jesus Himself will send (Matthew 23:34), the city will face utter detruction. And Jesus weeps over it, but never affirms that all citizens of Jerusalem were "given a chance," nor denies that the gospel has been hidden from Jerusalem. Now, certainly there were believing Jews in first-century Jerusalem, just as there were believing Israelites among OT Israel upon whom God had pronounced judgment. That is why I hold that Jesus is lamenting the destruction of the covenant nation among whom He was born, and not telling all the Jews individually that they had been granted the moral ability to receive the gospel. --Joe! |
||||||
405 | Matt. 23:37 Calvinism or Arminianism? | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70656 | ||
A couple of points that I would like to bring up. Looking back at the Greek grammar that Tim gave to us and the verse's context as the culminating judgment of the "Seven Woes" of Matthew 23, it seems unlikely to me that the "you would not" of verse 37 refers to anyone but the Pharisees. If the subject-verb and adjective-noun agreement rules of Greek are similar to those of Spanish (and I suspect they are pretty similar in all languages that employ conjugations and gender), then it makes perfect sense to parenthetically address a metaphorical Jerusalem as singular and feminine, and then return to addressing the Pharisees to whom He had addressed this whole discourse. It seems unlikely to me that Jesus referred to "your children" and then referred to the children themselves as "you" in the same sentence? Possible? Yes, but there is nothing in the text of Matthew 23 definitively linking the "you would not" to the children of Jerusalem and not to the Pharisees, those who alone are addressed as "you" in verses 13-36. Now, Tim raises the trickier question here: "Secondly, even if the Pharisees are the ones to whom the 'you would not' refers, my main point is still valid. God willed something, but man would not and God was not able to do that which He willed. Just as in the point above, the 'gather together' was the action God willed to do, not the people, but someone was unwilling." Before I tackle this question, I would like to know about your take on what I would consider to be a similar situation in today's world. If the "you would not," refers to the Pharisees (as I think it does), it would be a parallel to the situation with the gospel in closed countries of today's world. If the religious and/or political leaders prevent their subjects from ever hearing about Jesus Christ, is it man thwarting God's will for their subjects? We seem to have a much more troublesome situation than the evangelized rejecting the gospel of their own free will; we have people unevangelized at all, never getting the opportunity to "accept or reject" due to circumstances beyond their control. So does the unwillingness of third parties keep God's evangelistic plan from getting accomplished to the extent He wills? If so, where is God's "justice" in letting scribes and Pharisees and hypocrites stand in the way of Jesus gathering Jerusalem's children under His wings? Having answered that, I think we can then look squarely at the most difficult aspect of the passage: Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, and His stated desire not having come to pass. --Joe! |
||||||
406 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70639 | ||
I teach grades 9-12. Please pray for me! :) --Joe! |
||||||
407 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70628 | ||
"If I remember my readings correctly though, there are many Calvinists who would go further and say that God pretty much 'controls' everything." And depending on the connotation of the word "control," I would either agree or disagree. I hate using crude human examples to illustrate the workings of Almighty God, because the analogy always falls extremely short. However, as a teacher, I can say that I have "control" of my classes without saying that I am the cause of all my students' infractions of the rules. Now, unlike with God, unexpected situations arise in my classroom, and I cannot perfectly foresee my students' intentions and intervene to manipulate the outcome of those intentions. Nor can I supernaturally change the nature of those students so that they are now happily inclined to cooperate if previously all of them were inclined to rebel, as I believe God does in the life of a sinner. But an essential quality of the good schoolmaster is classroom "control." --Joe! |
||||||
408 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70604 | ||
"When I think 'decree', I think 'scripted'! :-)" So it seems what we may have here is a difference in connotation. Another word Westminster uses in biblically defining God's providential decree is His "governing" of all that happens in His creation. To me, governing would include both the active and the permissive. Where I really see us differing is not in our understanding of God's will, but in two other areas: what unregenerate man in himself is morally capable of, and to what extent the governing of God is "active" and "manipulative," for lack of a less-negative-sounding term. We both agree that God is an intervening God to some extent, and we both agree that God does not directly cause everything (e.g. the sinful intentions of men and Satan). And I think we both agree that at least the "big picture" of redemptive history is scripted. The question on which we disagree seems to be just how much of our own role is written by us, and how much is written by the sovereign Dramatist and Director. Blessings! --Joe! |
||||||
409 | John 15:2, "cut off" or "lift up"? | John 15:2 | Reformer Joe | 70601 | ||
New Creature: Thanks for your reply! You wrote: "It appears that you think that the intended audience to which John 15 is addressed is the 11 remaining apostles, and not to all believers in general." Not exactly. In effect, we are "listening in," thanks to John, on something that Jesus was saying to the apostles (specifically) about "branches," both those that "abide in Him" and consequently "bear fruit" and those who do not abide in Him and are consequently cut off and used for kindling. While I think we need to examine more closely whom these branched refer to, he is not talking to the eleven specifically ABOUT the eleven. Sorry if I was unclear on that. Also, I agree with you regarding good, God-glorifying works being THE evidence of abiding in Jesus Christ. James 2 makes that clear. So, unless I am mistaken, you believe (like I do) that the works are the evidence, and not the cause, of an ongoing, abiding relationship with the Vine. I had asked, "Do you think we keep his commandments because we abide in Him or that we abide in Him by means of keeping His commandments?" In other words, which one causes the other? You answered that works should be the believer's desire. I am with you 100 percent on that, but that doesn't answer whether following the commandments causes us to abide or whether abiding causes us to obey His commandments. I also asked, 'How do we as human beings have control of whether any "fruit" that we bear will remain and flourish after it has left our control?' You responded that we should give up control. I guess I didn't state what I was asking clearly enough. When Jesus tells the eleven that they did not choose Him, but rather He chose them and appointed them to bear fruit, and that He appointed that their fruit will endure, I believe that He is referring specifically to the foundation of the New Testament church. He is APPOINTING that their fruit will endure after they are all dead, in other words. Since Jesus is speaking in the upper room to the eleven, how do they have any role in what will happen to their fruit once they are out of the picture? You also wrote: "But being free moral agents we have a choice to either surrender control to Him, or refuse to yeild control to Him." As Christians, that is true in a limited sense. God has a way of bringing us around to His way of thinking, however. Ask Jonah. :) 'In John 15:2 we see mentioned two types of branches. 1)those IN HIM that do not bear fruit 2) those in Him which do bear fruit. 'Both branches are said to be "in Him".' Correct. So now we come to the crucial question: what does Jesus mean by saying that both branches are "in Him." As you said, both types of branches are "in Him," but only one group is said to be "abiding in Him." We never are told that the branches "in Him" that were cut off were EVER "abiding in Him." He does not provide the image of them first producing good fruit and then ceasing to produce good fruit. In other words, here is the picture Jesus paints: (a)branches in Him and abiding in Him bear more fruit, get pruned to bear more fruit and (b) branches in Him but not abiding in Him get cut off and torched He twice in this passage apparently assures the eleven themselves that they are not in category (b). We see that in John 15:3 and in 15:16. Lastly, you quoted Matthew 7 a couple of times regarding what happens to the bad tree and also what happens to those who profess to be Christians but really are not Christians. Could the "branches" in category (b) above be referring to those professing Christians, who are baptized into the church but really are those whom Jesus NEVER knew (Matthew 7:23)? Looking forward to more discussion with you! --Joe! |
||||||
410 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70554 | ||
"The only place I would differ is that I would not include our response as part of His decretive will. I would list that under His permissive will." Do you not put it there because you think "decree" implies causation on God's part? Because when I say that God decrees all things, I don't mean that He causes all things. I don't see the two as synonyms at all. --Joe! |
||||||
411 | John 15:2, "cut off" or "lift up"? | John 15:2 | Reformer Joe | 70514 | ||
"So let me ask you if I may. How do you personally interpret these verses in John 15?" That is a good question, New Creature. Perhaps we can take a close look at this and get a good idea of where the other person is coming from. First of all, I agree that the meaning of getting cut off and gathered and being thrown into the fire is too similar to other references to the judgment of hell to be easily dismissed as "something else." In fact, I think that condemnation is exactly what Jesus is talking about. Therefore, I think the question of whether this passage supports the loss of salvation or not is to determine whom Jesus was talking about. Like the good teacher that He is, Jesus used many different ways of talking about these branches to be burned. Here are some things that Jesus said about them, and I would like your take on what they mean. First, Jesus says in John 15:2 that they are the ones who do not bear fruit. What do you think Jesus means by "bearing fruit," and do you think this means that we maintain our salvation by our works? I have met some opponents of "eternal security" that do, and some that don't. Jesus continues by saying that bearing fruit comes from abiding in Him, and in verses 6-7 is hwere we see the throwing away, the withering, and the gathering and burning. What do you think Jesus means when He says that the fruitful branches "abide in Him"? In verse 10, Jesus equates abiding in His love with keeping His commandments, and provides the intra-Trinitarian relationship between the Father and the Son as an example. Do you think we keep his commandments because we abide in Him or that we abide in Him by means of keeping His commandments? In other words, which one causes the other? And Jesus makes one last statement that is interesting, especially in light of those to whom He is speaking: "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." --John 15:16 These words are spoken to the eleven loyal disciples (Judas Iscariot had already departed in John 13:30). So these eleven had been appointed by Jesus Christ to do exactly what he had been telling them to do in the whole chapter. One might argue that Jesus was simply telling them what He wanted them to do, and that their decision to continue as His disciples was completely in their own hands. The only problem with that rendering is the phrase "and that your fruit would remain." How do we as human beings have control of whether any "fruit" that we bear will remain and flourish after it has left our control? But Jesus says that He has appointed these people for the purposes of BOTH occurring. Just one other point I would like to make, and then I am eager to hear what you have to say. Jesus commands His disciples to abide in Him and obey Him, and instructs them directly that apart from Him they can do nothing. He uses direct address (second person) to tell them all this. However, when he is speaking of the branches thrown into the fire, He only uses the third person ("he" and "the branches"). He never directly tells them in this passage, "If YOU do not abide in me, it is the fire for YOU." That by itself proves nothing, but it is interesting that this threat of judgment is never directed squarely at them. So what do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
412 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70509 | ||
"So would you say that the commandments of God are His active will or permissive will? So, I could operate with just the two terms (active and permissive). Our disobedience of the Law of God is an example of our using free will, so I could classify it as permissive in that sense." Well, you are mixing up the terms of my argument, Tim. I agree that our DISOBEDIENCE is part of what you call God's "permissive will." But let's look at the commandment itself: "You shall not steal." Is this commandment (not OUR obedience or disobedience of the commandment, but rather GOD telling us what to do) an example of active or permissive will? Other passages make this more clear to me: For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God" --1 Thessalonians 4:2-5 Here we have the commandment of sexual morality referred to as God's will. This moral commandment eternally stands as God's will whether anyone obeys it or disobeys it. The commandment itself does not alternate between being God's "active will" or "permissive will." It is our RESPONSE to the command which falls under God's decretive will. I guess that we could look at in that way: PRECEPTIVE WILL: What God instructs us to do. DECRETIVE WILL: What God Himself has determined to do in His creation, or has determined to allow His creation to do. See? I have the same number of terms you do! :) --Joe! |
||||||
413 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70502 | ||
Joe wrote: 'I also think it is safe to say that God is merely saying, "I permit you not to steal."' Joe MEANT to write: 'I also think it is safe to say that God is NOT merely saying, "I permit you not to steal." Wow...little words make so much difference! --Joe! |
||||||
414 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70501 | ||
By the way, Tim... I don't view the different aspects of the will of God in quite the same way as you do (recover from your shock!) This thread has mainly focused on an "active" will and a "permissive" will. From my perspective, both of these aspects fall under the same "decretive" will of God. Both what God chooses to do and what God allows to happen are part of His decree. I do see "God's will" used in a different sense in Scripture apart from this decretive will. When God gives His law, that reflects His will in another sense. Here is a concrete example: God tell humans not to steal. I think we would both say it is God's will that we do not steal, and that it is sin if we do steal. However, is God saying in this commandment, "I actively prevent you from stealing"? Obviously, since theft and robbery exist, that cannot be true. I also think it is safe to say that God is merely saying, "I permit you not to steal." So is God's commandment not to steal an example of an active will or a permissive will? I would answer that it appears to be neither a declaration of what God WILL DO nor a declaration of what God WILL ALLOW. The law of God merits a completely different facet of what we call "God's will." Some theologians call this a "preceptive will"; and I, having two eyes in my head, stand with you in agreement that God's preceptive will CAN BE and too frequently IS resisted, both by God's people and by Christ-haters. Am I making sense here? --Joe! |
||||||
415 | John 15:2, "cut off" or "lift up"? | John 15:2 | Reformer Joe | 70491 | ||
New Creature: You wrote: "Bruce Wilkenson like all other eternal security advocates have no choice but to attempt to revise the clear rendering of John 15:2 and 6." Please be more careful not to make sweeping generalizations like this. Not every person who believes in God's preservation of His saints agrees with Wilkinson's rendering of John 15. Thanks. --Joe! |
||||||
416 | Matt. 23:37 Calvinism or Arminianism? | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70463 | ||
You know, my Tridentine friend, that Martin Luther gave his defense at Worms twice -- once in Latin and once in German! Perhaps I should start posting in English and Spanish and French now...add Greek and Hebrew as they come along...hmmmm.... Thanks for the idea/Gracias por la idea/Merci pour l'idee! ;) --Joe! |
||||||
417 | Matt. 23:37 Calvinism or Arminianism? | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70459 | ||
Well, maybe I am just backward enough myself to master the Hebrew language! ;) --Joe! |
||||||
418 | Matt. 23:37 Calvinism or Arminianism? | Matt 23:37 | Reformer Joe | 70452 | ||
That's interesting...so Jesus is starts off with the object of his address being the city itself and changes it to the "children" in the last clause alone (gramatically speaking)? Do the genders match up as well? You said that "Jerusalem" is feminine in the Greek, and I would assume that a collective group of humans ("children") is likely to be masculine (and I know you will correct me if I am wrong). So is the Greek pronoun for "you" in the final clause masculine or feminine (if there is a pronoun at all there)? I will be taking a three-semester equivalent of both Greek and Hebrew this summer D.V., so I look forward to "playing at a new level." :) --Joe! |
||||||
419 | To whom Christ died? | Eph 5:25 | Reformer Joe | 70444 | ||
Amen. --Joe! |
||||||
420 | Matthew 15:26-27 | Matthew | Reformer Joe | 70439 | ||
'It still leaves us with the puzzling question of, “Why is Jesus so hard on this lady?” Now keep in mind the Bible does not say so this is a matter of opinion. I think Jesus did this because he knew the persistent heart she had. He wanted to show off her faith and by doing that show others the faith He wants and expects.' What an excellent observation! I never thought of that before, but I think you are absolutely correct. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [97] >> |