Results 421 - 440 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70415 | ||
"I always like being board with the facts the hard part is being sharp enough to remember them for future use." To be honest, I'd be lost without my library and the Internet handy for such matters. I have pretty good memory, but I just cram too much in to remember all the details. May God bless you today! --Joe! |
||||||
422 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70409 | ||
Interestingly enough, the debate really wasn't between these two men. James Arminius was only about four years old when Calvin died, so obviously there wasn't a lot of interaction between them! :) Also, it was a group of Dutch followers of the teachings of Arminius, known as the Remonstrants, who first presented their objections to the Reformed church in the Netherlands in 1610 (the year after Arminius himself died). This controversy between the followers of the two groups is what resulted in the Synod of Dort, out of which came the Canons of Dort, the first confessional document organizing some of the teaching of the Reformation into the "Five Point" format. Sorry if the history lesson bored you; I think that studying the history of God's people (and, through our mutual union with Christ, OUR people as well) gives us a greater sense of how our sovereign God has triumphed through his church in the last 2000 years, despite some very questionable characters that were in the mix... --Joe! |
||||||
423 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70402 | ||
"Do you claim to be smarter and know more doctrine then dear old John Calvin? If you know where I am going with this you don?t even have to oblige me with an answer we will just let it end here." I don't know where you are going with this, so I will be brave (or foolish!) enough to answer that, while I disagree with Calvin on some issues, that his training and knowledge (and character) far exceeds anything I have attained thus far. Now spring that trap, whatever it may be! :) --Joe! |
||||||
424 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70401 | ||
"Boy I mean the Lord really makes me feel miserable to the point that I can?t even sleep; so if I have hurt anybody?s feelings I apologize and I mean it, and that goes for both the Calvinist and the Arminianist and the hypers in both groups." No need to lose sleep on my account! As my profile says, I look forward to discussing God's word with folks of ALL theological stripes. I believe that one can hold and promote differing views and still adhere to the principles of Christian conduct. "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality." --Romans 12:9-13 A very good example within the Reformed branch of Protestantism are those who differ on the mode and timing of baptism. The "infant baptizers" and the "believers-only baptizers" make no secrets about their points of view and precisely how they think the other side is mistaken. However, that does not get in the way of them getting together to strive in extending God's kingdom. John Piper, a Baptist, was the featured speaker at my Presbyterian church's mission conference a few years ago. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (www.alliancenet.org) is made up of Lutherans, Baptists, Prebyterians, United Reformed ministers, and other who are ministering in non-denominational churches. John MacArthur is a perennial speaker at R.C. Sproul's annual conference, despite very differing views between them on theological issues outside of the Five Points. Likewise, the missionary agency I am affiliated with is made up of a wide range of theological viewpoints (Reformed, Dispensationalist, Arminian, etc.), and we all seem to find a way to get God's work done and also manage to discuss the differences we have in theology in a Christian spirit. And, amazingly enough, I have even seen it here at least twice! :) Good Christian conduct does not mean that everyone agrees on every issue, or that we pretend that differing views do not exist, but rather that we lovingly disagree and glorify God at the same time. If you need a picture of that, please look at Tim's postings. I delight in interacting with him, despite the fact that, regarding the aforementioned intramural debate, we both think the other to be completely off-base. --Joe! |
||||||
425 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70398 | ||
"It is virtually a sin for us to be wasting our time on something that has never been proven for hundreds of years when we could be such a blessing to so many that don?t even know Christ or those that think that they do and really don?t." The difficulty here is that one does not have to be done to the exclusion of the other. My missionary work (see my profile) gives me plenty of opportunity to proclaim the gospel of Christ to others, but the apostles spent significant ink (and doubtlessly many sermons) contending for doctrinal correctness among the pofessing saints. The sanctification of believers is an important purpose of God just as the justification of the unbeliever is. (Ephesians 4:11-16) I suppose I see the StudyBibleForum as primarily that: a Bible study for those who already proclaim Christ as Lord and God and Savior. While I am sure that those who are not Christians find themselves here, much as they will find themselves at a church for whatever circumstances (and therefore Matthew 5:16 and John 13:34-35 definitely apply), I think it would be mistaken to see the Forum as designed primarily for evangelism. Some people may differ in opinion with me, but I see that much more evangelism tends to get accomplished on my part after issuing the "shut down" command than when I post here. --Joe! |
||||||
426 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70393 | ||
"If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." --Romans 12:18 --Joe! |
||||||
427 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70389 | ||
I would like to also add that since Genesis 1 describes the creation of the physical universe and its inhabitants, angels (whether loyal or fallen) are perhaps not included in the "very good" assessment of Genesis 1:31. I DO agree with your understanding of pre-Fall humanity being very good, and post-fall humanity being like Romans 1 describes them: "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." --Romans 1:28-32 --Joe! |
||||||
428 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70387 | ||
CDBJ: I think the context makes it clear for those who have ears to hear. Thanks for helping to keep this a StudyBIBLEForum. 'You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.' --Romans 9:19-24 "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." --Isaiah 40:8 --Joe! |
||||||
429 | Vessels prepared for destruction? | Rom 9:22 | Reformer Joe | 70376 | ||
Hi, beva. I noticed you haven't filled out a personal profile yet. Why don't you take a few minutes to do so by clicking on "Update User Info" at the left, so we can all get to know you better! --Joe! |
||||||
430 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70327 | ||
"First of all, I'm not one who really believes that the Bible teachs that man lost the ability to make a free choice." How would you distinguish your statement above from Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism? Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
431 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70326 | ||
"Here is exactly where we disagree. I would say that unless the text modifies 'all' in some sense, or unless we have an obvious example of hyperbole, then 'all' does include every single possilbe thing or person that can belong to the category in question." But, see, that doesn't even address all the verses I cited in my previous post. Let's just look at the first one: "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." --Matthew 21:22 This verse is frequently used by the "name-it-and-claim" it crowd to suggest that riches and power and perfect health are theirs for the asking. There is nothing in the immediate context that modifies the term "all things." So are these folks right in their interpretation? I think we would both say "no." What would be your answer to why "all things" really doesn't mean "every single thing imaginable," using only Matthew 21? "Rom. 3:23 does not qualify or restrict 'all' in any sense, so we would both be in agreement that 'all' here means every single individual; past, present, or future." But Paul does not intend to include every single individual here, but rather every single individual minus one. The rest of Romans and the rest of the New Testament makes it plain, as you and I will agree, that Jesus Christ the human individual is exempted from this judgment. We have already discussed 2 Peter 3:9 several timesbefore. We just disagree on whether the context of the verse ("patient toward YOU"), the chapter and the epistle qualifies the word "all" or not. And looking at longer, more explanatory passages like John 6:38-65 and Romans 9:18 ff. and Matthew 13:10-15 (the larger context of the New Testament), I see the same type of exegetical work required as we have in excluding Jesus from the "all have sinned" statement. By the way, I agree wholeheartedly that it is absurd to even suggest that Paul had Jesus in mind here, but the basis of declaring it absurd is not from the lexical use of the word "all," but rather the overwhelming testimony throughout the New Testament of Jesus' perfection. The verse in 1 Peter 3 is, of course, not nearly as obvious, but the Reformed arguments regarding this verse are not nearly as ridiculous and as unfounded on Scripture as their opponents claim them to be. --Joe! |
||||||
432 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70307 | ||
"Concerning Rom. 3, I could then turn around and say that based on Rom. 3:9, 'all' here only refers to all kinds of people, both Gentile and Jewish! ;-)" Do you really think that the first three chapters of Romans do not provide a much better supporting context for our common understanding of "all" in Romans 3:23 than the first six verses of 1 Timothy 2? Paul even includes all the "no, not one" statements just to be clear on this one. :) "By the way, God in the flesh doesn't count! :-)" Of course, I agree that the "all" Romans 3:23 does not include Jesus. But how can one conclude by looking at this verse that "God in the flesh doesn't count"? Jesus is more than God parading around in skin. He is also a Jewish human being now and forever. I don't want to beat the point to death as is common here, but I think we can agree that "all" is SOMETIMES (not always) qualified by the rest of the Bible. Other passages where I believe we would agree that the "all" is qualified by the sense of the rest of Scripture: "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." --Matthew 21:22 "And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." --Mark 1:5 "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" --Romans 8:32 "but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith" --Romans 16:26 "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved." --1 Corinthians 10:33 "Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord." --Colossians 3:22 "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men" --1 Timothy 2:1 You will say something along the lines of "It's obvious in these cases what the writers meant," and I agree. We have to exercise reason in discerning the meaning of the text. It is not that "all" is some kind of universal NT code word for "some." Rather, it is just too simplistic that to say in the case of every occurrance of the word "all" that it necessarily means every single possible thing or person that can belong to the category in question. And that's "all" I have to say on the subject! (And many are hoping that "all" really does mean "all" here!) --Joe! |
||||||
433 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70305 | ||
How is it a "stretch" to say that when Paul meant "all" in Romans 3:23, that he didn't implicitly mean "all but Jesus" in this case? All I was trying to demonstrate is that SOMETIMES (not always) the word "all" is qualified by the immediate context or by the context of the whole counsel of God. Is that bad exegesis? If so, please tell me exactly where my reasoning is so "absurd." Thanks, brother! --Joe! |
||||||
434 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70282 | ||
"p.s. - What would you think if I told you that Rom. 3:23 didn't really mean that 'all' have sinned, but only some?" Well I could point you to the immediate context of Romans 3:9-18 to demonstrate the universal nature of that word in this case. And, by the way, taking the entire context of the Bible into account, I would say that even this "all" doesn't include every single human being who ever lived. Can you think of one man who hasn't sinned? A very prominent biblical figure comes to mind... --Joe! |
||||||
435 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70281 | ||
"Do I agree that 'everything' happens according to God's eternal plan? No! Do I believe that everything God ordains to happen will happen? Yes!" I think we see pretty much eye-to-eye on these two statements, if I am understanding you correctly. If by the first one you mean that we do things that God does not want us to do, then I give a resounding, Reformer Joe-style "Amen!" And of course I agree with the second statement. This is why I think that giving a simplistic understanding of God's will is a mistake. Does the Bible say that God always gets His way? Yes...and no. "There is a subtle difference. I don't believe that God plans out every decision and action of man." Neither do I. At the same time, I would say that every human action is already incorporated into God's plan. To say otherwise would be treading into open theism. I think where we are differing is not in saying that God foresees things. Where we differ is in stating what man is capable of after the Fall, and in the degree to which God intervences in human history and individual human lives. I think that it is too simplistic to say that He works around the intentions of human beings, as I see Joseph's brothers and Absolom and the Assyrian invasion and Pharaoh and Satan himself as biblical examples of God taking the intentions of the wicked and not just responding to their actions, but maneuvering their actions so that while they sin of their own accord, God gets his desired outcome. "Back to Adam and Eve for a moment, I thought you didn't believe in human free will?" I take Jonathan Edwards' position that our wills are determined by our natures. We do what we desire most, and our natures are such that we don't ever desire to submit to the Father and embrace Jesus Christ. Adam an Eve didn;t start out with a corruptible sin nature, but obviously is was a nature that was susceptible to corruption. "If God only permitted their sin, what was the cause of their sin?" Their own wills, untainted by a previously existing sin nature, responding to Satan's temptation." "If God only allowed the decision, then He didn't sovereignly decree it would happen." How so? If we think of every action in the universe as directly caused by God, or granted permission for God to occur, or granted with modification, then that still makes God the sovereign cause or gatekeeper of every event in creation. And that's why I am an infralapsarian, incidentally. For the reprobate, God has to do nothing but "give them over" to their natural inclinations, as Paul puts it in Romans 1. One might even call it "spiritual entropy." God only has to do nothing regenerative in a person's life and their trajectory will be toward hell. I agree with you as far as the person who will be in hell is concerned, God gives him his way. That person's will is only constrained by the sociological checks that God has sovereignly established to keep the consequences of a sinful life within His ordained parameters. For the elect, however, I see the new birth as an essential logical precursor to the will. This is the other area in which we differ. You see that grace as only prevenient, enabling the person to be on a neutral ground of sorts to make a decision. I see that grace as making a fundamental change in the very nature of the person, making him into a human being who now wills to embrace the message of the gospel that has accompanied the Spirit's work in his very self. "It seems to me that God allowed their decision, but that He was not the cause of it." I agree. "Concerning Piper, how could it be true that a sovereign God could will something, but it not come to pass?" To be honest, I am not familiar with Piper's view. Different Reformed people approach in different ways the complexity of the Bible's mention of God's will. I think it is biblically supportable to speak of "God's will" in one sense of God creating, causing or permitting something; and "God's will" in another sense of what is in conformity to His law. When I sin, I am in in a violation of God's will, but God permitting me to sin is also according to his will, sovereignly speaking. God detests the act itself, but has already put the act he permits (and whose commission, extent, and effect He governs) in the grand scheme of His sovereign plan. --Joe! |
||||||
436 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70264 | ||
"I am always amazed at the length one has to go to redefine the terms in Scripture to uphold Calvinism. 'All' doesn't really mean 'all'. 'World' doesn't really mean 'world'. 'Everyone' doesn't really mean 'everyone'." I find my own eyes popping out of their skulls watching your side with Romans 9 and John 6. What we do with words, you do with passages! Truly awe-inspiring work! :) Your brother in Christ, Joe! P.S. I was a little troubled by your comments regarding the Christ-church/husband-wife analogy from Ephesians 5. Is there no distinction between how Jesus loves the church and how he loves the rest of humanity? My wife would be pretty upset if I came to her and said that I need to exercise the same self-sacrifice toward every other woman that I show toward her. I think I will let you tell her! :) |
||||||
437 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70256 | ||
"Do you see a connection between the doctrine of double predestination and the doctrine of extrinsic justification?" I myself do not believe in "double predestination" (supralapsarianism). The term I have always heard for Protestant justification is "forensic" (legal), a declaration of righteousness on God's part based on the merit of Christ's perfect life imputed to our account. Is that what you mean? I do not see the connection you are trying to make between the two, however. Perhaps you could connect the dots a little more for me. "God's sovereignty demands that the Devil too is subject to God's will and his acts are also predestined and the Devil is therefore God's agent?" I do agree that both Satan and those humans who will be in hell are God's agents -- in spite of their willful rebellion against Him. God has anticipated and uses and directs that rebellion in the entire tapestry of cosmic history for his glory and for the good of His people (Romans 8:28). --Joe! |
||||||
438 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70217 | ||
In this case man isn't choosing salvation; he is choosing damnation. Our choices are determined by our natures. Unregenerate man can choose all kinds of things, but his nature is such that he will not WANT to truly embrace Jesus Christ. Just like my nature is such that I cannot bring myself to like eating sawdust, the unregenerate's nature is such that he cannot bring himself to want the true Jesus on His terms. Another example would be a herbivore's natural aversion to eating flesh. There is nothing external or physical stopping a plant-eating animal from chewing on a carcass, but its nature is such that the animal will never choose to do so. That is why I am careful to distinguish between one's WILL and one's NATURE. Our wills are free in a limited sense, but they are constrained by opportunity, by our own power to affect change around us, and by our own spiritual natures. That is why I speak of God giving us a new nature. Before possessing my new nature, I willfully chose not to receive Christ; it was my nature to do so, and I had no problem with it. When God called, however, my nature was changed so that I realized the necessity of responding to that call and the love of God for me in His sending Jesus to die for me. Before, I didn't desire Christ, just as those who reject my evangelistic efforts do not desire Christ. They willfully push it away, and would willingly choose anything else as their highest desire (even a false Christ). God gave me a new nature, and the Christ-hater THEN becomes the Christ-lover, and gladly does so. --Joe! |
||||||
439 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70212 | ||
"I’m sick of hearing Calvinism is right and everything else is wrong." Well, Ed, you think I am as wrong as I think you are, and you have said so on numerous occasions. I do not get all bent out of shape about it or go off on a crusade to tear you down because of it. I defend the Reformed position when misrepresented or criticized not because I feel any need to boost my self-esteem, but because it is what I believe the Bible teaches. It is the same thing when someone comes on here promoting anti-Trinitarian doctrine or WOF teaching or the notion that the Bible is not a sufficient guide for faith and practice. I do not mind the hard questions at all. God put us together in a body -- a community -- so that we could wrestle with His revelation to know Him and obey Him more. The great orthodox creeds of the faith, such as the Nicene Creed, were by and large a product of wrangling and debate among brothers, which I am sure got very intense at times. I do not take it personally that you disagree with me and think I am wrong. What I am concerned about is that in a public forum a system of doctrine held to by many significant men of God dating as far back as Augustine of Hippo, a system that falls well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity, is not misrepresented or maligned. "If that were true it would be provable without question and this debate would have ended dare I say hundreds of years ago." Try telling that to Oneness pentecostals, or to those who believe in infant baptism or that tongues have ceased. You have a position on these as well, and all of these arguments have been going on. :) One of us HAS to be wrong; neither one of us is damnably wrong. I like what James White once said to a Mormon in a public debate (bringing us back on track!). He said that a significant reason so many denominations exist because people pick and choose what parts of the Bible thay are going to believe. I am certain I am guilty of that as well, and believe it or not, my Calvinist confession even backs up the idea of no church being 100 percent right. :) But I am convinced from the Bible that I am right on this one, and until I can be convinced from sacred Scripture that I am not, I am going to hold to this view. I didn't grow up Reformed; I examined it in great detail from both sides before affirming that that is what the Bible teaches. I can evaluate the other point of view because I used to subscribe to that point of view (since it was the one in which I was raised). That is why I bear no animosity toward you whatsoever, Ed, while at the same time I think that you are in error on this one. And it is a big one, even if it is not a salvific one. May God bless you! --Joe! |
||||||
440 | some reject, others obey the gospel WHY? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70201 | ||
I am sorry: was there something in my last post that was in error? If so, please correct me, and I will apologize. Your attitude and statements toward me this week have been quite sinful, Nolan, and dishonor the name of the Lord and Savior we both belong to. And, whether you like it or not, we are indeed brothers in Christ, because you and I aren't the ones who determine that status. Furthermore, as I plan to celebrate the Lord's Supper this evening, I consider it important for us to become reconciled before then. 'We love, because He first loved us. If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.' --John 4:19-21 --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [97] >> |