Results 441 - 460 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
441 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70197 | ||
"'A question for you: If Mormons are not blind then how is it they cannot see that they worship a false christ?' Again I do not know the answer. But this I know neither you nor Joe have provided a satisfactory answer to this question either." I cannot help it if you find the Bible's answer of "they don't want to" to be unsatisfactory. It is the only one I have to offer. --Joe! |
||||||
442 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70195 | ||
Ed: The "interrogation lamp" comment was supposed to be a hint toward your un-Christlike attitude toward this conversation, but -- surprise! -- you didn't get it, but rather picked it up and ran with it. I am going to say this as nicely as I can. Our relationship is not that of a superior-to-subordinate or teacher-to-student. My purpose here is not to answer your question (which I have consistently done) If you want to have a dialogue, that is fine. That involves you responding to my comments just as I have to yours. If you want to converse, let's converse. If not, I will just pick up my pearls and move on. --Joe! |
||||||
443 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70175 | ||
I ask the gracious permission of "Ed the Moderator" to diverge slightly for a commercial break in order to type a paragraph without mentioning the word "Mormon." You wrote: "Joe I understand your belief on guilt and how man is helpless to do anything about it unless he is elected. Even in the face of the John 3:16 which says God so loved the world (not just the elect or the ones that would choose Him but the world) that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever (again not just the elect) would believe in Him and have everlasting life." I respond (NOT pulling statements out of nowhere to distract as "someone" has been falsely accusing me of): http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.McLaughlin.LA.20.html Sorry about the link, but cut-and-paste takes up so much space, and not everyone is as fascinated by this debate (as you yourself have claimed not to be, despite your active part in continuing it). Now, back to the LDS! :) You wrote: "Explain why a newbie Mormon isn't at the place you say a man can't reach unless he is elected." "Now let's take a new Mormon. What are they seeking? I have yet to find one that hasn't said forgivenness of sin." And how many Mormons have you witnessed to? That is a pretty blanket statement you are making about the mindset of the Mormon convert. And if they are seeking true, godly repentance, then surely all of them abandon Mormonism when you witness to them, since their hearts were already pre-disposed to embracing the truth you were giving them. Right? It is very hard to make a general statement as to why someone converts to a false religion. However, we can clearly see (if we believe the gospel) that Mormons have not exhibited a repentance leading to eternal life, which is "the place I say a man can't reach unless he is elected." For at least the third time, the doctrine of radical depravity does NOT hold that humans are unaware of their own guilt and need for forgiveness. I hope you will let that sink in so that we can finally put this to rest. What the doctrine of radical depravity DOES hold is that the non-elect are morally incapable of ever exhibiting the repentance that leads to eternal life. Whatever path they choose in their "search," it will be away from true Christianity. When confronted with true Christianity, they will either reject it, or profess to embrace it while not truly repenting and believing. They simply do not want to submit to God's law; indeed, they cannot. Take it up with Paul and his letter to the Romans if that seems to be contrary to Ed's perceived personal EXPERIENCE with the LDS. Lastly, you do see the logical consequence of your view that many Mormons really want to become Christians, don't you? What kind of a God would deny the opportunity to a "true seeker" (you still haven't gievn me a definition of such a person that jibes with Romans 3:11)? Couldn't He have provided the "right fork" for such an individual to walk toward instead of letting this true, honest seeker go without finding the Christ he really needed? To suggest that those who are truly seeking do not find Jesus is calling that same Jesus a liar (Matthew 7:7-8); and it is also making a pretty horrible statement on the power and sovereignty of God by suggesting that sometimes God wants the person to be saved, the person himself wants to be saved, and still things work out where the guy goes to hell. Perhaps the "interrogation lamp" could come off of me for a moment so we can discuss these ramifications. --Joe! |
||||||
444 | some reject, others obey the gospel WHY? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70171 | ||
"To you to don't change the subject and point at me explain Mormonism in light of your calvinistic teaching." I did answer that question, in the thread in which you brought it up. Now, back to your dishonesty, which WAS the material issue we were considering here. I will point at you because you are the one bearing false witness here. In case you haven't checked lately, that is one of the "Big Ten," a sin which you apparently feel very comfortable in living with. I trust I do not need to defend truth-telling in light of Calvinism. --Joe! |
||||||
445 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70168 | ||
"Even Augustine initally believed in it, though he did change his position later in life." Sounds like me! :) --Joe! |
||||||
446 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70152 | ||
"The only possibility that I can see which is left is that they freely chose to sin, not in obedience to a fallen nature, but as an act of will. One could even argue that 'sin' was against their nature in that sense that there had never been a human act of sin prior to this." Augustine didn't see it as "against their nature." Here is how he explained it (in Latin): posse peccare ("able to sin") -- pre-fall humanity non posse non peccare ("not able not to sin") -- post-fall unregenerate humanity posse non peccare ("able not to sin") -- the Christian on earth non posse peccare ("not able to sin") -- the glorified saint So Adam was created sinless, but fallible. Whatever the case, we can all agree that he wasn't created irresistibly disposed to doing good. --Joe! |
||||||
447 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70148 | ||
This is a good question, and not an easy one to answer from Scripture, since we get no insight into the thoughts going through the heads of our first parents. One thing does stick out to me when considering the cause of their fall, and he was coiled up in the tree coaching Eve to do what she did. Would they have obeyed God without the prince of lies coming in and convincing them otherwise? I am pretty convinced that they likely would have. And I also think this serves as a reminder to us that our enemies here and now are the flesh (which wasn't a problem for Adam and Eve at the outset), the world system (which was perfect pre-Fall) and Satan, whose minions are constantly prowling about seeking whom they may devour. Therefore, since Adam and Eve were not created with a disposition to sin, nor had a society around them coaxing them into it, I think that Satan gets the credit for being the prime mover in the Fall. And the prize? His head crushed and a lake of fire forever and ever. --Joe! |
||||||
448 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70147 | ||
"Address this issue without bunny trails or changing the subject." I will gladly do so AGAIN... :) You wrote: "Let?s go no further, before you explain Mormons to me in light of Calvinism. They know there are lost, they know they need forgiveness, the look to Jesus for that forgiveness through His death and resurrection." No, this is not what Mormons believe. This is what I keep trying to point out to you. They deny original sin. They actually think the Fall was a GOOD thing, because it allowed all those spirit beings to come to earth in Adam's offspring and move on their way to celestial exaltation. They believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ (which, according to them, occurred for the most part in the Garden of Gethsemane) took care of Adam's "transgression." They believe that the only ones going to hell are those who are Mormon apostates and people like me who go around preaching against the LDS. Even the wicked have a heaven for themselves! Their goal is not forgiveness; it is self-improvement on a cosmic scale that ends in Godhood. This variety of fallen man falls very squarely into the "depraved" category, seeking to make himself a God by good works rather than escaping the judgment of a just and holy God. Mormons do NOT believe that they are bound for hell without Jesus Christ. In other words, you are wrong about the teachings of the LDS on human nature, the atonement, the highest end of man, and how "salvation" (really "exaltation") is attained, so your argument falls flat right there. Was that path direct enough? And again, the [offensive theological term describing my view] does not believe that humans do not have a sense of guilt. We believe that they compound their guilt, storing up wrath for themselves by suppressing the truth of the infinitely holy nature of God and their own helpless guilt before him, going anywhere but to the cross for salvation, enlightenment, self-improvement, or any other source that will help them keep lying to themselves about that guilt. --Joe! |
||||||
449 | some reject, others obey the gospel WHY? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70146 | ||
"Especially after the last great flare up..." ...which you kindled with your off-topic (and WRONG) remarks regarding the Reformed view and prayer. At least be honest about your LACK of silence on this issue. I welcome your viewpoint on this forum, even look forward to it. However, when someone misrepresents the theological views of the Reformers of the church, of virtually every Protestant missionary pioneer of note, of probably the best-known Baptist evangelist in history, of some of the most responsible teachers alive today (who are among the few calling for reformation of the mockery that characterizes most of modern evangelicalism), and of God's instruments for one of the most sweeping revivals in America ever, I am not going to just let such broadcast ignorance slide without a response. And I did so with full reference to Scripture, even including links to others who are preaching the word of God. "But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?" --Romans 2:3 --Joe! |
||||||
450 | some reject, others obey the gospel WHY? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70143 | ||
"You do not see myself or another constantly trumpeting the "Arminian" viewpoint on this subject..." I most certainly do see that. Do you think I have talking to myself here? Am I starting these threads? No, I only respond to people making such claims like Calvinists are unregenerate. Take a look back through the threads to which I have contributed over the weekend, and give it a good, honest evaluation, Nolan. I will even help you by pointing you to post #69863 to see precisely where this latest "flare-up" began. And forgiveness has already been granted regarding the "not even saved" comment, even though you apparently think you are perfectly "justified" in calling all of us so. And while you are demonstrating your "brotherly love" (if indeed I am a brother), perhaps you might want to prayerfully evaluate how Tim and I can have reasoned debate on the issues of how God operates in human history without the name-calling or the textual temper-tantrum. --Joe! |
||||||
451 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 70078 | ||
"It was not my goal in life to become the Catholic Answer Man on this forum." Yeah, but you are the token Roman here! The strange alien creature we must probe and poke at to see how you will respond... :) "One thing about the Catholic Church is that all its offical teachings are out then in print for anyone to see and accept or reject." It is nice to be confessional, isn't it? --Joe! |
||||||
452 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 70072 | ||
Hey...this brings up a question. Do you agree with Patrick Madrid that every RCC doctrine is somehow or other derived from Scripture, that the RCC has no doctrine that is not connected to the written revelation in the Bible? He referred to it as the "material sufficiency" (I think it was the term he used) of Scripture in a debate w/ James White. --Joe! |
||||||
453 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70069 | ||
See Post #70063 for my reply regarding what the Bible says about the conscience in every human being. That alone does not spur the quest for forgiveness. I also think you are somewhat off the mark in suggesting that everyone who is involved in a religion is in search of forgiveness. That is not the prime motivation for the typical Muslim to follow Islam, for example. What part of "No one seeks after God" in Romans 3 is so difficult here? Was Paul just exagerrating? That is the nature of the unregenerate person. One may claim to be a seeker, but unless she is called by God, all of her seeking is a flight FROM the truth, not toward it. I would like to see a citation for the comment you made regarding MacArthur's assessment of Horton. Since Horton, Boice, and Sproul are in exact agreement regarding Ye Olde 5 Pointes (and just about everything else, theologically), I fail to see how MacArthur would feel so comfortable showing up to speak at Sproul's national conference year after year. Check your names, because I would hate for MacArthur to be misrepresented on this Forum as has happened before. "One thing I do find interesting is there is so little writing from the other side issue. I rarely pick up a book committed to disproving Calvinism, but the bookstores are filled with ones proclaiming it." Wow...I wish we had the bookstores here that you do in your area. I have crawl over books like _The Prayer of Jabez for Your Pet_ and Thomas Kinkade everything and sanctified bumper stickers just to find a book without pictures! :) "Something as obvious as you claim it to be should need no further support outside the Bible." You will realize how silly that statement is when you replace "Calvinism" with ant other doctrine. Why are there so many books on prayer, Christian stewardship, evangelism, getting along with our brothers and sisters in Christ, spiritual gifts, Bible prophecy, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the gospel itself, along with Bible commentaries I am sure that you have used? The good books that offer such teaching do not provide support "outside the Bible," but rather FROM the Bible. "I wonder why?" Probably because of people who keep getting things mixed up about the doctrines of grace and then broadcast their misconceptions...know what I mean? The fact that modern evangelicalism is characterized by poor theology all the way around (does WOF ring a bell?), it shouldn't surprise us that God is raising people up to call the evangelical church back to its Reformational roots. --Joe! |
||||||
454 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70063 | ||
"I came willingly to the Cross." Me, too! :) You wrote: "Not if you didn't know you needed the cross and once you did were offered irresistible grace." Order's reversed. It was God's efficacious grace that made me realize my need for Jesus Christ in the first place. Or, as the song goes: "T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear." You wrote: "But never mind that tell me how Muslims fit in the grand scheme of things. First the must be enlightened somehow thus seeking freedom from sin" Part of general revelation (that which all humans possess) is the conscience or moral sense. Everyone's got it, and Romans 2 tells us that God will judge both those with and without the written Law on the basis of that revelation. So the Muslim and the atheist both know they sin, know on some level of their guilt. "Unfortunately they are seeking the wrong god." It is not just misfortune. They are rebelling against God. You wrote: "Calvinist say were are so lost in sin that we reject a need for salvation and it isn?t until God elects us to receive that are eyes are opened and then we are offered irresistible grace which we can?t resist." Not exactly. Calvinists do not say that the unregenerate reject a NEED for salvation; they reject the only thing that WILL save. And election occurred in eternity past; it is God's efficacious, inward call during the lifetime of the individual that does the trick. The irresistible grace actually causes our eyes to be opened. At the risk of offending a bystander with quoting someone else, here is the way the Puritans put it: "Q. 31. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God?s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel." You wrote: "Then Calvinist say that is manipulation but God is allowing us to exercise choice. What was the choice? To accept something that is in fact irresistible? That is not a choice." I never said it ultimately WAS choice on our parts. What I did say is that we willingly came to the Cross. When grace had its effect, we WANTED Jesus Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
455 | some reject, others obey the gospel WHY? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70057 | ||
Thanks for the links! The last link you posted in your fury is actually a critique of Arminianism, from the Web site of that unregenerate Calvinist John MacArthur. Seems to me you have quoted that ravenous wolf's study Bible once or twice here. I guess he is one of the "saved" ones. I promise I will stop posting Reformed sites as soon as people stop saying idiotic things like I have seen the last couple of days regarding what I believe. It is a lot easier on the server for me to give a link than post the same replies to the same misconceptions over and over and over again. I was doing it for you, man, and this is the thanks I get? ;) I would hope that if I said such irresponsible things like "Arminians only pray to appear more pious" or "I sometimes wonder if Arminians are even saved" or "Arminian folks do nothing but spend all their time proof-texting" that you would set such garbage straight, even if some folks with opposing viewpoints might have to endure such "torture." --Joe! |
||||||
456 | some reject, others obey the gospel WHY? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70051 | ||
'Most Calvinists are so far apart on "who is in control" that I really begin to wonder if they were truly saved in the first place.' Every Calvinist I have ever encountered answered the question precisely the same way: "God." I am glad that Spurgeon was much more charitable toward Arminians like Wesley than you are toward Calvinists. "Not truly saved?" Wow. http://www.baptistpage.org/Distinctives/doctrine/spurgeon_01.htm "Perhaps if you were to actually respond to the Arminian perspective, then this exchange may be a little more interesting for me." The Synod of Dort did respond to the Arminian perspective. The Arminian Dutch Remonstrance preceded and gave rise to what have come to be known as the "Five Points." Nothing John has written here contradicts what can be found in that 1618 document: http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html --Joe! |
||||||
457 | why do you have a relationship with mary | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 70050 | ||
"But like any other saints, is it wrong to ask her to pray for you?" Yes, because prayers are to be offered to God, not humans. When you ask a heavenly created being to pray for you, you are in a very real sense praying to the creation rather than the creator. Why not pray to angels to pray for you as well? "we usually ask people to pray for us, don't we?" Yes, and in doing so I do not believe that that invididual has God's ear in any special way by virtue of a treasury of merit stored up. God's church on earth uniting in prayer is merely God's people beseeching a gracious, merciful God to meet our individual needs. --Joe! |
||||||
458 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70048 | ||
"Again explain mormons in the light of the tulip" How about in the light of Scripture? "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" --Romans 1:21-22 "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." --Romans 2:14-16 Mormonism also commits the same works-based righteousness error of the Jews: 'What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."'--Romans 9:30-33 Mormons, JW's, and Muslims all believe in their own power to attain the righteousness of God. They pursue salvation by their own efforts, thanks to their depraved natures which suggest that they will be saved if their good outweighs their bad or that Jesus' sacrifice saves them after they "do all that they can do" (the particular belief of the Mormons). Total Depravity/Radical Depravity: "The term _total depravity_, as distinguished from _utter depravity_, refers to the effect of sin and corruption on the whole person. To be totally depraved is to suffer from the corruption that pervades the whole person. Sin affects every aspect of our being: the body, the soul, the mind, the will, and so forth. The total or whole person is corrupted by sin. No vestigial 'island of righteousness' escapes the influence of the fall. Sin reaches into every aspect of our lives, finding no shelter of isolated virtue."--R.C. Sproul, _Grace Unknown_ "Our fall was complete. Every area of human life was affected, and nothing created by God was left untouched. Consequently, the stain of sin corrupts us physically, emotionally, psychologically, mentally, morally, and spiritually. That doesn't mean, of course, that we are brute savages who always carry out every possible evil; it does mean that each one of us is capable of doing so. Further, it means that there is no hope for human beings to recover themselves or to make amends. God demands a perfection of the qualities with which he endowed us, and we are corrupt in every chamber. No part of us can recue or heal the rest of us." --Michael Horton, _Putting Amazing Back into Grace_ "This teaching is the first of the famous 'Five Points of Calvinism,' commonly called 'total depravity.' But that wording of the point, like the wording of most of the others, is a bit misleading. To most persons, 'total' means 'utterly,' and utter depravity would mean that people are as bad as thet can possibly be. That is not true, of course. Given the finite circumstances of our lives, civil laws, and various social and religious restraints, each of us could undoubtedly be much worse than we are. What total depravity is meant to convey is the idea that sin has affected the whole person down to the very core of hisor her being. That is why many writers prefer the words 'radical depravity' or 'radical corruption' instead." --James Mongomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken, _The Doctrines of Grace_ "Therefore, all people are covceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform." --Canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Points, Article 3 What here is unbiblical? --Joe! |
||||||
459 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70045 | ||
You wrote: "Prayerful?s example of Lydia?s salvation in Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. Certainly doesn?t say God ordained her to accept what Paul said but on pay attention to what Paul said" It would seem that that is exactly what Luke is referring to. In the very next verse her whole household is getting baptized. Was God acting against her will to "open her heart"? What if she was determined to keep her heart closed? You see, even Arminians pray that God will "open people's eyes" and "make people see" or "cause them to fall in love with You" or something to that effect. Even if we are only praying that God bring the gospel to them, we are praying that God direct the steps of another human being to bring that message. You wrote: "I still and probably will always believe our life is mapped out. On that path God has placed forks or junctions. At each we must make a decision, how we chose is based on our relationship with God. God knows each choice before we make them and steers that fork once again to the place he would have us meet an new and different fork." Oh, we are not "puppets" or "robots"; we are "lab rats"! :) Your example still falls short, because you are suggesting that even before salvation it is our decision to follow "forks" that lead us TO the gospel in the first place. If God truly and purposefully sets His agenda on the salvation of as many as possible, why doesn't He arrange the forks better so that people will be in more convincing situations? We both know that there are people in this country, saturated with "evangelical" churches, who have been led away FROM, not toward, the truth of Jesus Christ. That doesn;t even factor in the unreached people groups or folks in countries hostile to Christianity. The view does not promote a view of a sovereign God, but rather a somewhat distant, hand-wringing God who is "doing everything He can," putting up the "forks" as best as He can, but not being as successful as He would like. "God allowed man to make those choices not so he would be forced to chose God and worship Him." I came willingly to the Cross. "However I do believe God enlightens us to sin within us and makes us seek for a solution." If you mean the "conscience," I agree. However, due to our sinfulness we are not inclined to seek the solution in Jesus Christ. Hence the myriads of religions in the world, and pseudo-Christian cults that have but the smallest flavor of the truth. In other words, we are seeking out the true God in the same way a bank robber is seeking out a police officer, or the way Adam and Eve sought God out in Eden after the Fall (Romans 1:21; 3:11). "Notice the religious customs in most any other culture. The people are attempting to atone and worship an unknown god." I do not know if the word "atone" is an accurate description. Pagans try to "appease" capricious gods. Hindus seek enlightenment. So do Buddhists, even those that do not believe in God. Other religions are based on a system of earning heaven in some way, so even if they believe in God, they see themselves ultimately as their own saviors. However, not every sacrifice to gods (known or unknown) is based on an acknowledgement of guilt before a holy God. "Human nature longs for a God he just has to be presented." I would agree with Romans 1 that human nature recognizes the existence of God, but suppresses that truth in unrighteousness. When the true God is presented, the response is often not a sigh of relief. "What causes a Muslim to repent, to pray for forgiveness, to seek entrance into heaven. If they are dead to their sin what are they repenting of?" Muslims are dead IN their sins, which does not mean that they are unaware of their guilt before God. However, they are most offending a holy God by daring to come before Him clothed in the filthy rags of their own unrighteousness (Isaiah 64:6; Habakkuk 1:13). Even their prayers of "repentance" are horribly offensive sins, and God will punish them for those, too. --Joe! P.S. I decided instead to share your "steak dinner" with all our brethren here. Hope you do not mind! :) http://www.txbeef.org/recipe.php3?951948379 |
||||||
460 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 70040 | ||
You wrote: "As I said in a earlier post I see much of the predestination explanation as the finite, using finite reasoning, based on finite logic attempting to explain an infinite God." How is logic finite or infinite? You use logic all the time to put God into categories. For example, we both believe that God is infinitely wise. By the use of logic, we determine that, according to the law of non-contradiction, that God cannot and will not do anything UNwise. There is logic applied to God? Is that a faulty conclusion? Logic is not something invented by humanity to DETERMINE the way things are; it is the tool to RECOGNIZE the way things are. Unless you can show me how God is shown to defy logic (and by this I mean to act or to be differently than He has clerly revealed Himself to be), there is no reason to throw the God-given and biblically assumed logical order out the window. As far as your light example, I think you missed the point of the imaginary conversation (by the way, what has been shown to move faster than light?). God has not ordained that the sunlight that warms us and causes our crops to grow should just come from nowhere. Do we have sunlight because the sun is a reactor or because God gives us the sunlight? The answer is that BOTH are true. We could apply that to any situation. Do we have our Bible because God revealed Himself to us or because men took time to write down that revelation? Are you an American because God made you one or because your mother out of her own choice gave birth to you here? Do we have our daily bread because God gives it to us or because we go out and work and use the wages to purchase bread that comes from the labor of agricultural workers? All of these situations can be summed up in one of Prayerful's statements: "God never ordains an event without a cause." If you can show me an example to the contrary in your own life or in the Bible, I would welcome discussing it. Now, the problem I have is that you would probably agree with all of the examples I have given above that God accomplish his purposes largely through visible causes. However, if I were to ask, "Are you a Christian because God caused you to be one or because someone at some point preached the gospel to you and you were convinced of its truth and freely embraced Jesus Christ?" your answer would NOT be "both." Or if I asked, "Did God ordain my friend's salvation as an answer to prayer or did he willingly come to the Cross?" The first option is unthinkable to you, but the second we would both agree would describe reality. This is the other important point Prayerful makes: "God has established the universe so that in larger measure it runs by prayer, the same way he has established brightness so that in larger measure it happens by fire." This is not to say that God is limited to working through answering prayer any more than light MUST exist because there is a source of fire. That is why Piper uses the term "in large measure." It is the way God has NORMALLY chosen to work. People do not come to faith in Christ without hearing the Gospel, which usually requires the free choice of a human being to share it with them. Yet we are perfectly comfortable in saying God sends the Gospel to the unreached person. Was it the missionary's decision or God's decision that the unreached person hear the Gospel? The answer again is "both." And that is also why when I am asked, "Did my prayer make a difference?" I can say YES. When I am asked, "Was God's work in part an answer to my prayer?" YES. "Did I choose to pray?" YES. "Did God ordain both my prayer and the outcome of the prayer?" YES. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ] Next > Last [97] >> |