Results 461 - 480 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69996 | ||
I am emailing it to you as we speak! :) --Joe! |
||||||
462 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69995 | ||
"What a tapestry this weaves, Isn?t this the quintessential question which came first the chicken or the egg? Which came first God?s plan or our prayers. I hate to say it that way but that is where your logic leads." I don't think so. You yourself attest that God has already made decisions based on our future, foreseen actions. Why would prayer not fall into this category, and be included in the plan while remaining a free action of the individual? You wrote: "You asked, Did you even glance at the links I posted? :) I believe you referring to Pipers writings. In truth no, but I believe I have study them in times past. However I find any time a finite mind, using finite reasoning, based on finite logic, defining a infinite God always leaves something to be desired. " See? That is part of my problem. You raise a question/accusation regarding the mindset of the praying Calvinist, and ignore two links to a Calvinist pastor/teacher who answers the very objection you raised. How is that being honest with my position? You wrote: "In your last sentence, you are saying that God while allowing Adam and Eve a choice has removed that choice from us. would you show where that is said, implied to even hinted at." We both agree that Adam and Eve had the choice, right? So the verses I have cited since day one that indicate that our natures are such that we are morally incapable of coming to the Father unless drawn would be support that things are not now the way they originally were. --Joe! |
||||||
463 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 69952 | ||
By the way, here is an interesting link dealing with a significant ninth-century debate over the Eucharist: http://www.markers.com/ink/srratramnus.htm --Joe! |
||||||
464 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 69951 | ||
"I think from now on I would like to stick to more mundane bible questions." Oh, come on, Emmaus. You have to admit that discussions like these have a lot more significance than the "Cain's wife" question or the percent alcohol by volume of Bible wine! :) 'Look carefully at Catholic doctrinal statements on the Real Presence, including transubstantiation and you will notice that the word "physical" is scrupulosly avoided and absent. The terms used for the Presence are always "substanially" and "sacramentally," but never physically.' Well, if the Catholic definition of "substantially" is substantially different than the common definition of "physically," then precisely what is the disagreement between the Calvinist view and the Catholic view? Here is the WCF, Chapter 29, on the sacrament: "VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." I also am confused by Merton's statements on the body of Christ not being locally present in the Eucharist. "Locally" comes from the Latin word "locus," meaning place. For something to be local means for it to be in the same place ("location") as the thing it is local to. Now after the words of institution are spoken, what does the Catholic priest hold in his hands? Is it bread or the body of Christ? How can one say that what is being given to the communicants and what they are ingesting is the very substance of Christ's body, and at the same time insist that the body of Christ is not "locally" in the sacrament? Merton seems to be contradicting himself in the very same paragraph. Christ converts the substance of the bread into His body, but doesn't produce it? In the Catholic view, does Christ produces the substance of his body from the bread, or he replaces it with the already-existing substance of His body? If the latter, we fall back into the Chalcedonian problem: Christ's human nature is not infinite. The two natures of Christ exist "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." To attribute infinity and omnipresence to Christ's body (his human nature) would be confusing and/or changing the natures. You wrote: "Are you teaching techniques for Spanish as challanging as your forum style?" Boy, I hope so! :) "They must hate you now, but the survivors prbably love you later if they gain proficiency." And, unlike on the Forum, I don't have too many students telling me I have got my Spanish wrong! :) May God bless you during this Advent season! --Joe! |
||||||
465 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69941 | ||
"Lecture? As long as you provide the Scriptures which define God's will as being of three types! :-)" I will try and avoid cracking open the Francis Turretin for now. ;) The argument centers more squarely on the fact that it doesn't make sense to ascribe the same connotation to every use of the word "will." For example, was it God's will that Jesus die? To say "no" directly contradicts Isaiah 53:10 and Acts 4:27-28. To say "yes" would apparently mean that the sixth and ninth commandments, expressions of God's will, didn't apply here. So the murderers of Jesus accomplished God's will by violating God's will? Therein lies the problem. We also see that God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11). Since "all" means "all" (insert smile here), His will is done. And yet, as you point out in Matthew 23, Jesus desires the repentance of Israel, and God commands repentance, an expression of his will. Isaiah 46 is a testimony to the efficacy of God's will, as is Psalm 115:1-3. Yet, we see that the unregenerate are unwilling to do what God's will, and are successful in doing so. Another apparent quandry. Does God accomplish all of his will or not? For a last example, we can look at the Lord's Prayer. Jesus teaches us to pray for the kingdom of God to come and for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. What does Jesus mean by "will" here? If we are asking God to accomplish the conformity of creation to His eternal purpose of bringing glory to Himself, then we are asking God to will (efficaciously) that His (preceptive) will be done! You wrote: "It always seems like any verse which says that God's will was resisted or didn't come to pass means something else, while every verse which says that God's will was accomplished or accepted means that God determined that to happen! :-)" It isn't the verses that say that God's will WAS accomplished that we have to worry about, but rather the ones that insist that all of God's will, in no uncertain terms, WILL BE accomplished. "I'll have to check out your recommended book. I like the guys from Trinity! :-)" I found it to be a throught-provoking book. It is a rather brief one (less than 100 pages, comprising four lectures that Carson gave at Dallas Seminary a few years ago), but is jam-packed with things that left me praising God for the revealed complexity of the nature of His love. --Joe! |
||||||
466 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69939 | ||
"Joe the proof text you offer don't say, to me and many others, what you claim they say." Is this your example of being more careful of how you phrase things? How in the world is Romans 10:1 a "proof text"? You posted that we should NOT directly pray for the salvation of others, and Paul completely contradicts you by his own practice. People throughout the entire history of the church, including people whose devotion to God would put both you and I to shame, have prayed precisely what you have declared to be unbiblical. Furthermore, I would wager that, despite your preaching to the contrary, that you yourself have prayed for others to come to Christ, whether it be people within your sphere of contact or faceless members of unreached people groups halfway around the world. If Reformed theology were simply a game of "prooftexting," as you imply, then it would have fallen on the church's theological ash heap long ago. It simply astounds me how you can be so quick to dismiss as "prooftexters" such men of God as Martin Luther and John Calvin and John Bunyan and John Newton and David Brainerd and Jonathan Edwards and William Carey and Charles Spurgeon and Francis Schaeffer and Abraham Kuyper and John Paton and on and on and on. Is your knowledge of Scripture and your theological wisdom really so advanced that you can place all of these figures in the "prooftexter" category. You wrote: "If you don?t think that is a good idea then how about, you and Tim take one passage Hebrews 28:26-31 and either agree it reads as Tim has shown it to read in the Greek, or show why Tim is wrong." Nice distraction tactic. However, this line of conversation had nothing to do with the complicated passages of Hebrews (many of which present a thorny problem for those who believe that theose who lose their salvation can get it back again). Don't worry; Tim and I will hammer our way through the text in Hebrews. This line of inquiry, however, resulted from your statement that it is wrong to pray for the salvation of others, not anything I had said to Tim. Now, getting back to what I had said before you turned this into an accusation of "prooftexting"...I had KINDLY requested your evaluation of the links I had posted, not one of which you have made direct reference to at all. Specifically, I had said: "Go back and read the conversation between Prayerless and Prayerful again. What precisely do you have a problem with in that explanation? Please make direct reference to it, because I would like to know exactly what you find to be erroneous about it." --Joe! |
||||||
467 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69929 | ||
"Here is where we differ on our definition of 'free'. If God has ordained that I would not pray, then how can I 'freely' disobey?" Let me quote the Puritan Thomas Vincent on that: "God's general decrees are his eternal purpose, whereby he hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass; not only the beaing of all creatures which he doth make, but also their motions and actions; not only good actions, which he doth effect, but also the permission of all evil actions." So God's decree, according to this view, does indeed include a permissive quality as well as a quality of direct intervention. Satan is not made to act in this world, but God allows him to act within the parameters that He has estblished, and ultimately uses Satan's evil for his glory. We see all throughout Scripture where the sins of men and the intentions of God go hand-in-hand. Joseph tells his brothers in Genesis 50:20 that what they meant for evil, God MEANT for good. He doesn't say that God simply "made lemonade out of lemons," but rather intended for Joseph to be sold into slavery and carted off to a foreign land and be framed and spend seven years in prison. Now did God cause the sin? No, that would be going to far, as you have stated. However, saying that He intended and decreed that the sin would happen is a different thing. Another interesting thing that I find is that, to me, God seems to direct the sinful hearts of men in almost imperceptible ways. For example, Joseph's brothers originally intend to kill him, but suddenly Reuben has an alternate plan (Genesis 37:21 ff.). The same thing is true in the case of Absalom. Absalom, already looking to sin, fulfills God's decree on the advice of another human being (2 Samuel 16:20-21). The sin is Absalom's (he wasn't a robot); the specific decree was God's, who said without a doubt that this thing GOD would do as a response to David's sin. We see this all throughout Scripture, like the pagan Assyrians (God-haters) being raised up as a tool for God's judgment against Israel, and then being destroyed themselves, according to God's purpose and plan, for their own arrogance. We see Paul commenting in Romans 9:17, pointing back to the Torah's comment that Pharaoh was raised up by God for the express purpose of demonstrate God's power in the destruction of his reign. Over and over again we see the truth that "The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." --Proverbs 16:9 And most clearly, as you have stated, in the murder of Jesus: "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."--Acts 4:27-28 "There are some things which are essential to God's plan, like the death of Christ, which are ordained, but not every act or decision. But, I can never accept any definition of free which includes 'ordained'." I am not sure I am following you, here. Let's look at the death of Christ. You yourself say that God ordained it to happen. Does that mean that the actions of the men who put him to death were not free? Was Judas free to betray or not to betray? Was Pilate free to wash his hands or not wash his hands? Assuming that you hold the answer to be "yes," how can you accept the simultaneous decree of God and the free actions of sinful men in this case but not in most of the others? --Joe! |
||||||
468 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69883 | ||
In Acts 17:30, God COMMANDS everyone to repent. This would be an example of his preceptive will, i.e. what is in conformity with how man should respond to Him in His holiness. It is a completely different thing to say that God GRANTS repentance to all. Respectfully, you are not responding at all to most of the Scriptures I brought up. Any consistent biblical worldview has to take them into account. We cannot legitimately just pick and choose what parts of the Bible we will build our theology on. What did you think of the treatment of the passages in the link I included in my last post? --Joe! |
||||||
469 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69882 | ||
"You have such a warm and friendly way of saying things. Makes a person want to warm up to you and just tell you ?" Yeah, it is probably just a sign of me "trying to change God's eternal decree" or "appear pious" like the rest of those who share my distinguished Reformed-yet-praying heritage. Maybe it is the way you form your objections that calls for the stronger response... :) "No I think Paul understood what I was saying and knew people have a choice and therefore was telling us to pray they make informed choice :-)" Well, you can THINK that, but is that what Paul wrote? "How so? If God choose who is saved and who isn't from the foundations of the Earth how is my praying going to change that one way or the other?" Did you even glance at the links I posted? :) "You say their salvation is decided and my prayers which were also known about and were figured into the plan. Then I ask what if I decide not to pray does that mean their lostness was really because God didn?t choose them and my refusal to pray for them played again right into the plan?" Yes. "Either way it was God choice He just made it look like I had something to do with it by praying or not praying." Nonsense, again! Our prayers do not change God's eternal decree from one thing to another. God's decree is what it always has been, but at the same time He has decreed things in eternity past as answer to prayers that I will be making the rest of my life. "Or are you saying their salvation was choose by God because God knew I was going to pray for them. Then we have God not sovereign but reacting to us." Who ever said that God being sovereign meant He doesn't react to us? In time and space there is a constant, causal interaction between God and human beings. What would be unbiblical is to suggest that the causes of His reactions were unforeseen and unplanned by Him. What Ephesians tells us is that God works all things after the counsel of His will. There is nothing saying that His foreknowledge and decree of my prayers are not taken into account in that Trinitarian counsel. In my worldview, I can legitimately pray that God has fixed his saving, electing love on my unregenerate family members, friends, colleagues, and students. God has already determined what He will do, but God also has known about my prayers from eternity past, and the Scriptures do indeed tell us that God delights in answering the prayers of His people according to His will, and that the prayers of a righteous man do avail much. It is not an "either-or," as you suggest. Go back and read the conversation between Prayerless and Prayerful again. What precisely do you have a problem with in that explanation? Please make direct reference to it, because I would like to know exactly what you find to be erroneous about it. "I know salvation is a miracle, that only God can do, but I also know God has given man the ability to reject the Grace once it is offered." And how do you KNOW that? "If not then Adam and Eve had something we didn?t the right to reject God?s authority over them." Well, Adam and Eve did start out with something we didn't: a nature untainted by sin and a curse from God. --Joe! |
||||||
470 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69881 | ||
Should we open up the ol' "decretive, preceptive, and dispositional wills" lecture? :) I think we could both agree that God's "will" carries different connotations in different contexts. One could play a game of Bible ping-pong with the Matthew 23:37's and the Romans 9:18-19's. Rather than hash all that out in my own words, and since Matthew 23:37 is more than anything a demonstration of Jesus' love for Jerusalem, I would like to point interested parties (both of us!) to an excerpt from a recent book I find utterly fascinating. It is _The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God_ by D.A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I encourage everyone to go check it out and chew on it a while: http://www.antithesis.com/features/love.html --Joe! |
||||||
471 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69876 | ||
"I checked out Piper's article on prayer and providence, but I'm not convinced! :-)" I am truly stunned... ;) "All he does is push the question back one more level by saying that the prayer may be the providential cause of the answer to prayer. Yet, if the prayer itself is now providential, why am I commanded to pray." The fact that prayer is providential does not mean that I am not the one volitionally doing the praying. "If I fail to pray, it is because God ordained that I would not. If I do pray, it is because God ordained that I would." This is true. But it does not logically follow that God prevented me from praying. His decree also includes allowing my sin to occur for His eternal purpose as well. And acts relating to our sanctification are synergistic; God works it in us and we do exercise our will in obeying Him at the same time, to "work out our salvation." "So, there really isn't any need for a command to pray. ;-)" Sure there is. God reveals his will, and his sanctifying grace works in the mind and heart of the believer so that he recognizes it as God's will. One cannot be obedient to God if there are no commands to obey. And, again, God decreeing prayer does not mean that God does the praying instead of us. "This has always been the largest drawback to saying that every human event and decision is providential. Warnings in Scripture mean nothing since I have no other choice than what God ordains. Commands mean nothing since I can only choose to do what God ordains anyway. :-)" A couple of points: 1. God's decree has both determinative and permissive aspects to it. Neither of us thinks that humans are robots or puppets. 2. What God ordains in most cases is a mystery until it has already occurred in time and space. If I choose not to pray, I can say at the same time that God decreed that my praying would not occur and that I am freely disobeying God; and furthermore, God would have already taken the foreseen disobedience into account in his foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass. My favorite illustration of God's decree and man's sin coming into play is the judgment of God upon David for adultery and murder. He very specifically states His plan through the prophet Nathan: "'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.' Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'" --2 Samuel 12:10-12 Now, answer me these questions: 1. Is the coming sin Absalom's or God's? In other words, does God make Absalom sin? 2. Did God specifically say what was going to occur, and did he place it in the context of an effect to the cause of David's sin? There is not a logical cause-and-effect here in the natural, observable realm (IOW, it is not like the IV drug user whose AIDS is physiologically the result of the sin; the act of David marrying Bathsheba did not set off a chain of events in Absalom's life that drove him to avenge the marriage). However, God says that what specifically will happen IS connected to what David has done. 3. How do you account for the fact that God says both that David's "neighbor" would commit these atrocities, and at the same time declares that "I will raise up evil" and "I will do this thing"? God's decree works (in part) through omniscient foresight and manipulation of the freely sinning creation and the choice to obey among his saints. And I hold that prayer falls under this umbrella as well. --Joe! |
||||||
472 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69868 | ||
"Joe, are you saying that God will grant us salvation even if we don't want it?" I am saying that no one wants salvtion until God grants it to us. Part of the salvation process is changing our natures so that we do want it. "If God wants us to be saved and we reject it, are we still saved?" Such a scenario does not happen. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html --Joe! |
||||||
473 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69867 | ||
Here I respond, as expected! :) You wrote: "Your right if you pray that someone be saved, your asking God to violate their freedom. We should be praying that God will bring His Holy Spirit into their lives to convict them of their sins and someone to tell them of Jesus, opening their eyes to the truth. Whether they accept salvation is then their problem." I guess someone forgot to tell Paul: "Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation." --Romans 10:1 "If on the other hand you believe God chooses who to save and they have to accept that call, then it really doesn?t matter how you pray." Nonsense! "That is unless you think you change things established from the foundations of the earth, or appear pious by praying for someone." No, because many things were established from the foundations of the earth as answers to prayers which were also established from the foundations of the earth as means. God ordains not only the ends, but also the means. Seriously, Ed, sometimes I think that your love of autonomy really gets in the way of you thinking clearly through the arguments of your opponents. John Piper has given a very good illustration of how prayer and predestination work together: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/prayer/prayer_pred.html Along with a longer exposition which addresses your very accusation: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/prayer/sovereignty_and_prayer.html And here is a guide to what the NT church prayed for: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/prayer/nt_prayers.html --Joe! |
||||||
474 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69864 | ||
"It's really quiet obvious once you think about it. Jesus' death on the cross made it possible for us to recieve redemption." Again, please show me a single verse that refers to God's redemptive work as "possible." Redemption is always referred to as a completed act on the part of God through Jesus Christ. Even though I was regenerated ("born again") during my lifetime, God's redemption of me occurred in the first century. We all agree here that without faith it is impossible to please God. What is the source of that faith? Does it come from within us or from God? --Joe! |
||||||
475 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69862 | ||
"We have freeedom of choice. If we CHOOSE not to follow God and repent from our sins we will not recieve any redemption" Okay. Now what about the verses I have cited? You have failed to respond to those. We have to take into account the whole counsel of God. I can emphatically state that only those who repent are redeemed. Now please tell me what "redemption" means. "God will not force us to recieve redemption if we choose not to." Never said that He did. "Yes, our salvation IS a co-effort between us and God. God did His part. We must do ours. James chapter 2" James 2 says nothing of the sort. James says that a true faith is one that produces works: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" --James 2:14 The implied answer is "no." But notice that he refers to someone who SAYS he has faith, not someone that genuinely has it. True biblical faith involves repentance and results in God-honoring works. But it is the faith by which we are declared righteous before God (Romans 5:1) and the very faith itself is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9) as are the repentance (Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25) and the works (Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:13). All of these are the RESULT of God's grace and mercy, not the CAUSE of it (Titus 3:3-7). If salvation is a co-effort, then my Savior is not Jesus, but rather my Saviors are Jesus and Joe. Does that sound biblical to you? "Our part" is "God's part" too... --Joe! |
||||||
476 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69846 | ||
You wrote: "Actually, you need to make up your mind. No offense, but it sounds like on the one hand you say Jesus' sacrifice was only for those sins commited BEFORE His death on the cross." Please point out where I ever used the word "only." You wrote: "I DO believe that His death is for ALL SINS, for ALL TIME." And what do you mean by saying this? Did his death accomplish the forgiveness of the Christian's sins or not? Your next sentence seems to answer that question with a "no." So if Jesus' death does not result in the forgiveness of ALL my sins, what do you mean when you say He died for ALL SINS for ALL TIME? "But only our PAST sins (the ones we have repented of) are forgiven." Yes, you keep saying that without addressing what I have cited from Scripture. And what you are saying is that the work of Christ requires my repentance for it to be effective. In other words, what ultimately saves me is not what Jesus did, but what I do. He pitches in, but I am a co-savior along with Him? You wrote: "Sins we have not laid down at Jesus' cross are not forgiven." Scriptural support for this...? "Even though the opportunity for forgiveness is given through Jesus." So all Jesus' death did was make an OPPORTUNITY for forgiveness? That is a lot weaker than the position of the Bible: "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." --Romans 5:9 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" --Ephesians 1:7 What does redemption mean? All of this is an act on God's part, not ours. And we already have forgiveness of our tresspasses as well, according to the riches of God's grace, not according to our repentence. And again, a verse which you haven't addressed as yet: "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." --Colossians 1:13-14 Again we see the redemption, the forgiveness of ains (no mention of only "past sins"). Paul goes further here by emphasizing that we have been transferred by God Himself from one kingdom to another. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." --1 Peter 1:3-5 Who caused us to be born again? Me and my repentance or God in his mercy? Note that He didn't just make it possible; he CAUSED it. You wrote: 'Yes, I believe that I am saved by Jesus' obedience and death on the cross. I also believe that I must join hands with Him to "work out my own salvation..."' These two statements are a direct contradiction. If Christ's work completely saves us, then our work does not. If my work saves me in any way, I have reason to boast. See Isaiah 64:6 to see how God views the work of sinful man, and Romans 4:4-5 to see the reason that our work contributes nothing to our own salvation. Incidentally, Philippians 2:12 does indeed tell us to "work out" our own salvation, and not "work for" it. And read the verse that follows it to show that God is already working and active in that individual to accomplish that very purpose. Are you suggesting that we finite human beings really stand in God's way of getting what He wants? "It is a conjuction of Jesus' actions with my own actions that saves me." So Jesus, the Very God of very God, isn't a Savior unless we let Him be one? What powerful creations we humans are! The gospel is NOT a group effort between God and man. "This is what Rom. 8 means. Once we make our own commitment to follow Jesus, no one can seperate us from God." Where is our commitment in Romans 8:28-30 as far as our justification goes? It seems that God is the one who set things up for the Christian long before we even existed. And since "no one" can separate us, does that "no one" include you? If not, please show me from Scripture why not. --Joe! |
||||||
477 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69837 | ||
Thanks. --Joe! |
||||||
478 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69823 | ||
You wrote: "Do you have any scriptural references showing that Rom. 3:25 only refers to sins commited BEFORE Jesus went to the cross?" The context of the verse itself indicates it to me. In this section of Romans, Paul is talking about how the Law and the Prophets bear witness to the coming Christ, and how there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles with regard to both condemnation and salvation through Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who was put forward as a single propitiation (a wrath-averting sacrifice) for the sins of His people. So the lens is not focused here on Jesus dying for Joe's sins, but Jesus dying for the sins of the entire household of God, both Gentiles and all of the OT saints who died before the Incarnation. Romans 3:25 speaks of God's divine forbearance toward all of the sins previously committed before Christ's death, not before my repentance and faith. Paul continues this line of reasoning in Romans 4 by using Abraham and David as examples of OT saints who were vaed by Jesus Christ. That is why I hold that "sins previously committed" describes sins committed before Christ's death, not my personal conversion. It fits better with the text. "I am well aware that Jesus' death on the cross was done once for all. But I wasn't alive back then." That was my whole point. You didn't address the other verses I brought up. "Each and every day is a new day with new sins and new repentance." That is true. So do you believe that you are saved by Christ's perfect obedience and sacrifice on the Cross, or by your continual repentance every time you sin? In other words, do you become "un-justified" every time you break God's commandments, having to become "re-justified" again? Go back and read Romans 8:31-39 again. --Joe! |
||||||
479 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | Reformer Joe | 69822 | ||
"I still remember the first time I actually read the view that these warnings were "dire warnings, of course they can't happen"! I was literally rolling on the floor. I found it in some of the commentaries in my father-in-law's library." Actually, it was the avoidance of passages like these and James 2 and most of 1 John and Jesus' warnings in the Gospels that aided my growing dissatisfaction with my previous theological environment. You wrote: "1) The phrase 'received the knowledge of the truth', as I've expressed in other posts, is used only five times. All the other occurances appear to be synonymous with saving faith." I must have missed those other posts. Could you please cite just the references to the other four occurrences? "2) Sanctified by the blood doesn't appear to be a legitimate description of someone who only appears to be a believer." You would seem to be right, but my ignorance of Greek poses a problem for me working this out. The way the NASB reads (which is similar to most English translations) is "has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified." Gramatically speaking, could one be sanctified by the "covenant" rather than the "blood"? And secondly, since Hebrews makes continuous references to Old Testament typology, were those who were circumcized and part of the covenant community of Israel not "sanctified", whether they were to become scoundrels or blameless men? Could we say that the Israelite children were sanctified by the blood of the covenant? I think it is important to keep in view that the writer of Hebrews has been making a connection between Moses as foreshadowing and Christ as the true reality. "3) Insulting the Spirit of Grace doesn't appear to be something that a unbeliever could do, especially if your Calvinist! :-) After all, how could the Spirit be insulted that someone who is unable to respond, failed to respond! ;-)" Because most Calvinists believe in the idea of a non-efficacious "common grace" as well. God reveals Himself in nature to all human beings, when He does not have to. God especially revealed himself to the descendents of Jacob throughout history, giving them the Torah, the prophets, the land, provision, and the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures. This follows the logical progression of Romans 1-3. The Jew does have an advantage, Paul emphatically states, and he goes further when he is speaking of them as a nation: "God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew..." --Romans 11:2a "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." --Romans 11:28-29 I hold that Romans 11 goes far in helping us understand Hebrews 10, because there we also find a warning to Gentile believers that they who have been "grafted in" can be grafted out again. I guess that to sum up, my understanding of Hebrews 10 ties in with my belief in the parallel between Old Testament Israel and the visible church, and between faithful members of OT Israel and the elect Christians. Outwardly, both groups are in some sense grafted in and partakers of God's grace by being members of the community and receiving revelation that others are not privy to. However, the reprobate will ultimately reject this revelation, trampling underfoot the blood of the covenant and insulting the Spirit of grace, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, etc. --Joe! |
||||||
480 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 69800 | ||
"I have to say I have never seen anything like what you have described." I just saw it last week, and I would have to assume, without any other context, that it would be the driver voicing that to the Virgin. "We might have to fight back by hanging out portrait of Luther and Calvin. At least they were Catholics once. :-)" Well, I still am, only imperfectly so, right? ;) "By the way, I can tell my surgeon that my life is in his hands without any connotation of worship. Same goes for my daughter when she is driving and I am riding with her." Yes, but in those instances it is clear what is meant: a physical trust upon the surgeon for one's PHYSICAL survival. On the other hand, what could the driver be expressing by those words? If you are mystified, that is fine, but it's pretty characteristic of the Hispanic Catholicism in these parts, making very much of Mary and not so much of Jesus at all. "I am not sure I fully understand your question on the Eucharist. It lacks your usual clarity. What exactly in Rev 1 are you alluding to?" I was alluding to St. John's vision of the resurrected Christ. His glorified body is indeed different from his earthly one, but it is still apparently finite in nature. I hold that it violates Chalcedon to attribute divine qualities to Jesus' human nature or to attribute human qualities to Jesus' divine nature. Jesus Christ now exists as a permanent hypostatic union between the two natures in one person, without mixing or confusion of the natures. "I see it in the other passages you cite, although you avoid the citation of the instituition narratives of the Gospels and 1 Cor 11, which are key to the doctrine of the Real Presence." I hold to the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper (which is also clearly presented in 1 Corinthians 10 as well, and at least has some connection to Jesus' statements at the end of John 6 as well). However, I disagree that Jesus Christ is physically and locally in place of, in, with, or under the substance of the elements. Paul still refers to "the BREAD that we break" (1 Corinthians 10:16) and "as often as you eat this BREAD" (1 Corinthians 11:26; see the following verses as well as he continues to refer to it as "bread"). The doctrine of transubstantiation holds that the bread is no longer there, but the body of Christ is present with only the _accidens_ of bread (which depends not on Scripture, but Aristotelian philosophy). What I believe is Calvin's doctrine of a sacramental union between the elements themselves (which remain physically unchanged) and the body and blood of Christ, which are locally in heaven I do not hold to the prominent view today that they are merely bare symbols, because I agree with you that there is too much Scriptural evidence that we are participating in the actual body and blood of Christ in some fashion, not to mention the fact that partaking in an unworthy manner has very real, physical results as we see in 1 Corinthians 11. But just like baptismal water is a physical means of God's grace while it remains water, so I believe the bread and wine remains bread and wine as we feed spiritually on Christ, with whom the Christian is united. The Heidelberg Catechism illustrates this view well: "Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits? Answer: Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ. Question 79. Why then doth Christ call the bread "his body", and the cup "his blood", or "the new covenant in his blood"; and Paul the "communion of body and blood of Christ"? Answer: Christ speaks thus, not without great reason, namely, not only thereby to teach us, that as bread and wine support this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink, whereby our souls are fed to eternal life; (a) but more especially by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; (b) and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours, as if we had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to God." --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] Next > Last [97] >> |