Results 541 - 560 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
541 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68480 | ||
"First you imply I was saying God acted Arbitrarily and I didn’t." I certainly did not mean to state that you yourself believe that God acts arbitrarily. What I was trying to point out was that it is very important to think carefully regarding God and His attributes. There is a big difference between saying that "God doing something turns it into a just act" and "What God will do is just because He is just." You wrote, regarding God pouring out his wrath on sinners in hell: "You know what you did here, you took an act outside our understanding and tired to use it as a defense for your position." How is it beyond our understanding. God has made it plain to us: his anger toward sinners is being stored up by their every act, and he will unrelentingly and angrily punish those who hate Him. "In our human reasoning we could say it is very much a loving act in that it is total and complete vindication for what many has endured. Example it is a loving act for the Jews to see Hitler thus condemned." But that wasn't what I was asking. Is it loving toward HITLER to see Hitler thus condemned? You wrote: "In my statement is there any mention that God would violate his nature or His established promises." You seemed to open the door for it when you referred to His infinite, eternal, and unchangeable being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth as "human-established absolutes." So is His unchanging truth a "human-established" aboslute or one that eternally exists and is APPREHENDED by humans? That is where this whole sideline discussion started. I had said that God cannot be just and not punish all sin to the satisfaction of His holiness. The wages of sin is death. That is in keeping with His unchanging justice and holiness. Therefore, any atonement model requires a death sufficient to compensate for all of God's justice and holy wrath. "Nonetheless Scripture very plainly says God does as He pleases. Psalm 115:3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases." And what He pleases to do is in keeping with His unchanging nature. It pleases Him to be Himself, and the thrust of Psalm 115:3 is that nothing stands in God's way of accomplishing His purposes, of being Himself without any obstacles. I understand that you do not really consider God to be capricious or arbitrary, Ed. But when you argue against us understanding what God is like as far as He has revealed himself (not completely, as the finite cannot grasp the infinite, but as far as he has explained Himself to us), then that does open the door to a whole lot of problems. The church needs to come together, as it always has, to think carefully about God as He has shown Himself to be. --Joe! |
||||||
542 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68457 | ||
"I agree but who but God can judge those absolutes?" Anyone who has access to the Bible. God did not leave everything about himself to some sort of guessing game. He revealed Himself to us for a reason: He WANTS us to know Him and what He is like, at least as far as He has in his grace revealed Himself in the Scriptures. "See God can not lie because He is truth, so whatever He says is true. He is just because He is justice so whatever He does is just." This is a very subtle but very crucial error here. God does not act arbitrarily, and thus whatever he does suddenly becomes "justice" or "truth." God cannot say that Jesus is not his beloved Son, for example, and then it suddenly becomes the truth. He cannot let the sins of a rebellious humanity go unpunished and be just at the same time. He does what He does not on a whim, but acts in accordance with the immutable qualities that are eternal aspects of his immutable character. His truth and His justice and His holiness are as eternal and unchangeable as he Himself is. "He is loving because He is love so whatever He does is loving." Is pouring out his eternal wrath on sinners in hell an act of love toward them? "Since God establishes the parameters anything He does, by the nature that he establishes those parameters, has to fall within the boundaries of those parameters." But God's unchanging nature is uncreated. He always acts according to his nature, so while he established the parameters for His universe and how He will interact with it, He did not create His own nature, according to which He always acts. In other words, God does not define what He is like; He simply IS. "The problems begin when Man tries to define what God should, would, could or will do. God does what he pleases because He is God." Again, I am not talking about a God made in man's image, but God as He has faithfully revealed Himself. Am I overstepping my bounds when I say that God WILL bring all Christians to heaven? No, because I am not the one who has "defined" what God will do. "In any case if God did seem (to man) to violate one of your human established absolutes who would you complain to? Who would be your mediator? Who would be your judge your jury? :-)" I don't see why you keep asking this flawed question, Ed. I have already explained how the absolutes mentioned are not "human established," but rather eternally existent in God and divinely revealed to us. If God seems to violate His immutable character traits, then the problem is with the perception of the human being to whom it seems to be violated. We see such "disorientation" in many of the psalms, for example. Psalm 79 is a very good example of seeming injustice, but it ends with a firm grasp of the fact that God's promises are sure and that He is not a liar with regard to His covenant people. In other words, the psalmist embraces what he knows to be absolutely true about God in spite of present appearances. Did the psalmist "establish" this absolute? Absolutely not. He merely received it from God Himself, and doesn't question it for a second. --Joe! |
||||||
543 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68451 | ||
I have followed with some interest the thread that you have picked up. I wanted to just throw in a couple of verses and see how you fit them into your pro-polygamy position. First of all, you are correct that the bride of Christ, the church, is made up of many individuals. However, the clear teaching of the Bible is not that we are each, as individuals, brides of Christ, but the entire communion of saints itself is a SINGLE bride. Paul makes this clear in Ephesians 5, when the analogy is between a single husband and a single wife, and Christ and the church. The church is THE bride of Christ; Christians are not "brides of Christ." And the husband is called to love his wife with the same unique, single-minded love that Christ exhibited when He died for the church, His bride. Christ is not a polygamist, and husbands are called to model His marital pattern. In that same passage, we see Paul taking the creation order and applying it to present-day Ephesus: "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." --Ephesians 5:31 He also uses the term "wife" (singular) when describing how husbands should conduct themselves. A one-to-one relationship is implied: "Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own WIFE even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband." --Ephesians 5:33 We see this one-to-one relationship emphasized in other passages dealing with marriage: "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." --1 Corinthians 7:2-4 We see mutual authority over each other's bodies, and that each one should have his or her own spouse (singular). You do make some very valid points in light of the Old Testament pattern. The first and most important one is that polygamy is not adultery. While we do not see polygamy in the creation order (God pronounced his creation of humanity "very good" after creating the first couple, not the first harem) nor in the redemptive model (Christ and his singular bride), taking more than one wife was indeed permitted with regulation under the Mosaic Covenant. We see that it was not practiced, however, by most of God's covenant community (kings being the most notable exception), and there are no signs of it at all among the Jews we encounter in the New Testament. And finally, we do not see a single instance in which the taking of multiple wives turns out to be an exercise in wisdom. Just because it was permitted in the Torah does not mean that it was a practice favored by God. Remember that divorce is also permitted, but Jesus claims that Moses allowed men to divorce their wives because of their hardness of heart. But just as "from the beginning it was not so" regarding divorce (Matthew 21:8), so with polygamy it was not so from the beginning. And if polygamy were perfectly acceptable to God, why does Jesus continue by saying that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, that such an act becomes adultery? How does multiple wives at the same time merit God's approval, but single wives in series would not? --Joe! |
||||||
544 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68436 | ||
"I think your line of though approaches the age old philosphical question, If God can do anything can God create a rock so big He can not pick it up. I think your line of reasoning would lead one to conclude the answer to be yes." My line of reasoning would actually preclude the notion that God can do ANYTHING. God cannot be not-God. "If God did seem to violate one of your human established absolutes listed in your post above, tell me who exactly would you complain to? :-)" If you throw in the word "seem" like you did above, Ed, we have a completely different argument altogether. The way things "seem" is often different than the way things "are." Of course to our finite minds God can "seem" unjust at times. Just ask anyone who thinks it is unjust for God to send anyone to hell. But I wasn't talking about how things seem, but the way God Himself has declared that they ARE. You see, the absolutes given in my post are not established apart from the gracious self-revelation of God Himself. Which of those absolutes go beyond what the Bible teaches, if they are indeed "established by humans," as you claim them to be? --Joe! |
||||||
545 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68428 | ||
"For me to suggest any other particular manner would in itself be a pointless attempt to limit God." Well, as my good buddy Calvin said, "Finitum non capax infinitum." However, God has revealed how He is limited in certain chracteristics. If He is, as one of my catechisms says, "infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth," then by definition He cannot be foolish, impotent, unholy, unjust, evil, or a liar. "We know what He willed, but that does not mean God could not have willed another manner that would have satisfied Himself in all His attributes." Perhaps, but it would seem unkind to include His own Son if were not necessary. What we do know from God's self-revelation is that death is what serves as justice for violation of His law (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23; Hebrews 9:22). So whatever just satisfaction was to be made had to include death. And since Christ was put forth as a propitiation (i.e. a sacrifice to appease God's infinite wrath), I think it is safe to assume that such a propitiation was also necessary; God simply couldn't shrug His anthropomorphic shoulders and say, "Oh, no big deal." God responds to our sin with wrath, and that wrath has to "go somewhere." Therefore, I think I am on safe ground by sticking with St. Anselm on this one. But, you are right: no matter the possible worlds, the one we have is the one He made! --Joe! |
||||||
546 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68415 | ||
"I am shocked that an adherent of God's absolute soverignty would ask such a question." Well, that's me -- shocking! :) "God did not have to save us at all..." True enough. "...and could have saved us in any manner He willed." Well, any manner that wouldn't have compromised His infinite, eternal, and unchangeable justice. If He is to be merciful, He will not violate His own nature in doing so. So I repeat my question again: how else could He have saved us? "Are you saying that He did it by means of the Incarnation because He had to do it in then manner?" I am saying what the Bible says: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, ***so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus***." --Romans 3:23-26 --Joe! |
||||||
547 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68395 | ||
"God did not have to take on flesh (physical matter) to heal us save us, but He did." How else could He have saved us? --Joe! |
||||||
548 | is there security of the believer | Rom 8:39 | Reformer Joe | 68372 | ||
You wrote: 'If people wish to be part of the "true vine" they must be "in Christ", that is to be covered by the atoning sacrifice of His blood, as I am sure you agree. Pay close attention to what is said next, however; those branches already "in Christ", who do not bear fruit, are taken away!' Where in John 15 do you see that being a branch automatically means being "in Christ"? Those words are not used at all in this chapter, and there are a number of very valid ways of looking at what the branches represent than concluding that all the branches are truly saved. In fact, the branches are burned not primarily for not bearing fruit on their own, but the cause of this situation is that they are not abiding in Him in the first place. You wrote: "If God were to ensure our salvation regardless of our effort, then this chapter, and many others, are foolishness." God ensures our salvation AND our effort. You wrote: "Christians must put forth the effort to prove themselves as Christ’s disciples." As as Jesus himself says in verse 5, apart from Him you can do nothing. It's not a "God's part-our part" scenario. Our part is God's part as well. --Joe! |
||||||
549 | What are Calvins and Arminians? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68366 | ||
One of the best introductions/overviews of church history that I could recommend is called _Church History in Plain Language_ by Bruce Shelley. You can find or order it in most bookstores, and on all the usual online sources. If you want to get a good understanding of the history of our people, I encourage you (and everyone else) to get hold of a copy of this book. --Joe! |
||||||
550 | What are Calvins and Arminians? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68364 | ||
One of the best introductions/overviews of church history that I could recommend is called _Church History in Plain Language_ by Bruce Shelley. You can find or order it in most bookstores, and on all the usual online sources. If you want to get a good understanding of the history of our people, I encourage you (and everyone else) to get hold of a copy of this book. --Joe! |
||||||
551 | What are Calvins and Arminians? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68345 | ||
Peronally, I do not mind the labels at all, in that they help to serve as shorthand for my particular beliefs. It is not that I think that those holding my theology are the only ones who are God's children, but in our day and age, the label "Christian" has largely lost its meaning to the wider culture. For example, are Mormons Christians? They claim that they are. So do people in all sorts of denominations who deny the deity, sinless life, substitutionary death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I do not mind calling myself a Protestant when asked, because my beliefs fall into that category, distinguishing my views on Scripture, the church, the grounds and means of justification (or even what the term "justification" means), the nature and role of the sacraments, where Mary fits into the picture, etc., from the views held by Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. For "those in the know," it helps them understand where I am coming from in a single word. For those who do not know the distinctions, often it does not matter to them, and when it does pique their curiosity I am always happy to make the distinctions known to them regarding what I believe the Bible teaches. I have had several opportunities to evangelize my public-school students by answering their questions regarding the differences (and most of these students were not practicing members of any of these traditions). Likewise, terms like "Reformed" or "Calvinist" or "Presbyterian" also serve as springboards for theological discussion, not only with other Christians, but also with those who do not know Jesus Christ. While I explain to them that these terms in themselves do not distinguish between Christians and non-Christians, I also have the chance to share the gospel with them in my explanation of the beliefs of these particular subgroups to which I belong. Of course, I am first and foremost a disciple of the risen Savior, like yourself, and I don't start off by saying, "Hello, I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, a confessional Protestant denomination in the Reformed/Calvinist tradition." The labels fit, however, and they do serve a good purpose when explaining the "ins and outs" of my theology. --Joe! |
||||||
552 | is there security of the believer | Rom 8:39 | Reformer Joe | 68327 | ||
'Lets not read more into "He is able" than what is written "He is able" means exactly that. The secondary part that must be considered is: Are you willing?' Funny...I don't see the words "Are you willing?" in the text anywhere at all...who is the one reading beyond what the text says? :) You wrote: "Or since becoming saved are you now a puppet, or robot, that is unable to still make choices?" At no time are we puppets or robots, before or after salvation. The essential question is whether God's grace accomplishes its purposes (i.e. in making us willing) or not. Does the efficacy of God's work really come down to me? What a reason to boast that would be! --Joe! |
||||||
553 | Bible books deleted Jehovah is now God | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68310 | ||
Hi, kalos: Just posted this to hopefully get your attention. I pray everything is going well for you! --Joe! |
||||||
554 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68309 | ||
Rob: I, for one, am glad you have decided to stick around. feel free to pick apart anything I write whenever you perceive me to be in error. Just don't expect me to take it lying down... :) --Joe! |
||||||
555 | Is God's will prosperity/healing always? | Rom 8:28 | Reformer Joe | 68299 | ||
You wrote: 'I experienced sufferings, do you think for one moment that this is coming from God, and I should say "I'm suffering for God?"' I am afraid I am not clear on what you are trying to say here. Are you claiming that suffering has no purpose? Does God allow His people to suffer without reason? You also wrote: "In those days, they dug holes in the ground outside of the city. Whenever they were to stone someone, they would push the victim into the hole. Then, a crowd would gather around the hole and throw big rocks at the person's head, until they were certain that it was completely crushed." What is your source for this explanation of the stoning procedure? I have never heard it before. "From biblical evidence, it seems that Paul was actually dead." What biblical evidence. "The timing would be about 14 years before he was to write 2 Corinthians, which would make Acts 14 the time when he died and temporarily went to heaven to see the visions mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4." Many consider the visions Paul experienced to be linked to the moment of his conversion in Acts 9. Do you have any other biblical support that Paul actually died and paid a visit to heaven? Acts 14 says that they stoned Paul and THEN dragged him out of the city. Luke does not say that he was dead, but that the Jews SUPPOSED him to be dead. Then he uses the conjunction "but" at the start of verse 20 to point out not that Paul was resurrected, but rather that Paul hadn't died like the Jews had supposed. You wrote: 'Then what happened? God raised Paul from the dead right on the spot and Paul marched right back into the same city! This is why Paul had an "infirmity of the flesh" ? His skull had been crushed and he was walking around looking like that.' Would you mind sharing with us where you got this "explanation," and why you hold it to be so much more compelling than the "eye disease" explanation? Mind you, I am not saying that the "eye disease" folks have it right, but you are stringing a lot of distant passages together and giving (with a great deal of conviction) what is in reality an unlikely interpretation of Paul's stoning experience in Acts 14. "So, instead of disproving the biblical teaching on healing, this passage in Galatians demonstrates God's supernatural healing and resurrection power. Paul was walking around supernaturally with this and many other injuries." Except for that last one, I suppose... --Joe! |
||||||
556 | Is the Work of Christ Sufficient? | Rom 6:23 | Reformer Joe | 68282 | ||
Greetings. You wrote: "The attribute of Faith is having complete trust, confidence, reliance and loyalty in God. Faith is shown by a person?s willful obedience to God?s law and is not the simple belief that God?s law exists without need of any future consideration. To have faith means you act upon your belief! We understand God?s word is truth and that we live under a New Covenant. What is our obligation under that covenant? Why is the Law of Faith one that calls for action rather than passivity? Why is faith in God always associated with work?" Because true faith bears God-honoring works as its fruit. To have biblical faith does indeed mean that we act upon our beliefs. So we can conclude that biblical faith is inseparably united to works. Does that mean, however, that faith and works are the same thing? Does that mean that we are declared righteous before God because of our works? In other words, do our works earn us a place of honor before God? If our works (or our faith, for that matter) do earn us a place before God, where does grace come in? You also wrote: "How do we know faith involves more than simple belief? 1) It is empirically true: From a person?s own experience and observation we know faith defines an absolute conviction where belief is passive. We believe the airplane is safe, but it is our faith in its airworthiness that allows us to fly from Seattle to NY, thus proving our belief." Correct, our works prove our faith (2 Peter 1:10). However, did the faith itself exist prior to the works? In your example above, did the passenger's faith not exist before he boarded the flight, or did he actually have faith before getting on the plane (actually CAUSING him to get on the plane)? You added: "2) By example, O.T. faith in God was proven by deeds. He 11:1-2" Again, our works prove our faith to us and to men. Our works put our faith on display. But is it correct to say that the works ARE the faith? "3) By N.T. command, Christians are called to action. -Ph2:12-15 (work out your salvation) - JA 2:14 (what use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith..)" Amen. "Why are Christians to be faithful? -Faithfulness equals obedience. See Jo14:21-24" Yes. "-What is God?s law? Can it be found anywhere besides the N.T.?" Yes. Genesis through Malachi as well. "Scripture, or the Bible, is a reference manual for God?s people that teaches, and at the same time, demonstrates that only Christians will be saved! God?s word is truth (Jo 17:17) and all inclusive (i. e. there are no other routes to eternal life!) As our creator, he has made a covenant with us, or agreement. We must obey our part of the covenant if we are to expect our reward." Two things I would like to mention here: 1. One aspect of the covenant with Israel was the presupposition that it would be violated. That is the whole basis of the sacrificial system which prefigured our Lord Jesus. So, the disobedience of humans was factored into the covenant, and God in His grace provided the provision for forgiveness. What does that correspond to in the New Covenant? 2. I would say that habitual and continuous unrepentant and willful covenant-breaking is not a sign that faith is present without works, but rather that the covenant breaker does not have faith in the first place. The Reformation teaching of sola fide (faith alone) is not destroyed by the Bible-supported claim that true faith results in works. The works are the fruit of the faith, but it is the faith through which God declares Christian righteous because of what Christ accomplished on earth in our place. --Joe! |
||||||
557 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68276 | ||
Rob: This is a forum for discussing ideas, not a mutual admiration society. If the latter were the case, I would have been voted out long ago! Disagreement is going to occur among people on this forum. That is historically the way the church has gathered to hammer out sound theology. You wrote: "Your objection to my first question actually limits God by attributing "foresight" to Him instead of complete omniscience." No, I did not limit God's omniscience (a biblically supported concept) to mere foresight. What I DID imply that God's omniscience is not the same thing as God's foreordination of all events (another concept supported by the Bible). God at the same time knows all things and sovereignly governs them. You then wrote: "Your objection to my second question misses the point completely, I asked if we share omniscience with God, in which the answer is no. You however pose a senseless objection in the form of a question: Again, is God someone who just KNOWS, or someone who CAUSES? The question is whether or not we share the knowledge of all events with God." It wasn't senseless at all. I agree with your second point completely, but it has nothing to do with whether we have a nature that is morally capable of embracing God. Our lack of omniscience contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion of human free will. "Your objection to my fifth question is because I used the word "then" at the end of my sentence: Do we have complete free will to choose then? Absolutely. I used "then" to signify the culmination of my line of questioning (the end that was gradually led to)." And that is precisely what I hold as being erroneous. The conclusion you reach in no way logically and inescapably follows the four previous statements. You wrote: "To make a long story short, it is possible to have a universe completely predetermined and known by One Being, while at the same time giving His creations free-will. This only seems to be a paradox to us, but it's not to God." But the one thing I have not seen you address is what the Bible actually teaches about our moral ability to come to Jesus Christ. Even the classical Arminian declares it to be impossible without "prevenient grace" from God. What you are asserting is what can be considered to be (at the very least) semi-Pelagianism. You wrote: "Note: Quantum physics predicts that if an outcome is observed by anyone, it collapses all other possiblities and makes the outcome a reality. Ponder that for a moment." Quantum physics is not science; it is theoretical philosophy. And it runs counter to the biblical assertion of an ontological reality apart from our perceptions. Quantum physics goes farther than what you stated above; quantum physics states that our observation of things MAKES something real. Reality does not depend on our observations of it, no matter what people may say about the sounds trees make when falling in isolated forests. If YOU wish to ponder both quantum physics and chaos theory from a biblical perspective, I recommend R.C. Sproul's book, _Not a Chance._ Lastly, you wrote: "Take care everyone. I won't be posting anymore. I can't say anything without having my words picked apart." And neither can I. Welcome to public discourse. --Joe! |
||||||
558 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68259 | ||
Hello, Rob: Boy, you sure dug into the archives for this one! You wrote: "1. Is the universe completely determined because God has seen it? Yes." You are confusing foresight with predetermination. Does the Bible teach that God merely passively foresees everything, or that God is constantly active and sovereign over every last aspect of His creation? "2. Do we share this ultimate knowledge of all events with God? No." Again, is God someone who just KNOWS, or someone who CAUSES? "3. Do the choices we make directly affect our lives, and the lives of others? Yes." Those who believe in the biblical doctrine of election do not deny this. "4. Is accepting Christ a choice? Yes." Every Christian would agree with this as well. "5. Do we have complete free will to choose then? Absolutely." I don't see where you get the "then" here. The fact that at some point a person freely embraces Christ does not mean that every individual (including the convert) was BORN with that ability. One of the best treatments of the freedom of the will in Christian history was written by Jonathan Edwards. I warmly encourage you (and everyone else) to give it a read: http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/will/home.html --Joe! |
||||||
559 | What does Bible teach on election? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 67921 | ||
You ask some very good questions here. Let me try to answer them briefly without creating a firestorm! :) First of all, let me cite the Westminster Larger Catechism, which is one of the classic Reformed/Calvinist standards dating to the 1640s: "Q. 67. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God?s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein." You asked: "I must be missing something? If we are all predestined - than what is the use of witnessing? My question is that if someone is not (to my knowledge) a Christian, why should I share the gospel with them?" 1. Because God has commanded you to do so. 2. Because it glorifies God whether regardless of the response of the hearer of the message. 3. Because God may have chosen to use YOU to bring the message through which the sinner will repent and trust in Jesus Christ. You also said: "If they are predestined and I dont, then someone else will." You are correct. However, here's the deal: God has not published His directory of the elect and handed it to churches. From a human perspective, we have no idea whether the person we are speaking to is one of God's predestined people or not. When I am sharing my faith, I am confident that God will do what He will with the message I am giving (Isaiah 55:11). In addition, while I do not know whether the person I am evangelizing is one of the elect or not, I DO know that those who do not get the gospel are lost. As the catechism question above states, the Holy Spirit works alongside and through the outward, univeral call to repentance and faith. He has chosen to work through preaching, so in preaching I am providing the medium through which God will do his work. So, simply put (I hope), God from His perspective will accomplish what he will accomplish with or without us; but from a finite human view we are not aware of which unsaved people are predestined or not, and we have been commanded to proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into His marveous light (1 Peter 2:9). Of course, it is not just a duty for those that love God; it is a privilege to be a part of God's redemptive work. Lastly, you wrote: "I chose to ask Christ into my heart and save me. In return, I beleive he accepted(or chose) me." The classical Reformation view also holds that you choose God. We just believe that you have the order reversed. God chose us, and in return we are persuaded to choose Him. Hope this helps clear it up without re-hashing too much. For a further explanation, I would do a Web search for "Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards, and take a couple of hours to pore over that. In Christ's unfailing grip, --Joe! |
||||||
560 | Is God's will prosperity/healing always? | Rom 8:28 | Reformer Joe | 67665 | ||
"First, I'd like to get a few misconceptions out of the way. I didn't mean to imply that all of the money that Jesus spent during His earthly ministry was all there in one lump sum. It may have been, but I don't think so and I don't believe that the Bible specifies that. Actually, with money constantly going in and out Judas would have a much easier time embezzeling." So how does this support the idea that Jesus was comfortably prosperous, unlike Paul in Philippians 4:11-13? Jesus had his NEEDS met. Nothing else can be reasonably drawn from the text. "I only said that it was Judas' only job because I haven't seen anywhere else in the scriptures where Judas was handling any other task, but that's really a minor detail." Well, you did use it as support for your reasoning that Jesus had a pretty vast sum of money. Many of the twelve are barely mentioned at all. Are we to conclude that they did NOTHING? It is safe to assume that Judas was assigned more than the role of treasurer. "Somewhere it says that there would be nothing about His appearance that would attract us to Him, so they probably weren't lavish garments. However, they were probably well made garments that looked nice, not the rags of a pauper." No one is saying Jesus was a pauper. Neither are most Americans. I doubt that you are a pauper, and that is not because you have "believed on God" not to be one. Have you ever regularly ministered among the poor? "Grace is God giving us what we don't deserve (ie salvation, healing, the means to supply our needs)." But where in Scripture do you see that material grace is equally given to all? It is quite clear from the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles that many Christians were poor, even slaves. Nowhere do the authors of the NT indicate that material wealth in this life is promised to the follower of Jesus Christ. Additionally, it is by God's grace that we believe in the first place. Grace precedes our faith in salvation. "I'm not saying that Jesus lived an extravagant lifestyle, but I am saying that His needs and the needs of those around Him were met." And I can agree with that. That is not to say that God is bound to meet our wants, nor does it mean that what we consider to be our needs are actually our needs. Is three meals a day actually a need? Is fine clothing a need? Is a comfortable house a need? Jesus tells us not to worry about what we are going to eat or what we will wear (Matthew 6), but He never said that the Christian life would be a comfortable one. Most of what He said suggested that the opposite is the norm. Paul had indicated that he had often gone hungry. Paul indicated that he had suffered want in his ministry. Paul worked hard to gather collections for the poor saints, rather than to tell them to claim their blessing. In the NT, the material needs of the saints were always met by the generosity of brothers and sisters in Christ, who themselves often gave beyond their ability. Prosperity doctrine would have us believe that Paul was going about things all the wrong way; and you have to admit, if you are honest, that Kenneth Hagin is saying much more than "we will have what we need to survive and do God's work if we only believe." The prosperity "gospel" is not "my God will supply all your needs," but rather that "material abundance and perfect health await the truly committed Christian." I have enjoyed this dialogue. It is good to see 19-year-olds studying Scripture. I do not see it that much among the professing Christian teens I work with. Keep studying the Scriptures, and let them transform your thinking, and be careful of the tendency to make them fit pre-conceived cultural notions. That is something Christians of every age have had to struggle with. Also, feel free to email me and let me know where you are going to Bible school! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Next > Last [97] >> |