Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Whats the point? | Bible general Archive 2 | Jorja | 150734 | ||
Although it would be insanity to down play God the Fathers gift of true love for man and His willingness to sacrifice Jesus to redeem us.I have found the reality of the depth of Gods love coming to us through Jesus the truly mind boggling part in the scriptures. As told in the Book of Genesis-Let us make man in our image and you will strike at His heal and He will strike at your head. Jesus was there with the Father from the beginning they both knew the price that would have to be paid for giving man free will and that price was the shed Blood of the Word of God becoming flesh. For thousands of years they both knew what was coming and that is the part that I believe should cause a man to pause and think twice. I believe the sacrifice of Jesus didnt begin at His birth or that horrible day on the cross but in the Garden when God first spoke of His plan to send us the Savior. | ||||||
2 | Whats the point? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 150740 | ||
Dear Jorja, Actually, it is better than that! According as He hath chosen us in Him BEFORE the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. (Revelation 13:8) One can make a pretty good case from Scripture for a supralpsarian interpretation of the decrees of God. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Whats the point? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150747 | ||
Doc, it occurs to me that possibly some readers of the Forum -- am I being too assumptive? :-) -- may not be able to produce a definition of "supralapsarian" off the tips of their tongues! -- even though it is certainly a doctrinal concept worth knowing. Therefore, I "appoint" you an ad hoc committee of one to give the Forum a definition of "supralapsarian" as well as the related word "infralapsarian" in a way that does not invite debate, of course. We don't want to go there! But I think it would be helpful to define these terms. And you're just the man to do it. It might add a touch of class to the Forum! (We can always use some of that :-) For some time I've thought how helpful it could be to the readers of the Forum if someone would take it upon himself to give us accurate definitions of some of the most important "theological" words -- a concise theological dictionary, not all at once but in dribs and drabs, a word or two at a time. Some of the problems that lead to argumentation and debate have their root cause in words being bandied about freely without the parties to the discussion having a clear concept of the exact meanings of the words and concepts on which they appear to disagree. This is merely a suggestion, and I defer to your judgment of whether it would serve any useful purpose. But ever since I studied semantics in school back in 1812, I've been burdened with the notion that a great deal of misunderstanding in religion, politics, law, and other fields of human endeavor could be averted simply if both sides to an argument know and agree on the precise meaning of the words and terms they are using. I've known opposing candidates for public office to disagree vigorously with one another when it was fairly apparent that neither knew the meaning of the words he was using. They didn't really understand what they were disagreeing about and semantics could help, assuming, of course, that politicians want to be helped :-) But that's another subject altogether. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Whats the point? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 150772 | ||
Dear Brother Hank, My far-better-half assures me that I do not attain the clarity that I have such a great desire to achieve. So I appreciate your pointing out opportunities to improve! I fully agree that clear and precise definitions go a long way to helping resolve disagreement. I also believe they contribute to avoiding error. I suspect that this is why so much of theology, throughout history, is concerned with defining terms. A good example is the word justification. It is an extremely important word to those of us who belong to Christ. This is word is used in both the Old and New Testaments. However, the definition of this word is distinctly different between Evangelical theologians and Roman Catholic theologians. Both parties can say, "The believer is justified by faith through grace," with equal honesty. Nevertheless, as they say, the devil is in the details. Perhaps I will post on that word one day soon. I guess that last statement is an acceptance of your proposal. :-) The infralapsarian/supralapsarian issue is a bit academic. However, it can significantly contribute to how we understand God. It has to do with the logical order in which God's decrees were made before creation. In a sense, it is an effort to look into the mind of God before time was. (Note that logical order is a pretty important phrase since one could not speak of chronological order before there was time.) The question is this: What is the logical order of decrees that God made for the Eternal Plan of Salvation. Before anyone objects that no one can know the mind of God, I will remind you that we have the Word of God in which God Himself reveals some things about Himself. Therefore, there are clues as to the question at hand. There are five schemes that are currently extant. In a subsequent post I will list them. However, I must be going. Wasn't it Groucho Marx who sang, "Hello, I'm leaving. I came to say, I cannot stay, I'm leaving. I'll stay a night or two, or perhaps the whole week through, but I am telling you, I'm leaving!" On that note... I'll post again tomorrow. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Whats the point? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150777 | ||
Doc: It was also Groucho Marx who confessed that he would not be a member of any club that had standards so low that they would accept him. ..... And speaking of accepting, I'm delighted that you accept my "appointment" as Theological Lexicographer of the Forum. I'm confident that you will come forth with many delightful lexical enlightenments that will help us all, and I look forward to their appearing on these pages. --Hank | ||||||