Results 21 - 40 of 86
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: JRdoc Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61266 | ||
If man is sovereign in his choice than God is not God. Arminianism re-defines terms such as foreknowledge, election, calling, grace etc to be just mere speculations of God's desire and make salvation a work of man vs. the sole work of God. I do not assert that man does not have a will, but it is not the free-will the Arminian thinks..there is no Scriptural support for it. If I cannot use Scripture than I do not see where a conversation about this would be valuable as all truth is from THE text alone. I do not discuss the WHAT IF's of philosophy when the I AM of Scripture has already spoken to the point. I see no verses when correctly interpreted and in context that fit the Arminian scheme of Scripture. Since you believe that Christ died for ALL SIN for ALL MEN then you must be a universalist for ALL would need to be saved. UNBELIEF is a sin, and you say Christ died for it for everyone without exception. Yet the Scripture affirms that many are lost. Thus, Scripture does not back that view. |
||||||
22 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61273 | ||
YOU SAID: Scripture clearly states: "He died for all" 2 Cor. 5:15 Does "all" in 2 Cor. 5:15 and elsewhere exclude anyone? NO, it does NOT, when taken in context: 2 Cor 5: 17-18, 21 Therefore if any man be IN CHRIST, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled US to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to US the ministry of reconciliation;…. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for US, who knew no sin; that WE might be made the righteousness of God in him. The preposition “for” indicates He died -in behalf of,- or -in the place of- all (Is. 53:4–12—note the terms US, WE, MANY; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:11–14, Eph—His Church, John His sheep, etc). Everyone who died in Christ receives the benefits of His substitutionary death (Rom. 3:24–26; 6:8). With this short phrase, Paul defined the extent of the atonement and limited its application. This statement logically completes the meaning of the preceding phrase, in effect saying, --Christ died for all who died in Him,-- or --One died for all, therefore all died-- (vv. 19–21; cf. John 10:11–16; Acts 20:28). Paul was overwhelmed with gratitude that Christ loved him and was so gracious as to make him a part of the all who died in Him. Of course much more could be stated, but there is not room or time—get out your Greek texts and read it from the original language! You keep missing context of the verses! ---- When 1 John 2:2 says: "he is the propitiation for our (our those who believe) sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Does "the whole world" in the above verse exclude anyone? Again, you mis-state the facts. The term world has at least 7 different meanings in Scripture. Here it is speaking of the world of the Gentiles that will be saved as compared to the Jews. Who was John writing too. CONTEXT, CONTEXT! Look here for a more complete/biblical explanation of this verse and the others you plan to assert: http://www.the-highway.com/atonement.html -- Now, let me ask you a question: This is the fourth time this is posted and yet no answers??? 1. Did Christ die for all sins of all men? 2. Did Christ die for some sins of all men? 3. Did Christ die for all sins of some men? If Christ dies for (1) "all sins of all men" then why are any lost? After-all is not "unbelief" a sin? And if He died for the sin of "unbelief" how could any be lost--but some are aren't they! If Christ died for (2) "some sins of all men" then we do not have an atonement for "all sin" without exception and all are still in sin! Thus, Christ died for (3) "all sins of some men" --His elect that some according to His purpose and plan may be saved (Eph 1, Rom 8-11). |
||||||
23 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61274 | ||
But, if the assumption is false (as it is) there is NO Scripture to support it. Yes, every verse when in context proves that God is sovereign in the Calvinistic viewpoint of the Scripture, show me one that is not? Why argue something that cannot be supported or is just a mere assumption. You are arguing WHAT IF's that DO NOT exist? What you are proposing mounts to a straw-man which is of not value...we then would be reducing the Scripture to "a" philosophy...this I am not willing to do. If you will state a Scripture I will either state the truth ot link you to a site that displays it (some explainations are too long to post here), but away from the Scripture I do not embark...that is a dark, dark road. |
||||||
24 | Predestination: scriptures meaningless? | John | JRdoc | 61278 | ||
But, even in your theology "if it is a choice" it still must be a forgiven choice, or else you make salvation a "work" and not by grace alone. And this is what you explained and is what you believe, but not what the Scripture asserts. BTW, what about the ones that ALREADY died before they had the opportunity to LOOK upon the serpent....where was their choice. Once again you have not looked at the "compete" context. Salvation by Arminian Free-will Choice: Impossible (John 1:13) Salvation by Predestination The Correct order of salvation (abbreviated form) Effectual Calling - Divine Act Regeneration - Divine Act Repentance -Divine - Human Faith -Divine - Human Justification -Divine Sanctification -Divine Adoption -Divine Progressive Sanctification -Divine - Human Perseverance IN Holiness - Divine - Human Glorification -Divine |
||||||
25 | Predestination: scriptures meaningless? | John | JRdoc | 61294 | ||
Pastor Glenn: You affirm that Christ died for ALL (without exception) the sin of ALL (without exception) men. This is the affirmation of Arminianism and yours as well as you stated and affirmed. Now, UNBELIEF is a sin. If Christ did not die for it than ALL are still in their sin. If Christ died for the sin of UNBELIEF for ALL MEN (without exception) then NONE (without exception) could ever be lost. This is UNIVERSALISM and this is what your doctrine affirms whether you like it or not. 1. Now this doctrine denies the so called free-will of man. After-all your doctrine affirms that the sin of UNBELIEF has been taken care of at Calvary for ALL men without exception and thus THE DECISION has been made. So please do not accuse Calvinists of doing that which you do to the glory of man. 2. Your doctrine of course is indefensible. The Scripture is clear that some go to hell—Judas, and others are good examples. Thus, once again the Scripture defeats your logic and does not support you claim(s). --- Now you quote --John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” –in your defense. See the very Scripture you assert is used against you. They are “condemned already,” thus Christ could not have died for ALL the SINS (without exception) of ALL MEN (without exception). The very Scripture you assert denies your doctrine! Who are the ones that believe? What does the Scripture say? Acts 13: 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. (still the need of preaching—though you assert Calvinists do not understand this) --- Now you say: “If we make the choice to believe in the name of Christ, then we do not need to be forgiven for choosing unbelief: “ So PAST UNBELIEF is not sin? Surely you jest. What ever is not of faith is sin is what the Scripture asserts. That is very poor Arminianism, but again it is what you affirm against Scripture! Of course here you are stuck and thus looking for a way out, but there is none… --- Then you assert: John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” as your defense. As already explained one receives Christ by God (Hebrews says HE is the Author and Finisher of our faith) not by being “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man” (vs 13).How can one receive a gift when he is dead? Not until one is made alive may he obtain the gift of grace so freely given. |
||||||
26 | Predestination: scriptures meaningless? | John | JRdoc | 61316 | ||
YOU SAID: “Unbelief is not “a” sin, it is the sin “condition” of the flesh that we inherited from Adam” 1. Funny, but untrue. What in turn you have said is that NO ONE may be lost because UNBELIEF (which everyone has) is NOT SIN. Since it is not a sin (so you say) it does not need to be forgiven. Thus anyone who is a unbeliever goes to Heaven? Please…Get Real! 2. Next you assume that UNBELIEF is a condition of the “flesh” and not a “spiritual condition” Christ has a different opinion of UNBELIEF than you: Mat 13: 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their UNBELIEF. Mark 16: 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their UNBELIEF and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen Paul has a different view of UNBELIEF than you: Rom 4: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through UNBELIEF; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Rom 11:20, 23 Well; because of UNBELIEF they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:… 23 And they also, if they abide not still in UNBELIEF, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 1 Tim 1: 2 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in UNBELIEF. The writer of Hebrews has a different view of UNBELIEF than you: Heb 3:12, 18-19 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of UNBELIEF, in departing from the living God…..18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of UNBELIEF. Heb 4: 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of UNBELIEF . UNBELIEF is sin. UNBELIEF is UNRIGHTEOUSNESS and all unrighteousness is sin. --- THEN YOU SAY: “Now I say again: “If we make the choice to believe in the name of Christ, then we do not need to be forgiven for choosing unbelief:” 1. You make an assumption that you may make a choice without the Holy Spirit changing and converting and empowering to do so. Thus, you have a salvation of works, which is no salvation at all. Rom 11: 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 2. Next, you make the assumption that unbelief is not a sin, which is clearly disproven in Scripture (see above). May God give you mercy to see the truth. |
||||||
27 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61320 | ||
YOU SAID: "Considering the unequivocal force of such evidence, there is absolutely no logical reason to deny that when the text says ‘world’ it means ‘world,’ and everybody in it." (Grace of God, Will of Man; p. 80.) 1. I never said the term “world” meant the elect, but I did say it had at least 7 different definitions (see below, from Owen’s work Death of the Death). Thus, your “unequivocal force of such evidence” is once again assumption and once again no Scripture: The word "kosmos", and its English equivalent "world", is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. 1. "Kosmos" is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17:24 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth." 2. "Kosmos" is used of the earth: John 13:1; Eph 1:4, etc.: "When Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end. "Depart out of this world" signifies, leave this earth. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world". This expression signifies. before the earth was founded — compare Job 38:4, etc. 3. "Kosmos" is used of the world-system: John 12:31, etc.: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out" — compare Matt. 4:8 and 1 John 5:19, R.V. 4. "Kosmos" is used of the whole human race: Rom. 3:19, etc.-"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." 5. "Kosmos" is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom 3:6: — "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ, "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean 'you, me, and everybody', for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view. 6. "Kosmos" is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Rom. 11:12, etc.— "Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel's) fulness." Note how the first clause in bold face is defined by the latter clause placed in bold face. Here, again, "the world" cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel! 7. "Kosmos" is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16,17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. ---- YOU QUOTE: on John 3:16, Calvin said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.''11 Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.'' John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), I, p. 125 Once again you are attempting to quote a book and not Scripture. I never once said I agreed with “everything” Calvin ever wrote. See link: http://www.the-highway.com/atonement.html ---- YOU STATE: The fact is the limited view was not popularly held until the Synod of Dort (1619) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) long after Calvin’s death So, now we are to maintain HISTORY and YOUR BOOKS over against what Scripture states. Besides your facts on history being incorrect, your assumption to put both of these “fallible” works above the “infallible” Word of God is inexcusable. --- YOU STATE: "The Term "Limited Atonement" Really Means Limited Love, Limited Grace of God, and So Slanders God, and Is Unscriptural" (source unknown)” Source UNKNOWN, correct, it is NOT GOD’S definition. I do not serve an UNKNOWN GOD who writes his statements, I serve the Living God, you uses terms such as grace, election, predestination, calling. May God give you eyes to see and ears to hear. |
||||||
28 | Predestination: scriptures meaningless? | John | JRdoc | 61340 | ||
I will have to answer this in two posts:--length YOU SAID: "...unbelief is not "a" sin... Rom 5:18-21" and accused me of “completely ignoring the scripture.” I must apologize for not directly addressing your “particular” Scripture. I thought the other 7 or so verses revealed to you that UNBELIEF IS a SIN. While I would agree man is “totally depraved” and has a sin nature that can only be changed by re-birth (and until then he will never seek for God, neither can -Rom 3), this is not the meaning of the term UNBELIEF. So your proof text: Rom 5: 18-21 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience MANY were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall MANY be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: the free gift came upon all men unto justification (Are “ALL” without exception justified—again UNIVERSALISM). This cannot mean that all men will be saved; salvation is only for those who exercise the gift faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 1:16, 17; 3:22, 28; 4:5, 13). Like the word “many” in v. 15, Paul is using “all” with two different meanings for the sake of parallelism, a common practice in the O.T. (which he knew fluently). …..do I need to give you more examples of how the term “all” is used in Scripture? Again, CONTEXT! Look at: Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one MANY be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto MANY. Paul uses the word “many” with two distinct meanings in v. 15, just as he did the word “all” in v. 18. He has already established that all men, without exception, bear the guilt of sin and are therefore subject to death (Rom 3). So the “many” who die must refer to all Adam’s descendants. CONTEXT, BTW I do not see the term UNBELIEF used? ---- YOU SAID: Everyone IS lost in the sin condition of the “flesh”: Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. After we choose Christ we are born of the Spirit and can live in our new spirit nature by dying to the flesh. So you are saying that every sin (prior to salvation) is “physical” and not “spiritual”? The verse you quoted proves that everyone has a sin nature (thus the spiritual natural leads to the physical one and “both” sin or are in sin or have the nature of sin), but I DO NOT see where it says that “only the flesh sinneth” and not the spirit or soul of man? Why would the spirit need to be created “new” IF it had not sinned against God? Actually if you will look at vs 14 of Rom 5 (since this seems to be your favorite chapter) it disproves what you are asserting: Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Paul is saying even without the law, death was universal. All men from Adam to Moses were subject to death, not because of their sinful acts against the Mosaic law (which they did not yet have), but because of their own inherited sinful nature. |
||||||
29 | Predestination: scriptures meaningless? | John | JRdoc | 61341 | ||
YOU SAID: (1) the first Passover was a choice to put blood over the door posts. (2) To look upon the bronze serpent was a choice. (3) Noah chose to move with fear and build the Ark of Safety. All of these were types and shadows of Christ involving simple choices to believe God's warning. Salvation is still a gift. It is a lie to call it a "work": (1) Least you forget, Israel was God’s CHOSEN people. He had already CALLED them away from Egypt (type, shadow--sin). Thus, in the order of salvation, as I and other Calvinists assert the choice comes after the “light” has entered into the box of his soul (see initial post )—after one is predestined from before the foundation of the world and called by His grace. The choice came after the call! (2) Again, as I already stated, MANY died PRIOR to the Serpent being raised up on the staff. Where is their Free-Choice? (Num 21:6 ff). Who gave them eyes to see? Only “some” of Israel (God’s elect) looked at the serpent, what about “everyone” else in the world—did they sin, did they look? (3) Again, Noah moved with fear after he was “called” of God to do it (Gen 6:8). God is the one that initiated His covenant (Gen 6:18) and then He saw righteousness (Gen 7:1). Isn’t it amazing here though that the animals did not come ON THEIR OWN. I do not have the time to go over the rest of the symbolism, but again it clearly goes against what you are asserting. I agree Salvation is a gift, but you are attempting to explain it by you works of applying blood to the door post of your own heart, by looking with blind eyes at the cross, and by building your own ark, without the voice of God which appeared before giving instruction in each case. Salvation is the “work of God” and that is not a lie! ---- YOU SAID “the sin condition of the flesh leads to the choice of unbelief” then you quote Gal 5:19-21: One sins because of a sin nature. The nature is unholy. It is totally corrupt. Yes, unbelief is a choice (something you disagreed with above?) and one that is only forgiven for the elect. Sin is one’s nature. The “nature” (the spirit or soul) must be changed so one will not be an unbeliever! Not only is your sin an affront to God, but your very nature…for you are no longer in the image He created you in (in Adam). ----- Then you attempt the use of a proof text: Mat 13: 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their UNBELIEF. ..." and say “Unbelief is the opposite of faith.” UNBELIEF is the opposite of Faith. We agree! But what does the Scripture: “for whatsoever is not of faith IS SIN.” IS SIN! UNBELIEF is SIN. Now if the UNBELIEF of every man without exception was bore at Calvary (your own proof text and wording proving it is sin) than you assert UNIVERSALISM against the rest of Scripture. --- You SAID: By your reasoning, the parable of the sower is therefore meaningless: The parable of the sower, very briefly without going verse by verse, reveals the different 4-types of hearts the word of God is sown into. God explains those who will believe and those who will not believe. He reveals 3 types of soil that continue to be lost for eternity--these never have any root in themselves, they have been blinded by sin and love the pleasures of this “world” more than God, etc. The remaining type of soil is the one that the Holy Spirit has tilled (turned over, changed) and enabled to receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save their very souls. Now where in the parable of the sower does it say YOU CHOSE what type of heart you would have? P.S. It doesn’t: Rom 9: 20-22 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? HATH NOT THE POTTER POWER OVER THE CLAY, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: Sorry, I can not stay longer but I must go teach. Hopefully someone else will pick up the mantel and answer your reply. |
||||||
30 | Predestination: scriptures meaningless? | John | JRdoc | 61342 | ||
Thankyou John Reformed. Glad to be here. May God Bless. I like the name "Reformed" | ||||||
31 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61359 | ||
YOU SAID: “But what of John 6:44 - Well, YOU CAN NOT COME, until you are DRAWN. Look at the example of Lazarus, he did not come until called……. One can not go anywhere if he is dead, God first makes one alive to receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save his soul. --- YOU SAID: “Okay, God must draw us out our boxes, as you call them, but what then of the following verse? .. 'They will ALL be taught by God.' Yes, all will be taught, but can not ALL hear what is being taught. We are not speaking of “earthly words” or "earthly ears" here but spiritual words—He that hath ears, let him hear, thus implying some have not spiritual ear to hear with. --1 cor 1: 18 --- YOU SAID: “And boxes? IS each man in a box? I don't think so, God created Man as a corporate identity,.....” We are speaking of spiritual boxes here which is clear from the context. Each man is responsible and accountable for the decisions made in his own soul (or box). Though every box interrelates with several other boxes and some effects, as already described come upon all (for all have sinned), this in no way negates individual responsibility for individual sin. Every man must give an account. Not a “corporate account” but an individual one. When one person is saved NOT every person will be saved—its not corporate. YOU are simply speaking of UNIVERSALISM in clouded language. Corporate Theology—a new one not in the text book yet…or in the Scripture. ---- YOU SAID: “In the mean time, through Jesus, the word in our hearts, we are used by God to reach others. ... Every decision we make clearly affects people around us, to say otherwise is ludicrous.” I agree that everything around another affects and influences one another. What a wonderful design by our Creator who arranged all these things for His glory. But amazing differences are noted because different decisions will be made, though some come across the same words, phrases, incidents, etc. in this life. How can two identical twins (best example in this universe we have) sitting under the same hearing of God’s Holy Word react in different ways? One is effectually called the other is not. One box was opened the other was not. --- YOU SAID: “How then, can we have a relationship with God without him allowing us to choose things?” The example given “clearly” reveals that you have a choice. It does not violate your choice. You have so-called free-will, but the “spirit” (though your physical ears may hear the saving Gospel) of do not hear the Word of God “effectually” because it is dead in trespasses and sin. YOU SAID: “And why would he punish us for sins he made us commit? “ See the Thread that was just started by “Iamhapppy” it is explained more fully there. YOU SAID: “Back it up with scripture (and both sides of this debate can clearly do that), say what you like to me, but this is not something so difficult to understand it makes our heads swim, its something so obviously incorrect it makes our heads swim. “ 1 Cor 1: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. Sorry, I did not write the Word of God. This was God’s decision not mine. Please do not blame Calvinists for one’s lack of understanding. Ask God for Spiritual discernment. May He grant it according to His good pleasure. -- YOU SAID “I don't think God is changing things that happen as they happen, based on Man's decisions, God is outside of time, he created time, clearly he isn't running around going "oh no Oh no what will happen next". But just as I don't blame God for decisions he sees me making now, I don't blame him for decisions he sees me make in the future. God isn't a puppet in our hands through my view, he is a loving father who willingly allows us to make decisions. It doesn't mean he doesn't have the power to take over, it simply means he doesn't.” After salvation you are more free to make decisions and will make wiser decisions because more of God’s light is in your soul. True Calvinism does not negate that fact of the will of man it just negates that it is not as free as Arminians claim it to be. If you are really interested: Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by L. Boettner, Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, Freedom of the Will by Jonathon Edwards, and the Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink would be good resources for you to study. They about with Scripture. After you are done with those three read Death of the Death of the Death of Christ by John Owen, again abounding with Scripture and the Greek is excellent—a book by the way that Arminians have never been able to refute. |
||||||
32 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61360 | ||
CONTEXT: Look at vs 8 he is speaking to the BELOVED, look at the very verse you quoted US-WARD |
||||||
33 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61361 | ||
CONTEXT: Look at vs 8 he is speaking to the BELOVED, look at the very verse you quoted US-WARD |
||||||
34 | What does your church believe? | John 1:1 | JRdoc | 61494 | ||
Our church is SBC, but hold to the 'original" SBC......doctrine: We hold to the Abstract of Principles and you may read about all that here: http://www.founders.org/library/founders.html |
||||||
35 | A Greek study of houtos:Who is this One? | John 7:18 | JRdoc | 61179 | ||
"houtos", is translated out many ways in the KJV-- "this" (Mk 12:30), "these" (Mat 4:3), "the same" (Mat 18:4), "she" (Mat 26:12), "such as" (Mk 4:18), "this man" (Lk 7:49), "they" (Lk 8:14), etc. John 17:8 Interpreted: ¡°And they accepted them [Christ¡¯s words].¡± He expresses the mode of this knowledge: they received the doctrine which he taught them. But lest anyone should regard his doctrine as human or of earthly origin, he declares that God is its author: ¡°I gave them the words you gave me.¡± He speaks, as he usually does, as the Mediator or Servant of God, saying that he taught only what he had received from the Father. Since his own condition was still in humble flesh, his divine majesty hidden under the form of a servant, by ¡°the Father¡± he simply means God. Yet we must keep to John¡¯s witness at the beginning of his Gospel, that insofar as Christ was the eternal Word of God, he was always one God with the Father. Therefore, the meaning is that Christ was a faithful witness of God to the disciples, so that their faith was based on nothing but God¡¯s truth, since the Father himself spoke in the Son. The ¡°accepting¡± that he speaks about came from his effectively revealing to them the name of his Father through the Holy Spirit. ¡°They knew with certainty ¡¡± He now repeats in other words what he had mentioned before: that Christ ¡°came from¡± the Father and was ¡°sent¡± by him mean the same as what was said earlier, that all that Christ has is from the Father. The sum of it is that faith should look directly at Christ, yet so as to know nothing earthly or contemptible about him, but to be carried upwards to his divine power, so as to be convinced that he is God, and all that is of God, perfectly in himself. ¡°And they believed.¡± Note also that in the first clause he uses the verb ¡°know,¡± and now he uses the verb ¡°believe.¡± Thus he shows that nothing can be known about God correctly except by faith, but in faith there is such certainty that it is right to call it knowledge. Calvin, J. (1994). John. The Crossway classic commentaries (Jn 17:8). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books. Word Study: prob. from a redupl. of 3588, used as a demonstrative pron.; this:¡ª afterward(3), especially(1), fact(2), follow(1), here(1), hereafter(1), man(1), now(1), one(2), one whom(1), partly(1), person(1), present(1), same(1), so(1), so then(1), so(1), some(2), such(2), therefore(16), these(179), these...things(1), these men(10), these people(1), these things(192), this(737), this man(56), this man¡¯s(2), this one(4), this reason(1), this thing(2), this way(1), this woman(4), this*(1), this...thing(1), those(2), those things(1), very(3), very thing(2), who(2), whom(1). Thomas, R. L. (1998, 1981). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries Updated edition. Anaheim Foundation Publications, Inc. houtos prn. (demonstrative); ¡Ô Str 3778 5023 5025-6 5123-30¡ª1. LN 92.29 this, these; (as an object) him, her, it, them (Mt 3:17; Lk 10:11; 15:30; 18:11; Jn 1:2); 2. LN 89.106 Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (GGK4047). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc. |
||||||
36 | Martha faith lazarus living | John 11:26 | JRdoc | 61198 | ||
In verse 26 of John 11 Christ is teaching to believe in Him for eternal life (ONLY Him). Belief in His death, burial, resurrection...1 Cor 15:1-4. Of course faith (belief) is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-10) that can not be initially manufactured (if it could be initially manufactured it would not be a gift). God saves one first (John 3, born again, 2 Cor 5:17 new creation) enabling one to have faith. Then (but it is instantaneous, which is why many get the steps of salvation out of sequence and thus it brings forth misunderstandings) faith is given-received-acted upon and then grows as one stays in the Word, prayer, fellowship, etc. Once one is truly saved he may never be lost. Christ promised her eternal life! Lazarus was raised as Christ said in John 11:4 ...This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. This also gives us an example of salvation. What did Lazarus contribute to his resurrection...NOTHING, he was dead. He could not see, hear...he was dead. Christ have a specific command to ONE person (election and calling) and called him from the grave. Look at the thread on Sovereignty and Free will for a fuller picture of this. |
||||||
37 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | JRdoc | 61512 | ||
Sir Pent: YOU SAID: "In fact, if a mere parent can allow their child to pick which slide to go down in the park without it diminishing the parent’s strength and ability, then wouldn’t it be logical that God (who has infinately more power) could allow a human to choose whether to love Him or not without it diminishing God’s power or control?" The difference is God knows which slide had razor blades put on it the night before by .....and would not desire "this child" to slide to his death. In other words God is Sovereign in both ability, knowledge, and His desire, (etc) which shall take place. Your word picture also fails to picture that the child is dead and can not slide in the first place..... he is "dead" in trespasses and sin thus not alive to choose. It fails to recognize that the child does not know what a slide is and does not know even how to use it. Remember we are talking about “initial” salvation.—thus the question “What must I do to be saved?”, not “What choice will I make?” Since, no man seeketh after God, who do you think puts this in the heart of man to ask—God. Where you are missing it at here is Total Depravity, which I assume you do not believe, but contend man still has "some" ability. But from the C- perspective (and from Scripture) man does not have the "any ability" to chose God, UNTIL God chooses him. To affirm that he does makes salvation a "work," to which God then would not be the author of salvation. C- does not do away with choice, it just looks at choice in a different time-line and degree than A- C- Sees God enabling man (making him alive) so then he will irresistibly chose what he could not see in the past---As per my example in the Sovereignty and Free-Will thread. After salvation C- sees man having a freer choice (one with light), but still not as free as A- asserts: 1 Thess 2:18 .....there are still hindrances to our will after salvation as well....can we chose when Christ is coming again..... Some desire this or that and never attain this or that, because God says your thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are your ways my ways......and God controls the elements, the circumstances, the conversations, the issues, "all" without exception, to accomplish His direction in "each life" (not just the saved) so His will, will be carried out in its entirety—it is His universe! He may do this both directly and indirectly and without sin. ...”Everything” affects “Everything” else and if God is not sovereign in “all, without exception”, than He can not be God, for “Something” would not be under His immediate and direct control and thus “Everything” from that point would change “Everything” else. Simply if it were not for the sovereignty of God in life then the dead could never chose God—one logically comes before the other. Lazarus came forth when his name (very specific) was called (he came to life and then came forth and then was loosed…), not before because he was dead…..Lydia did not chose first, but God opened her heart…… (Acts 16)……(Acts 26:18, John 12:37-41, et. al. ) Simply, if you attempt to isolate the Sovereignty of God from the Depravity of man you will end in error when it comes to the theology of the atonement. |
||||||
38 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | JRdoc | 61538 | ||
1. YOU SAID: “Dear John, “ John did not write this! -JRdoc, unless of course this is my good-bye letter to be kept from the forum… 2. YOU SAID: “that actually deal specifiically with the sovereignity of God WITHIN the Arminian perspective”….” That is not an idea held WITHIN the Arminian perspective.” So I cannot look at Scripture to assert the truth. The Arminian perspective is a philosophy. You can not begin with a false premise (philosophy) and end up with truth! Begin with a Scripture and lets examine that, but this “from the Arminian perspective” business, just because you assert it does not make it truth. State a specific Scripture. Let us look at the Greek or Hebrew. Let us discuss the Word of God and not a slide or the Dollar Store—though your illustrations were found faulty. 3. YOU SAID: “ Please remember that we are only talking about whether it is possible for God to be soverign in the Arminian perspective, thus it is not helpful to try to convince me to believe in the Calvinist perspective.” It is not possible “for God to be sovereign in the Arminian perspective” and since I cannot use Scripture, it is not possible to state the truth. Arminianism sees man as “partly” sovereign and in turn takes away from God’s total control (sovereignty). Again, I stressed in the original reply that C- does not deny a will, but at a different time and to a different degree than A- 4. YOU SAID: “For instance, in our town their is a store where everything costs 1 dollar. Now a parent could go to that store and lay a dollar bill on the counter and then tell their kid to go pick out any on thing in the store and the money on the counter will pay for it. The kid then actually does have freedom to choose whatever they want, but the parent’s “prophecy” will still come true when they bring it up to be paid for and the dollar bill is already there. This is an example of a time when a subject can be given both the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make a choice while at the same time some future things will not change. Since God is all powerful, couldn’t He do the same thing” A. Yes, he will pick something that costs a dollar, but he would never select that which belongs to God: Rom 3:11 “There is NONE that UNDERSTANDETH, there is NONE that SEEKETH after God.” Or in this case NONE would SELECT God’s merchandise for he would not have a will to this disposition. The God of this world has blinded him so he could not see to make that selection.—SCRIPTURE!—2 Cor 4:4. B. Again, you assume the child is spiritually alive to make this choice when the Scripture affirms he is dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1). He is dead he can not see or even walk to God’s shelf. C. You are assuming God is parent that only offers a “chance” at salvation and are making the offer a smorgasbord (The Dollar Store). The Scripture says: John 6: 40 And THIS IS THE WILL OF HIM that sent me, THAT EVERY ONE WHICH SEETH the Son, and BELIEVETH ON HIM [a gift], MAY [without a doubt, not just a chance] have everlasting life: and I WILL [without a doubt, not just a chance] raise him up at the last day. (chapter 17 of John has several other illustrations, et. al.). Jesus went after the 1 lost sheep (not goat), salvation is more than a “possibility,” it is God’s eternal “promise” to His elect. D. You fail to understand the “foreknowledge “ of God—meaning relational-ship knowledge (Gen 4:1; Rom 8—pro-ginosoko, yada). God has a relational-ship knowledge with His elect from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1) and has elected, predestined His choice (Rom 9). 5. YOU SAID: “Couldn’t He create a universe where humans have the FREEDOM and ABILITY to choose whether to love God or not, yet at the same time be able to determine several critical points along the way (including the end of time)? And if God had the ability to, at any point, take back over and dictate everything, then wouldn’t He still be completely in control? See you changed the sovereignty of God when you said “several critical points”, but not “all points—and all are critical” so you are asserting that God is only partly sovereign? The only way Arminianism may come close to proving its point is not to look at the Scripture. 6. YOU SAID: “Just because God chooses not to excersize His abilitiy to dictate everything, does that make Him cease to be supremely powerful?” Yes it does. Dan 4: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and HE DOETH ACCORDING TO HIS WILL in the army of heaven, and AMONG THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH: and NONE CAN STAY HIS HAND, or say unto him, What doest thou? |
||||||
39 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | JRdoc | 61554 | ||
Hank YOU SAID:"The Arminian perspective is a philosophy, is it? So what, pray tell, is Calvinism, the inerrant voice of God? --Hank" Man this place a time with "context." I was using the term "philosophy" in the "context" that we should not begin with a premise of human thought (i.e. "the Arminian perspective" the term used by its original poster), but Scripture (God's thought) and from that see the "Theology of God" and not the "Philosophy of Man." Please re-read the "context." Hank: One cannot begin the study of God's word from preconceived thoughts but only line upon line precept upon precept, from the Scripture itself. If you think Arminianism is more than philosophy, prove it. State a Scripture. Give your interpretation from the original language and lets go.....you choose... |
||||||
40 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | JRdoc | 61575 | ||
1. I did not bring up the initial post--I did not bring up the issue. 2. According to Sir Pent he does not wish anyone with leanings other than his own to post anything on this forum. I guess he is the boss. Thus, I will take my leave. 3. I have to get back and prepare for some other sermons, lectures, and other church related matters anyway. 4. Please pray tell us all what your views are on the 5 points of Arminianism or Calvinism. How do You explain it? I am sure JohnReformed and others will respond to your interpretation of the test. Do you know the 5 points of Arminianism? Explain them and defend them or refute them, what is your interpretation? What does Hankology say? Hopefully I will be able to return at a later date. It will be interesting to read your replies. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |