Results 41 - 60 of 86
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: JRdoc Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:1 | JRdoc | 61346 | ||
YOU SAID: I am wondering if a Calvinist could explain to me why God, if all things are ordained by him, would judge people? what I mean is, if God made us all, and God chose everything we would do, why did he give us the 'illusion' of freewill, and why would he judge us for things he made us do? 1. Because HE is God and does as He does as He desires in all the earth (1 Chron 16:14; Psa 105:7; Dan 4:35). 2. For it is the “good pleasure of His will” and for His own glory (Eph 1:4-5, 9-12) 3. Time does not permit me to answer in full, but, May “God” ask you from His Word, “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: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Rom 9) Your error is that you THINK that everyone is DESERVING of salvation when NONE are. No one is worthy, No one is deserving. No one deserves salvation. Everyone is worthy of eternal death and hell. Everyone has nothing worthy of God’s affection, “but God commendeth his love toward US, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for US.” It is a gift. Gifts are given to whom a person wills to give them. God chose to give the gift of salvation to those He elected. It is not our fault that God chose us, but praise God He did! Who are you to reply against God and His design for the universe that He created? ---- YOU SAID: “I can understand it if I except God delegates Authority to man so that we may choose to love him, then I can see why all the suffering and death and pain are worth it to God, because some will "choose" to love him, But if in the end we cannot choose, why did he not simply make us perfect in the first place?” When God created man—Adam—He was perfect? It is not His fault YOU fell. At least that is what my Bible says, does an Arminian Bible really say that God created man imperfect? ---- YOU SAID: “God is outside of time, so to me words like foreordained, and foreknew, are meaningless in the context of God himself, though they obviously have meaning to man.” Well this is an amazing statement and I guess you do have a different version of the Bible. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If words like “foreordained, and foreknew, are meaningless in the context of God himself” then why is HE so insistent in affirming IT IS HIS WORD? His WORD is TRUTH and THE TRUTH that defeats Arminianism and THE TRUTH that will set an Arminian free from his works righteousness religion and philosophy of God. -- Refer to a Scripture and lets debate that, but this philosophy and denying the Scripture to be able to make your point is pointless. |
||||||
42 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61385 | ||
Well, praise God we landed. I will need to make this 2 posts because of length. Now to the question: New Creature wrote: “Many will actually argue that they do not personally have a free will to choose anything…” Calvinists here to my knowledge are not arguing that man has no-will at all. Calvinists do not assert that God forces HIS will on any except to set him free from the slavery of sin that he is in which slavery is “death”. Do dead people raise themselves from death (Rom 6:4-5). The example I posted was VERY CLEAR on this issue (see ‘initial’ post Sovereignty and Free-Will). What the issue is – Is not is man has a will, but when is it used in the process of salvation. An easy way to look at this is how much does a child contribute to his own personal birth. The Mother and Father conceive a child and at an appointed time the child comes forth. In normal child birth the child contributes nothing to its conception and delivery. After it is born the Physician pats it to make it cry (confession—there is you activity, but not before). Amazing things about babies, they do not open their eyes until after they are delivered from the womb and initially they see everything upside down because the muscles in their eyes have not yet matured to the point of normal eye-site (the condition of saved Arminians—they still, because of immaturity in the Word of God look at everything from their perspective—upside down--and not in the normalcy of God’s ways and thoughts—Scripture). The normal process of salvation is as such: 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 --- YOU SAY: “Without free will, many of Bible statements make no sense: 1. "Why do you call me Lord and don't do what I say" Luke 6:46 Why? God willed it that way! 2. "Whosoever believes shall be saved" John 3:16 (Not whosoever God makes a believer) 3. "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Rev. 22:17 4. John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 5. Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Again, in “your examples” you assume free-will to be much more than what is taught in Scripture. 1. Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. 46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? You and others continue to insist to take verses out of context to prove your philosophy? You quote vs. 46. Where does it say that the individual CHOSE WHAT TYPE OF HEART HE HAD? (vs 45) The heart is what is given and Christ is explaining what comes out of each type! |
||||||
43 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61386 | ||
2. John 3: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. If NASA said tomorrow whosever goes to the moon will…….it would not imply that ALL could go to the moon, but those that are trained…astronauts. Here the words of Scripture are very clear and they are limited to “whosoever believeth in him,” limiting the term “whosoever.” John insures you understand this by saying that the others are “condemned already” vs 18. 3. Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. It is absolutely amazing how you only quote “part” of the verse and leave the rest out. Let him that heareth—not everyone has “spiritual ears” to hear because they have not been transformed by grace. But the announcement is only to these that HEARETH to “take the water of life freely” for it will only be these that “athirst” for they desire to be in the presence of whom John early called: “living water” (John 4:10). 1 Cor 3:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 4. John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. Yep, they will not! They are dead in trespasses and sins how can they come. Dead men do not come! If you will look at the Scriptures again surrounding the text you will see vs 39 stating they did not understand the Scriptures—compare with 1 Cor 3:14 above… 5. Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And Rom. 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Yes, and “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? (Rom 10:14, the very next verse again). NOTICE that the CALL comes after the BELIEF and the BELIEF comes AFTER the HEARING, but they are deaf and dumb (spiritually dead in trespasses and sins) thus until God changes them they will not hear or call or believe. This is so easy if you will just look at the total context instead of stealing parts of verses or phrases. --- YOU SAID: "….Why doesn’t God just make me good? The answer is: that wouldn’t be goodness, it would be slavery. And God isn’t interested in slaves but in sons and daughters. God will not overpower us into goodness…” Your philosophy is interesting but not biblical. (1) you are blaming God for not making you good (for you are evil—all are), thus accusing God of sin (2) the Bible does speak of you being a slave to sin (Rom 6) (3) Yes, God is interested in His sons and daughters—limited (4) and He must break the sons and daughter free from their slavery—whom the Son sets free…..he is free indeed, not whom the Son gives a will to, to set himself free (John 1:13, et. al.)! --- YOU SAY: "How can man be held accountable to God for his actions in judgment without freewill? Do those who die unbelivers get judged for something that they could not be responsible for? What kind of God would judge someone for his or her inability?"(unknown source) Men are judged for their sin—All have sinned! Men have a will and sin of their own volition. Without God’s call, election, grace, justification, atonement (etc) men will continue to sin and will be held accountable for the same. God is not holding them accountable for their inability to accept Him, but for their sin and in this sin they can not accept Him, unless and until He changes them! --- YOU SAY: "What then, you ask, does free will do? Free-will in your interpretation does one thing confuse and abuse the Scripture. God chose to save the way He did to fulfill His divine purposes. Your argument is not with us, but Him. Rom 9: 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) |
||||||
44 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61463 | ||
All have sinned! Men have a will and sin of their own volition. Without God’s call, election, grace, justification, atonement (etc) men will continue to sin and will be held accountable for the same, for it has not been forgien. YES, Christians still sin. When the return of the Lord does come His elect will rise and be with Him forever all sin having been taken care of--Justification. Sanctification is complete--Glorification. Crowns shall be given. Some rewards will be lost. Now if you desire an complete exposition on The Revelation and how the process of the judgment and all will take place that will take several posts and more time than I have to devote. |
||||||
45 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61473 | ||
Generally when one speaks of Calvinism or Arminianism they speak of the 5 points. They use the term generally to refer to the 5 points. I do not use the term as such and rather prefer the term Reformed Theology for a number of reasons: 1. Through Calvin was a very able theologian, he was not 100 percent correct in everything he asserted. By this I mean no disrespect to him or his theology...some of it was plainly Catholic, but considering what he came from and what battles were brewing he was the man for the time--as God well knew. 2. Calvinism when rightly understood is much more than 5 points. Thus, I like Reformed Theology as its gives a "broader" more accurate definition of a whole system of theology. 3. I do not call 1-4 point Calvinists actual Calvinists, but Arminians with some Calvinist leanings (some call them pre-cals or Armcals). The whole Bible is One Systematic Theology that agrees within and of itself when correctly understood. It is commonly known and easily proven that if one point of Calvinism is incorrect then the whole system would indeed fall. Of course it is not incorrect and thus stands as the proper interpretation of the inerrant Word of God. 4. Hyper Calvinists are in as much error as Arminians. Though you say God's Word is your final authority you still need to interpret and it will be interpreted within one of the two systems (if looked at broadly). Of course you have those that re-write the whole of the text--Mormons, J.W..........and they are lost. |
||||||
46 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61477 | ||
YOU SAID: “...both sides are 'defending' their position for the 'faith', when in reality they are defending their belief frantically (I speak of both sides) because they feel that if they are incorrect, they are somehow 'bad'. “ It is not that we think that it is “bad” but that it is incorrect. The Scripture tells us to “earnestly contend” for the faith. It tells us to preach the truth. Thus this is not a “frantic” effort, but based on what we should be doing. 2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. -- YOU SAID: “An Arminian or a Calvanist will look at one another and think, if I believed what THEY believed I know how I would act, so how can their beliefs not negatively affect their walk? We defend our beliefs because if, God forbid, the other person is right, where does that leave us?” I find it amazing that you can condemn, judge, and be critical of doctrines (though you are nice about it) before you study them and are able to rightly define the “error” (if any) in them. The Bible says to judge righteous judgment. This cannot be done without a proper assessment of the facts. I began as a pastor and that being an Arminian. I attended Arminian schools and graduated with honors from their institutions. But, when I studied the languages, history, and the complete text in context…. I came to the understanding of the Reformed faith. Then I went back to one of the Reformed schools. I will always be learning, but this one thing I know—the Reformed faith is correct in their assessment of the atonement. Every other system falls apart when taken in its complete form. See anyone can defend “something” as long as you do not progress into other areas, but once you do that, “something” will begin to take on a new face. I can make a study of car engines…and assert, assert, assert everything about them, but I can not get the automobile to go without the rest of the parts. Theology must be taken as a whole and not just in parts and this is where you will see the truth which will set you free (the whole)—continuously. Purchase a systematic theology go through it and see if you can discern truth from error and overcome their objections: Berkhof’s Systematic is good or Gerstner Theology in Dialogue has a different and interesting approach you may enjoy. --- YOU QUOTED: “Truth is not the sum total of all true things, it is a person.“ I agree the Bible is about THE person, but it is also about how He revealed Himself and desires Himself to be understood—theology. ---- YOU SAID: “Jesus says that he is the truth, and the truth will set you free.” True, but theology explains how this is done. Will or does a new convert need to know “all” this…of course not. Salvation is by grace alone. But one should grow and mature in the faith and keep what is rightly divided from the text….. Many today are given a “false” sense of assurance because another Jesus is being preached…. --- YOU SAID: “Not, it should be pointed out, our relative understanding of the truth, yet this is how we behave. If the 'truth' of Arminianism or Calvanism means we usurp another truth, that we are undivided in Christ, then what value is it? And yet, being human, we allow it to divid us, resulting in many denominations and arguments. I am not saying it is wrong to discuss things, or that some beliefs are clearly incorrect, I am just suggesting that our motivation for argument is a little different than we think.” I agree that we should behave correctly. We should also be able to take jokes and such. I guess I spent too long on debate teams, but we threw jokes back and forth all the time—clean ones, theological ones, not meaning any harm, just in fun mind you. So occasionally I let a joke or a comment fly, again not meaning ill harm (and I pray those here are mature enough in their faith to take a joke). But, I also believe in attacking “false” and “inconsistent” theology. Mind you the “theology” and not the “person.” We should be mature enough to understand that as well—think of Paul and the Church of Corinth, if ever one needed correcting, he corrected it, and he used love, sarcasm, and doctrine to do it. Yes, sarcasm (read 1 Cor 4:9; 6:7; 7:39; 9:7; 14:6, et. al.). There is ONLY ONE complete truth of all Scripture. Everyone claims to have, but no one understands it all. There will always be different denomination upon this earth. God saves in-spite of our “sin.” Though I would say to treat all in love and respect I would never say to embrace that which is false—for that is not true love or respect for God and His Word or others. |
||||||
47 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61491 | ||
There are several views on the Second Coming of Christ. The details on such a thread would need to be handled chapter by chapter (of the Book of Revelation). You would get interpretation after interpretation. I am willing, but it would need to be regulated (one week on chapter 1, one week on chapter 2, or something similar.....to give everyone an opportunity to post...) Though I "know" there are differences on this issue it should not separate unity--this is not an atonement or other issue of such mammoth importance to one's eternity....(please do not think it is not important, I do not think that...and Christ even adds a very severe warning to those whom He knows will attempt to pervert the book). I merely mean that if one is not saved, his view on the Second Coming does not matter, either way he is going some place else, of course than he would understand a little more about the time of his going. In essence I am not dogmatic about this issue--of time, though I do have an opinion backed up from the original language, history, ....... Certain things that one should keep in mind about the Revelation: 1. Every "credible (that holds some credence that is--only one is really legitimate) view" holds that Christ is Coming Again--We All Agree. This is pivotal. This is the Revelation--He is Coming. 2. Now as to when, there is the problem. I would guess from the other posts I have seen here that most here are pre-trib...there may be a couple of Post Tribs and I know there is at least one A-Mil (myself). The whole of when Christ is coming back revolves around Revelation 20 and one's interpretation thereof. Once done the interpretation of Revelation unfolds beautifully. Another study I would urge one to take is on the origins of dispensationalism (Scofield)--tracing its history through automatic handwriting (yes, cultic), the return of the Tongues movement, Lewis Way of the "London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews", its doctrine manifested by a Chilean Jesuit (The Coming of Christ in Glory and Majesty (ca. 1791)), Henry Drummond, Edward Irving, and the list goes on. Tracing its history you wonder how any Christian could ever hold to it? If you and others desire to begin a thread on Rev we can go Chapter by Chapter. ANyone for a Rev THread? Start it. |
||||||
48 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61624 | ||
Hi Justme: Well I noticed I was not kicked off…some strange rules here. I am still learning this place. You will find the answers to these questions here: http://members.aol.com/twarren10/eschatology.html |
||||||
49 | is it a sin for soldiers | Rom 13:1 | JRdoc | 61408 | ||
No, generally not, if the right “motivation” “Heart” and so forth is present. But if you desire to go to war to just kill, kill, kill, that is kind of obvious. Paul writes of “governmental powers” : Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. The state’s authority is for society’s benefit; this is its normal function, and Paul assumes it may be realized in practical terms even when governments are professedly non-Christian. The power of life and death. Capital punishment is undoubtedly in view. Elsewhere Paul accepts the principle of such punishment where appropriate (Acts 25:11). What the individual must not do out of a motive of revenge (12:19), the state may legitimately do in the pursuit of justice. New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (Ro 13:4). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. |
||||||
50 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | JRdoc | 61391 | ||
Dear Hank I did not know that Calvinists were not allowed here. I thought it was a place for all Christians. Sorry if I mis-understood the conditions for coming here. I do apologize for any hard aches I have caused you. I just desire to- Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course if that is not allowed here than of course I will not violate my privilege of posting. The way I see it if you do not desire to speak about Calvinism all you have to do is not answer any of the posts. That seems to be the simplest solution instead of using attacking statements like the ones "you" posted (you said- nuisance, hard-core soap boxers, et. al.) and yet assert "gentlemanly fashion with kindness and regard for your peers on the forum." I know have not read all the posts and there are probably some that are…bad….but I can only judge what I have seen and read thus far. In actuality when I came here.. one of my very "first posts" was in REPLY to what someone in the ARMINIAN camp mis-stated--and thus began the, “The Sovereignty and Free-will" thread! I replied and have been replying ever since! But, I have replied to other threads as well. How is one to learn if he may not hear and see and how will they without God's "sent ones"? |
||||||
51 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | JRdoc | 61412 | ||
Thanks for the clarification. When one is of a "theological system" (which all are) it would seem hard to comment on certain issues without getting into debates. I do agree that one should not be combative and use demeaning language but assert the text (the whole texts) in their arguments. I guess even the best of us allow personality to get in the way at times. I am guilty of that I am sure and as I stated before I apologize for any misunderstanding on my behalf. But I can not apologize for the "content" of my posts for I can not apologize for what the Scripture emphatically states to the glory of God alone. No offense was taken here and I pray none was received. I must admit though I was a little bothered by Hanks "tone" of his post, but he has probably seen and heard moe than I have here and thus just weary...as his post did indicate. May God Bless the Truth. |
||||||
52 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | JRdoc | 61418 | ||
Hank Well, your initial post bothered me somewhat because of its tone. You were doing the criticizing. To someone new like me I did not understand “why.” I could understand some of your concern, but not the tone –the wording. Next, how are we to assert what we believe without theology? Though I may be Reformed Baptist I have several friends in several denominations that are Christians as well. I do not always agree with them, but we do discuss theology and in the discourse I change my approaches and either re-affirm my belief or I change because the argument presented, if it cannot be biblically refuted. They do the same. Thus both grow in some form. How can you have a conversation about any issue in Scripture without “your” theology being involved to some measure—you can’t! I do agree that one must use grace in his speech—posts— and such and since I am new here and have not seen hardly any of the posts, so I can not comment on them. If people are abusing that then Calvinist/Arminian/Dispensationalist/……are wrong and need to apologize to one another. This is biblical (Mat 18). But this is far different than refraining from “any” theological discussion on Reformed or Arminian theology or others “ologies’ and ‘isms’ that I have seen here. I hope we can meet each other and discuss “all” issues of theology in the way that God intended. 2 Tim 4: 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. |
||||||
53 | How is the tongues speaker edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | JRdoc | 61235 | ||
If you do a study of tongues (pl) in 1 Cor 14 you will see two types mentioned. While in the singular (unknown tongue) they refer to the counterfeit gift (exception of verse 27, I believe) when in the plural (tongues) the genuine gift. Do a study on Corinth's history and you will discover that the counterfeit gift is not of God--you may trace their history from the Tower of Babel forward. They are gibberish, meaningless for edification in the Church. The original gift has passed away but always (1) had a interpreter (2) others could already understand their own language being spoken (compare with initial outpouring in Acts). Notice one of the major purposes of the gift of TONGUES (pl) was for unbelieving Jews (1 Cor 14...in the law it is written), since Judaism passed away as a valid religion with the destruction of the Temple --70 AD, Judaism in essence can no longer exist in its true O.T. form. If you get into the Greek text of the end of 1 Cor 13 you will also see that tongues (pl-genuine) had a built in stopping place. Now to your question I know of no Scripture reference that tells us to speak to God in any unknown language (whether then, and of course now since they have passed away)? Experience does not dictate whether tongues still exist, only the Word of God may be our reference and the evidence of cessation is clearly seen throughout. A good book on this is Charismatic CHaos by John MacArthur |
||||||
54 | Is the Prayer edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | JRdoc | 61395 | ||
Are we in the same danger today with the emphasis on signs and wonders but no righteousness. Is God impressed with us doing mighty works? I like what you said there. I believe we are in much danger. You said it correctly “US doing mighty works” and not Him doing the works. I am fearful that not only in the Pentecostal and Holiness movements but in all out churches we are seeing a drawing away to the ways of man vs. the ways of God. I am from the Reformed camp and even within our ranks I see a separation from the truth into many “philosophies that are not biblical. Of course our Lord told us that these days would come. May God Bless as we seek to follow His will and do His bidding. |
||||||
55 | How is the tongues speaker edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | JRdoc | 61399 | ||
Steve: I am on the road so I will post real quick some brief histroy and then in part 2 post part of MacArthur's Commentary, who does an excellent job... The Tower of Babel was man’s first sophisticated, organized counterfeit of true religion (Gen. 11:9). This tower was built to God, and Nimrod was the patriarchal apostate who set it all up. He was the grandson of Ham, who was the son of Noah. They established a false system of religion as a counterfeit to the truth. Every false system since then was spawned out of that. Why? When God judged those people He scattered them all over the world and they took with them the seeds of false religion begun at Babel. They adapted it, altered it, sophisticated it even more, changed it here and there, and added to it so that it became complex in various cultures. But the seeds of it all were at Babel, and that is why Mystery Babylon is called the mother of all false systems. Nimrod spawned a network of false religious systems. That is why there is so much similarity in these false systems around the world. Nimrod had a wife—a very evil person. Her name was Semiramis I. She was the first high priestess of the Tower of Babel religion. She founded what is known today as the mystery religions. She was the mother of it all. Now, when God scattered these people, they took with them Semiramis’s system. God not only scattered them, but He changed their languages. So, she received different names because different cultures have different languages, and that means different pronunciations. So, in Assyria she was called Ishtar, in Phoenicia her name was Ashtoreth, in Egypt her name was Isis, in Greece her name was Aphrodite, and in Rome her name was Venus. They are all names for Semiramis. They were worshiping Semiramis, the priestess that spawned false religion. Tammuz Semiramis also gave birth to a son. His name was Tammuz. His name appears in the Bible in Ezekiel 8:14. In Phoenicia his name was Baal, in Egypt his name was Osiris, in Greece his name was Eros, and in Rome his name was cute, little, lovable Cupid. She said that he was conceived by a sunbeam. That is a counterfeit to the virgin birth. Supposedly he had no earthly father. Satan understood Genesis 3:15; he knew there would be a seed of a woman. Then, amazingly enough, Tammuz was killed by a wild boar and forty days later rose from the dead—another counterfeit. Those in Greece would have known about this system of religion. They would have been worshiping the same system with some sophistication. They had all kinds of sophisticated rites and rituals. For example, they believed in: (a) Baptismal regeneration—They believed that people were saved by being baptized in water, so they had systematic baptisms. (b) Sacrificial systems—They mainly slaughtered pigs, lambs, dogs, and birds. (c) Feasts and fasts (d) Mutilations and flagellations—These came from the mystery system. (e) ecstasy There was one thing that was characteristic about the mystery religions that found their way into Greece—they indulged in what they called ecstasy. Ecstasy is not what you feel when you kiss your girl friend. The word is ecstasis in the Greek and means to “cultivate a magical, sensuous communion with deity.” In other words, they would do anything they could to get themselves into a semiconscious, hallucinatory, hypnotic spell in order to sensually commune with their deity and have a euphoric feeling. They assumed that this was a union with God. Ecstasy and enthusiasm made up the system of religion in which the Corinthians had lived and grown. When they became believers they stayed the same because they were not spiritual but carnal. They manifested the same type of religious behavior as they had every other dimension of the world by dragging this into their assembly. Their kind of religion was ecstatic, orgiastic frenzy. It was chaotic and confusing. Paul said, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). In addition, he said, “Let all things be done unto edifying” |
||||||
56 | How is the tongues speaker edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | JRdoc | 61401 | ||
The terms lalein glossei/glossais (to speak in a tongue/in tongues) that Paul uses so frequently in chapter 14 were commonly used in his day to describe pagan ecstatic speech. In the church at Corinth much of the tongues–speaking had taken on the form and flavor of those pagan ecstasies. Emotionalism all but neutralized their rational senses, and selfish exhibitionism was common, with everyone wanting to do and say his own thing at the same time (v. 26). Services were bedlam and chaos, with little worship and little edification taking place. It is an interpretive key to this chapter to note that in verses 2 and 4 tongue is singular (cf. vv. 13, 14, 19, 27), whereas in verse 5 Paul uses the plural tongues (cf. vv. 6, 18, 22, 23, 39). Apparently the apostle used the singular form to indicate the counterfeited gift and the plural to indicate the true. Recognizing that distinction may be the reason the King James translators supplied unknown before the singular. The singular is used of the false because gibberish is singular; it cannot be gibberishes. There are no kinds of pagan ecstatic speech; there are, however, kinds of languages in the true gift, for which the plural tongues is used. The only exception is in v. 27, where the singular is used to refer to a single man speaking a single genuine language. MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes. (1 Co 14:6). Chicago: Moody Press. |
||||||
57 | Ephesians | Eph 1:1 | JRdoc | 61128 | ||
The letter probably had a broader audience than Ephesus alone. Some of the oldest Greek manuscripts do not include “in Ephesus” in the address of the letter (1:1), reading instead: “to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus.” Several early Christian writers seem unaware of a specifically Ephesian address. The letter lacks the personal references and greetings Paul almost always includes in his correspondence. At the same time, no manuscripts name any other city as the address of the epistle. Many scholars believe Ephesians was written as a general letter to a number of churches in the region. This would be in keeping with the sweeping contents of the letter as a whole. It is likely that Paul originally sent the letter to Ephesus, but as the letter was sent from church to church the address was omitted because the contents had little to do with Ephesus in particular. Or it may be that the letter was originally in two forms, one for the Ephesians and one for general circulation. Characteristics and Themes Like the letter to the Romans, Ephesians provides a special view into Paul’s thought, since he had the luxury of addressing an important issue without the distraction of having to settle a local controversy. The focus of Ephesians is the mystery of the church. The church is God’s new humanity, a colony where the Lord of history has established a foretaste of the renewed unity and dignity of the human race (1:10–14; 2:11–22; 3:6, 9–11; 4:1–6:9). New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (Eph 1:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. |
||||||
58 | christ has many wives | Eph 5:1 | JRdoc | 61531 | ||
YOU SAID: “If there is one spirit why is there so many interpretation on the Word of God; and why is there so many denominations. “ You are assuming they are all interpreting the Scripture from the viewpoint of the Word of God and His Spirit. Trace the history of the churches, denominations and such and you will be very surprised how many “false theologies” did not find their beginning in the text of Scripture, but in a cult…….i.e. the unknown tongue of 1 Cor 14 may be traced back to the Tower of Babel (see thread on this) dispensationalism may be traced back to the Tongues movement and automatic handwriting….and the list goes on…. There is a difference between exegesis (rightly dividing the Word of God) and “I”sogesis (assuming your mind and thoughts upon the text). YOU SAID “Wouln't that mean that christ is a polygamist if he embraced all of them churches. Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wive............(read)not plural. I only have one wife. Christs has many wives(churches) is that possible.” There is only ONE true CHURCH and not many churches. Christ’s true CHURCH (sing) is in many churches (Pl). No one denomination has “all” the saved without exception in it (there are tares among the wheat in every church…..and here I speak of evangelical churches not the cults...). There is one bride and One Lord, Christ died for His Church and nothing more and it is The Church that will rise to be with Him in the end…… |
||||||
59 | there's many denomination yet 1 spirit | Eph 5:1 | JRdoc | 61533 | ||
P.S. You posted this twice? YOU SAID: “If there is one spirit why is there so many interpretation on the Word of God; and why is there so many denominations. “ You are assuming they are all interpreting the Scripture from the viewpoint of the Word of God and His Spirit. Trace the history of the churches, denominations and such and you will be very surprised how many “false theologies” did not find their beginning in the text of Scripture, but in a cult…….i.e. the unknown tongue of 1 Cor 14 may be traced back to the Tower of Babel (see thread on this) dispensationalism may be traced back to the Tongues movement and automatic handwriting….and the list goes on…. There is a difference between exegesis (rightly dividing the Word of God) and “I”sogesis (assuming your mind and thoughts upon the text). YOU SAID “Wouln't that mean that christ is a polygamist if he embraced all of them churches. Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wive............(read)not plural. I only have one wife. Christs has many wives(churches) is that possible.” There is only ONE true CHURCH and not many churches. Christ’s true CHURCH (sing) is in many churches (Pl). No one denomination has “all” the saved without exception in it (there are tares among the wheat in every church…..and here I speak of evangelical churches not the cults...). There is one bride and One Lord, Christ died for His Church and nothing more and it is The Church that will rise to be with Him in the end…… |
||||||
60 | there's many denomination yet 1 spirit | Eph 5:1 | JRdoc | 61561 | ||
Ed.B. YOU SAID: "Where do you get your information? Tongues is from the tower of Babel and dispensationism is from tongues and automatic handwritting (??). That is utter nonsense. Do yourself a favor and don't repeat that." You made statement, but did not support it? PLEASE note I did not say TONGUES (PL)--those were a gift from God and in the Book of Acts and in 1 Cor 14. I did state the "UNKNOWN TONGUE" (Singular--particular vs in 1 Cor 14) which descended down throughout pagan history......and "you" wonder why there is so much diversity among denominations?? You need to take some courses in church history. Apparently from your reply you have not traced any of the doctrines of Scripture in history or more importantly according to the text of Scripture. Read some books: Dispensationalism--RIghtly Dividing the People of God? by Keith Mathison Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by John Gerstner Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Godet, Franz. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. MacArthur, John F., Jr. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians Robertson, Archibald, and A. Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Spiritual Gifts, by John MacArthur. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |