Results 241 - 260 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Thank you Morant61 | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102018 | ||
Greetings Truthisthelight! If your son is indeed mixed up with the Nuwaubians, he may need help soon. They appear to be one of those cults which could be dangerous. Here is a link to read more about them: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n02.html We will be praying with you my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
242 | Does God say that He'll end Hell? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102028 | ||
Greetings GZwee! Misinterpreted! :-) Scripture is quite clear that the punishment of hell is eternal. For instance, Mt. 25:46 makes a direct comparison between the life that believers receive and the punishment that unbelievers receive. Both are said to be eternal: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Further, Rev. 14:11 describes an eternal torment for those in hell - without rest or respite: "And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
243 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102075 | ||
Greetings Makarios! One day, we could very well meet! I get up to your part of Indiana every now and then! :-) Actually, I'm not in favor of retaining the word apostle for today. I was simply trying to show that there seemed to be two uses of the term. The first, refering only to the 12 plus Paul. This usage in no way could be said to exist today. The second usage being simply 'one sent' from a local church with a mission. In this sense, it COULD be used today, but I see no need for it. :-) We have other more specific terms which suffice. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
244 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102136 | ||
Greetings John! Scripture is clear that God's nature never changes. However, His interactions with man do seem to change. There are only two ways to explain passages like Amos 7:6 (that I can think of). Either, God never really changed His mind, and Scripture lied. Or, at least some of God's interactions with man are conditional and dependent upon our responses to Him. An excellent example of this conditional relationship is explained by God Himself in Jer. 18:5-10: "5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?' declares the LORD. 'Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.'" Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
245 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102151 | ||
Greetings John! We agree that God is not surprised by anything. :-) But, if we start making words not mean what they mean, then language becomes meaningless. :-) For instance, in the Jer. 18 passage. God doesn't say, if a nation repents, I will go ahead and do what I planned all along anyway. God says, "...then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." I note two things in this passage. One that God does in fact change his intention. The word 'relent' is the word 'repent'. Secondly, that the judgement was not hypothetical, but God had 'planned' it. Where I think Packer is wrong in connection with this passage is that many of God's plans are conditional. When God gives options, then God's plan is flexible, not set in stone (at least from our temporal perspective). But, I don't see any justification for making the clear statements that God changed His plan mean something other than what they say. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
246 | Please I'm looking for your opinion! | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102152 | ||
Greetings Radioman2! I would agree that prayer does not change God's nature. However, there are cases in the Bible where prayer changed God's plans. Consider Nineveh! John 3:4 tells us of God's plan for Niveveh - 'Forty more days and Niveveh will be overturned'. The people heard the message, repented, and prayed to God. John 3:10 tells us that God responded to their repentance by not doing what He had said He was going to do. Now, what would have happended had the citizens of Niveveh not prayed? According to the Lord's message, they would have been destroyed. So, even though God's nature is immutable, His interaction with us is not. In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were made. Now, they aren't because Christ is our sacrifice. That is a change in relationship. In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit came upon people for certain tasks at certain time, but now He dwells within His people. That is a change in relationship. But, I would agree that prayer does not change God. It certainly changes us, and it can change circumstances as well. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
247 | Please I'm looking for your opinion! | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102156 | ||
Greetings EdB! Your entire post was excellent, but one comment really stood out for me. You wrote: "Immutable does not mean you never react it mean's you always react the same way." This statement describes precisely what God was saying in Mal. 3:6. Israel had been unfaithful to their covenant with God and it was only because God never changes (the way He acts or re-acts) that they had not been destroyed. In other words, to borrow Paul's terminology, 'though they had been unfaithful, God was faithful'. Excellent post! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
248 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102160 | ||
Greetings John! No, for one simple reason: It would make God a liar. God Himself said that He relented. There are a number of times where God is said to have relented. Ex. 23:14 - "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened." Ps. 106:45 - "for their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he relented." Jer. 18:8 - " and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." Jer. 26:3 - "Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done." Jer. 26:13 - "Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God. Then the LORD will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you." Jer. 26:19 - "‘Did Hezekiah king of Judah or anyone else in Judah put him to death? Did not Hezekiah fear the LORD and seek his favor? And did not the LORD relent, so that he did not bring the disaster he pronounced against them? We are about to bring a terrible disaster on ourselves!" Joel 2:13 - "Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity." Amos 7:3 - "So the LORD relented. 'This will not happen,' the LORD said." Amos 7:6 - "So the LORD relented. 'This will not happen either,' the Sovereign LORD said." John 3:9 - "Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish." John 4:2 - "He prayed to the LORD, 'O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." Any theological statements we devise, must deal with these very clear statements of fact. Where we differ on this is that I see two kinds of plans of God. One which is unconditional and one which is conditional. The unconditionals plans are layed out from eternity and nothing we do or say can change them. However, there are also conditional plans which are impacted by our choices. These are the kinds of plans reflected in the verses above. God said He would do one thing. The people responded by repenting. God then relented in respose to their repentence. But, we can't simply take these statements and say that they don't really mean that God relented. :-) Or, do you believe that God lied when He said that He was going to destroy Niveveh in 40 days? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
249 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102189 | ||
Greetings John! A couple of small, quick corrections before I address Packer's quote. First of all, I never used the word 'contingency' plan. I used the word 'conditional'. There is a major difference. Secondly, I never denied God's foreknowledge. Having said that, I still don't agree with Packer on this one. For a very simply reason, it forces us to pick and choose which statements are true and which one's aren't. The same word is used in both Num. 23:19 and Ex. 32:14. Why does it 'really' mean what it says in Num. 23:19, but doesn't 'really' mean what it says in Ex. 32:14? There is a much easier answer than to deny that God actually meant what He said. I ran a word search. Every time God is said 'not to repent', the phrase is used in comination with the word 'lie'. Note: There are verses where He says that He 'will not repent' in a given instance. The verses used with lie are: Num. 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29. Both of these passages are in context where God is stating that He can be trusted to keep a promise. But, there are about 10 verses where God is said to have 'repented'. So, why are the two true, but the ten not? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
250 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102241 | ||
Greetings EdB! I would have to see the entire context of the quote, but I took it as simply another way of saying that God didn't really change His treatment of the people. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
251 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102242 | ||
Greetings Cajam! We are agreed that God Himself doesn't change. However, in the case of Niveveh, His stated actions and intentions did change. He said that He would overthrow them in 40 days. But, when they repented, He changed His intention and did not overthrow them. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
252 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102283 | ||
Greetings John! We weren't discussing the proverbial 'Big Picture'! :-) We were discussing God interactions with man in time. So, in time, when God told Nineveh that He was going to overthrow them in 40 days, was He lying or telling the truth? Did He REALLY intend to overthrown them, or did He just say it? My contention isn't that in the big the picture God didn't know what the outcome would be, but that at the time that God made the statement, He did intend to overthrown Niveveh. However, His intention was conditioned upon their response. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
253 | Please I'm looking for your opinion! | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102303 | ||
Greetings Radioman2! Actually, I have stressed the point many times that man's free will is limited. ;-) For one example, check out post # 69975. The question is: If God allows me to free choose what I what to eat for breakfast, does that make God less sovereign? :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
254 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102353 | ||
Greetings Cajam! Splitting hairs can be fun! Assuming of course, that one has some! :-) There is one problem with your post though my friend. Where was the conditional statement made toward Niveveh? The text does not say, 'If you do not repent, I will destroy you'. Rather, it says, 'In 40 days, Niveveh will be overthrown'. Then, in response to their repentence, Jonah 3:10 says: "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." Now, there are cases where conditional statements are made in Scripture. But, this was not one of them. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
255 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102393 | ||
Greetings John! :-) You wrote: "Therefore, we must take His proclamation, not as a prophecy, but, a warning!" But, what does the verse say? Jonah 3:4 - "...He proclaimed: 'Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.'" I don't see any 'if' in this verse! :-) What was God's intention? Jonah 3:10 - "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." Are we free to take any statement of Scripture that doesn't fit our theology and make it mean something else? You made the statement that God never changes His mind, and I posted about a dozen verses where Scripture says that God did change His mind, not just one! As far as God's foreknowlege goes, I have never denied that God knew what would occur. What I have denied is that God's stated intention was only a ruse designed to get them to repent. He said it, and He meant it. If there were an 'if' in the passage, I could agree with your take on the passage. But, there is no 'if'. If we start taking direct statements of Scripture and dening that they really mean what they say, then were will end up? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
256 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102399 | ||
Greetings John! You wrote: "Dear Tim, "I wish you would drop the arguement that you are correct, and to take a different position one must accept that God is a liar. There are other alternatives!" Two quick points my friend! First of all, if I believe I am correct, why would I assume that I'm not! :-) Secondly, what are the other alternatives? I have said that God meant it when He said He was going to destory Niveveh, you have implied that He did not REALLY mean it. What other alternative is there? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
257 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102434 | ||
Greetings John! You still keep missing my point my friend, and distorting my responses. :-) I never claimed that God received 'new' information, or that God did not know the future, or that God did not know that Nivevites would repent. I definitely am not a believer in 'Open Theism'. But, there isn't much point in continuing this debate, if I have to defend the statement that God repented, when Scripture actually says that God repented! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
258 | PROVE ME: God's challenge to tithers | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102493 | ||
Greetings Khuck! I view the issue much as you do! My family went through some difficult times a few years back. To make a long story short, we were in a situation where we could not tithe. Everytime I tried to budget it in, there just didn't seem to be anyway. I kept praying about it. Finally, about 6 months ago, I was able to start again. Since then, God has really been blessing. We have not only been able to pay our full tithe, but also to give to special needs every week as well. So, I agree with you, tithing is not required, but it sure is a good thing to do! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
259 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102511 | ||
Greetings John! That one is easy my friend! We have a set of about a dozen verses. Two of them say that God does not repent, while ten of them say that He does. We both agree that Scripture does not contradict itself, so there must be some difference between these two sets of Scriptures. As I looked at the verses, it jumped out at me immediately. The two verses which say that He does not repent both pair the phrase with the phrase 'that He should lie'. The context of both concerns our ability to trust God to keep His promises, that He won't change His covenant with us. So, Num. 23:19 is simply saying that God can be trusted to fulfill His promises. What I can't do though is simply throw out the 10 verses which say that He did repent, or to make the work mean something else in these verses! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
260 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102523 | ||
Greetings John! The more we discuss this topic, the more I question the traditional understanding of immutability. If this term means what you have been saying, then all of the references to God's change of mind, emotions, reactions, are all fraudulent. How many times does Scripture speak of God being 'moved with compassion'? But, He couldn't really be moved! How many times does Scripture speak of God being grieved or angry? But, He couldn't really be either of these. It seems to me that our theology must do a better job of dealing with clear statements of Scripture, and not simply sweeping them under the rug as only 'apparent' and not actual. In fact, if I were to take that approach in my debates with you, you would rightly come down on my head about it. For instance, if I were to say, "God is not really Sovereign. The text is just using that word to help us understand what God is like, but it doesn't really mean that He is actually Sovereign", what would you say to me? :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [339] >> |