Results 321 - 340 of 701
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61498 | ||
A Different View ......................................... There has been a lot of venting since I posted last regarding the futility and devisiveness of C and A debates on this forum. I agree that these debates can be futile and divisive if the people are just covering the same ground repeatedly (quoting the same verses that each side always quotes, for instance). However, I believe that John Reformed and I are actually covering new ground here. I don’t think that there has been another thread that significantly covers whether it is possible for God to be sovereign from an Arminian perspective. I also think that this is one area where it is actually possible to reach consensus. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but I’d like to at least give it a try. I have enjoyed the discussion so far, and am up for it if you are John Reformed. You gave 3 reasons why God can’t be sovereign from the Arminian perspective. Let’s look at your points in reverse order. ......................................... You said that Scripture speaks throughout of predestination and fore ordination. I fail to see the relevance. I’ll grant that from your perspective those verses say that God excersizes complete control over the salvation of each individual. However, that doesn’t say anything about whether God would still be in control if He chose not to excersize that control at all times. ......................................... You also said that “If even one atom of matter is free from God's absolute control then chaos could result.” I believe that in one since you are correct. If the universe were completely free from God’s control, you would end up with chaos. Coincidentally (?) in science we learn that is exactly what is happening. It is called entropy, and it is the realization that all things are naturally going from a state of order to a state of disorder (just look at a child’s bedroom). However, I would say that God sustains the universe (biblical idea here), and keeps it from falling apart until He is ready for that to happen. I would also say that it is possible to delegate a limited amount of freedom to subjects without creating utter chaos. ......................................... Finally, you also said, “God is sovereign in a way that no mere creature can be described as sovereign.” I agree that God is sovereign beyond any mere creature, but how does that change anything. 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 strenth 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? |
||||||
322 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61497 | ||
Personal Note ..................................... Dear Hank, I understand your frustration, and to some extent share it. That is one reason why I left this forum for a long time. However, I have not completely given up hope. I therefore have resolved to only respond to posts that I actually see potential for progress to be made, and so far this appears to be one. Keep lookin' for those cows :) |
||||||
323 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61495 | ||
A Different View ......................................... There has been a lot of venting since I posted last regarding the futility and devisiveness of C and A debates on this forum. I agree that these debates can be futile and divisive if the people are just covering the same ground repeatedly (quoting the same verses that each side always quotes, for instance). However, I believe that John Reformed and I are actually covering new ground here. I don’t think that there has been another thread that significantly covers whether it is possible for God to be sovereign from an Arminian perspective. I also think that this is one area where it is actually possible to reach consensus. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but I’d like to at least give it a try. I have enjoyed the discussion so far, and am up for it if you are John Reformed. You gave 3 reasons why God can’t be sovereign from the Arminian perspective. Let’s look at your points in reverse order. ......................................... You said that Scripture speaks throughout of predestination and fore ordination. I fail to see the relevance. I’ll grant that from your perspective those verses say that God excersizes complete control over the salvation of each individual. However, that doesn’t say anything about whether God would still be in control if He chose not to excersize that control at all times. ......................................... You also said that “If even one atom of matter is free from God's absolute control then chaos could result.” I believe that in one since you are correct. If the universe were completely free from God’s control, you would end up with chaos. Coincidentally (?) in science we learn that is exactly what is happening. It is called entropy, and it is the realization that all things are naturally going from a state of order to a state of disorder (just look at a child’s bedroom). However, I would say that God sustains the universe (biblical idea here), and keeps it from falling apart until He is ready for that to happen. I would also say that it is possible to delegate a limited amount of freedom to subjects without creating utter chaos. ......................................... Finally, you also said, “God is sovereign in a way that no mere creature can be described as sovereign.” I agree that God is sovereign beyond any mere creature, but how does that change anything. 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 strenth 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? |
||||||
324 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61378 | ||
Personal Note ......................................... Thanks for starting this new thread. That last one was so long it took too long to load up. I am disappointed that we have not come to consensus yet, but I am not giving up hope yet. In another recent post, our friend and colleague Hank said that he doubted that any consensus would be possible with regards to this whole Calvin vs. Arminian debate. I hope that we will be able to show that, given enough level headed patience that it is possible after all. In my next post, I’ll pick up where we left off by responding to your post from the previous thread. (For any future readers of this thread do a search for post number 61209, and just read that part of the thread to get some background for the subsequent discussion in this thread). |
||||||
325 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61350 | ||
Actually, I think we do agree ..................................... Dear John, I agree that consensus is a sweet thing, and is extremely rare in these discussions of Calvinism and Arminianism. Therefore, I saw this specific topic as one area where it could be reached, and decided to try to work towards it. Thankfully, you have been able to understand where I was coming from and work from the opposite direction to get to the what seems like same place. ..................................... You said that you do not agree with my conclusion, but I fail to see where the disagreement lies. We seem to both agree that IF Arminian perspective is correct then God would still be sovereign. That is my only conclusion that I am discussing at this point. So it seems like you do agree with my conclusion. I understand that you disagree with the assumption. You do not agree that Arminian perspective is correct, but that is not the conclusion, that is the premise. And you do agree that a person who did have an Arminian perspective would still be believing in a sovereign God. Do I understand what you are saying correctly? ..................................... You also asked how this all gets us closer to the truth. I believe that most Calvinists have a misperception that Arminians do not and cannot believe in a sovereign God. Similarly, most Arminians have some misperceptions about Calvinists. Therefore, I believe that it is important for each side to gain a more accurate understanding of the other sides belief. By being able to clearly see both sides, I think that we are all much more likely to come to the real truth. ..................................... P.S. You also mentioned that you wanted people to answer your question on 1 Cor 2:14. I tried that once and you said I needed to respond to another of your former posts. I requested that you let me know which one, and never heard back from you. I assume my request just got lost in the shuffle as you’ve been so busy answering so many posts lately. It’s no problem, but if you really want me to respond to it just let me know where to find it. |
||||||
326 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61276 | ||
We’re making progress ..................................... Dear John, Thank you again for your response. I think that we may be very close to agreement after all. You agree with me that no matter how God created the universe, He does not change so He would be just as powerful. You also agree with me that a person’s control does not cease to exist when they choose not to use it. Therefore, I am led to conclude that IF the Arminian perspective was correct (that God created the universe in a way that allowed people to rebel, by not using His ability to control everything completely), that He would still be sovereign. ..................................... It does appear that you believe this would not make sense. After all a king who is all powerful would not allow his subjects to rebel so why would God? This is a perfectly valid question, and one that those who hold to Arminian perspective must deal with. However, as you have said earlier in another post, if something is in scripture, then it must be believed whether it makes sense or not. And since Arminians believe that their perspective is supported in scripture, I assume that you would understand where they are coming from. ..................................... So it seems like we are in agreement that whether a person agrees with Calvin or Arminius, there are some things that don’t make sense, but it is possible to interpret scripture in a way that supports the belief, and that both systems can be consistent with a SOVEREIGN God. I’m sure you’ll let me know if you disagree with any of this, but it seems to me that perhaps we have reached a consensus point across this great theological divide :) |
||||||
327 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | Sir Pent | 61272 | ||
Perhaps we're at an impass.............................. Dear JRdoc, I am dissapointed that you feel like we can’t continue our discussion. I am not asking you to stop using scripture, in fact, I encourage you to do so. I am only asking that you don’t use scripture to attack the assumption (Arminian perspective) because that has been done already elsewhere on the forum (and is currently happening as well, I might add). I would ask you to supply some scripture that would indicates that BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION BEING TRUE, would negate the sovereignity of God. If you are unable to put yourself in the other persons shoes, then this may be impossible for you. However, I have tried to state the Calvinist position from their perspective in a fair way, and would ask you to at least try to answer the question from a point of understanding (although not agreeing of course) the Arminian perspective. If you can’t do this then I would encourage you to at least read the thread that I am discussing this with John Reformer. We seem to be understanding each other better and perhaps you might learn something from reading that thread. ............................................................ P.S. I am not a universalist. I disagree with that perspective. |
||||||
328 | Reincarnation, Who will be saved ? | Matt 10:16 | Sir Pent | 61265 | ||
Support (mostly) ............................................. Dear MYR, I would agree with almost everything that Steve said. The only thing that I would clarify would be than I am not convinced that every aboriginies, primitive tribes, etc. will die in their sins. Steve is correct that those who reject God will, but I believe that it is possible to learn about God even through the nature that is around us. Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Rom 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; |
||||||
329 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | Sir Pent | 61259 | ||
You Did Not Answer The Question ................................... Dear JRdoc, I realize that you believe the second premise to be wrong. The second option is the way that the universe is perceived by an Arminian, which you are not. I am not asking you to believe that it is correct. Please don’t just keep on throwing out Bible verses that you think prove that position wrong. I am fully aware that there are many verses that would seem to support the Calvinist perspective while refuting the Arminian perspective. I know where you are coming from on that front. ................................... Now try to see where I am coming from. There are also a lot of scriptures that support the Arminian perspective while refuting the Calvinist one. I am not going to throw them out here becuase that has been done ad nausium here on the forum. Besides which, I am not at this time trying to convince anyone to believe either perspective. ................................... I am strictly interested in determining, if ASSUMING either perspective was correct, would it be possible for God to be sovereign. ................................... P.S. This doesn’t relate to the question we are discussing, but since you asked, I find (1) to be the most accurate statement in your question, but please don’t go trying to prove me wrong. Let’s stay on the sovereign topic :) |
||||||
330 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61251 | ||
A Different View ................................... Dear John, First I want to thank you for sharing your answer to my question. Hopefully, we can examine it together and come to some sort of consensus. You begin by pointing out that being sovereign is an all or nothing state, and not one that can be qualified. Point well taken. I looked it up in the dictionary, and it said “supreme in power”. Therefore, I agree with you that one either is supreme (the most powerful, in control, etc.) or one is not. ................................... Therefore, let me rephrase my question (your rephrasing of it was a little confusing to me). So my new question is, “Would it negate God’s sovereignity to build a universe that included a means of salvation (Christ’s sacrifice on the cross) that was available to everyone, and then populated it with human beings, who God created with the CAPABILITY to choose to accept or reject that salvation?” If God created the universe this way would He cease to be the most powerful? If a person chooses to not excersize their ability to control others does that mean that their ability to control ceases to exist? ................................... Once again, let’s not get into other issues like foreknowledge, etc. I am strictly interested in determining, if either perspective was correct, would it be possible for God to be sovereign. |
||||||
331 | The dead | Matt 8:22 | Sir Pent | 61240 | ||
This question has been answered ........................... Please use the quick search (top right) and type in the number 7640 |
||||||
332 | Reincarnation, Who will be saved ? | Matt 10:16 | Sir Pent | 61238 | ||
Warning ......................... Dear MYR, Welcome to the forum. Some of your questions have already been answered on this forum. You can find information on them by using the search function. Also all your questions seem to be somwhat inflamatory in nature, which causes some concern. Perhaps you are sincere in you search for these answers, and I think I would be able to answer your questions better if I knew a little more about you. Would you please take a moment to fill out a personal profile for yourself. |
||||||
333 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61209 | ||
Why don't you answer my question ................................ Dear John, I understand that you are overwhelmed right now, you do seem to have a lot on your plate forum wise. If you don’t have time to answer my question right now, that’s OK; I can wait. However, please don’t just keep asking me more questions without ever answering mine. ................................... It is not relevant to my question whether God does 100 percent of salvation, or if God does 99 percent and man does 1 percent. God could have set up salvation to work however He wanted. After all, He’s God. My question is simply, “Is God less sovereign (powerful, in control, etc.) if He chooses to set up a universe in such a way that all people can choose to accept God’s love and return it or not?” ................................... I hope that when you get the chance you will have the opportunity to explain how this possibility (even if you don’t believe in it) diminishes God’s sovereign nature. |
||||||
334 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61202 | ||
A Different Analogy ................................ My friends EdB and John, I believe that I know what EdB is trying to communicate, and why John might be confused, and therefore suggest an alternate analogy to get the idea across. ................................... Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry. The parent, through genetic engineering, caused both of their children to be born without any legs. Then when they were both 10 years old, the parent got a set of artificial legs for Tom so that he could walk, but they did not get any legs for Jerry. Then one day the parent decides to go for a walk to the ice cream store. The parent invites both children to walk with them, but says it is their choice. Tom can’t pass up the opportunity for ice cream, and gladly accepts. Jerry however doesn’t have any legs, and so he doesn’t have the ability to go. The question is, “Does Jerry really have a choice to walk to the store if he has been born without any legs?” For that matter, “If the ice cream is truly irresistable, then does Tom have a real choice either?” ................................... I hope that this helps to clarify the discussion between you, and that something good actually comes out of it. |
||||||
335 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | Sir Pent | 61200 | ||
This doesn't answer the question ............... Dear JRdoc, Welcome to the forum. I appreciate your interest in the question that I asked, however, your response simply describes what Calvinists believe in general. It does not describe why an Arminian viewpoint necessitates a lower view of the sovereignity of God. Let me restate my question, and perhaps you will be able to answer it better. ................................... We both believe that God is sovereign and all powerful. Therefore, He could have created beings (humans) such as you have just described. They were all completely corrupted after the fall of Adam, and completely incapable of desiring relationship with God. Therefore, they would never normally choose God and would all deserve Hell. Then God could, within that system, choose some of those beings as exceptions to that rule, and change their hearts in such a way that they had an irresistable desire to have a relationship with God. Therefore, they would choose God and would deserve heaven (only by God's grace of changing them, and providing a way to salvation through Jesus). Thus everyone gets what they deserve (at least in one sense) ................................... However, it is also possible that God being sovereign and all powerful could have created beings (humans) that were actually capable of either desiring a relationship with God or not desiring it. Their nature could be partially corrupted so that they have a tendancy to choose to reject God, but still have the ability to overcome that first instinct. Then some of them would choose to love God and would deserve heaven (only by God’s grace of providing a way to salvation through Jesus). But others would choose to reject God and His salvation and would deserve Hell. Thus everyone gets what they deserve (in a greater sense). ................................... So now to the original question. How does believing the second option to be true limit the sovereignity of God? Since God could have set it up either way, He is in complete control either way. For that matter, even assuming the Arminian perspective is correct, God could still change His mind at any point and remove the freedom to choose again. Although we don’t believe that God would ever do that, He could. I am not asking you to believe Arminianism is correct, I am simply trying to explain that it is also a possible explanation of the universe that keeps God’s soveriegnity intact. ................................... It seems to me that it is like a parent watching their child on a playground, but letting them choose whether to go down the little slide or the big slide. The parent is bigger and stronger, and could easily bar the child from one slide or the other. But it doesn’t make the parent any less big or less strong for them to allow the child pick either one. |
||||||
336 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61186 | ||
Does Part 2 Answer The Question? ................... Dear John, OK so you quoted a lot of verses that talk about how the sinful nature of man is stinky. I agree, but that doesn't answer my question about God's sovereignity. ......................................................... I assume that since you headed this post with "part 1" that there must be a "part 2". Are you going to share that? ......................................................... I am a bit surprised that although I posted this question many days ago, I have gotten so little response. I would appreciate it if the resident Calvinists on the forum could either explain why the Arminian perspective decreases the sovereignity of God, or admit that the Arminian perspective of God's sovereignity is not neccessarily less than that of the Calvinists. Once again, I am not asking anyone to believe either Calvinism or Arminianism, only to believe that both can have equally high views of God's sovereignity. |
||||||
337 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60979 | ||
Please Answer My Question .................................................... Dear John, Instead of answering why God’s sovereignity is diminished by letting humans all have the ability to choose whether to lover him or not, you switched the discussion to whether that would be loving or not. I agree that at first glance it would seem that any loving parent would not let their child go down a slide into hell. That is a seperate issue though, and one that we could talk about in a different thread, because I think that I disagree with you. .................................................... However, the question that I want you to answer is not whether God would be less loving to allow that kind of choice, but whether He would be less sovereign. Would He be less powerful, or have less control of the universe. I am proposing that He would not. Calvinists would usually say yes. I am simply asking why do they think that? .................................................... P.S. Don’t worry about being a pest, I’ve got a younger sister (married and moved away now), and have a life of experience learning patience from dealing with pestiness :) |
||||||
338 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60978 | ||
Please Answer My Question ......................................................... Dear John, At this point I don’t think that we need further clarification. I think that you understand what I am asking. I would therefore appreciate an answer to that question. However, just in case I will clarify a little more. ......................................................... You implied that I said there was an exception to the rule that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This is not what I said or believe. The expression, “the exception to the rule” simply means that one thing is the standard outcome, and another thing (which occurs less often) is a different outcome. I was simply saying that within the Calvinist system the standard outcome is that all people deserve to go to die for their sins and go to hell. The other outcome, which occurs less often is that some people accept that Jesus died for thier sins, and they go to heaven. ......................................................... You also didn't like the word system. The word system is simply defined: plan, method, orderly arrangement. I think that it is an accurate word. You yourself called it “God’s Eternal Plan”, and it is definately the orderly arrangement of theology and biblical interpretation used by those who believe in it. I believe that I have accurately portrayed the Calvinist perspective, and said that it is possible for God to have created the universe in this way. ......................................................... Then you respond to the Arminian perspective by saying that it is impossible for God to create the universe in the way that is believed by those who agree with that tradition. I know your high view of God’s sovereignity, and am confused that you find Him incapable of doing this. Once again, I am not asking you to believe that He did, only that He could. ......................................................... I hope that this makes things clear for you, and I sincerely look forward to hearing your (and others such as Reformer Joe, Lionstrong, etc.) thoughts about my big question. Why does God’s soveriegnity have to be dimished by believing that He allows His creation to all be capable of choosing to love Him? Once again, a parent is not any less strong or big because they choose not to use their strength to keep their child from picking which slide to go down in the park. |
||||||
339 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60975 | ||
Personal Note ......................................................... Dear John, I would appreciate a little more grace here :) I apologize if I missed an earlier post of yours that dealt with the exact same interpretation of this verse that I proposed. I admit that I haven’t read every post in this thread (of course, it is pretty long). Please let me know the post number and I will try to respond to it. ......................................................... I actually was not following this thread really closely for a while when it started, because it seemed to be just another thread in a long list of threads endlessly debating the Calvinist / Arminianist perspectives on this forum. For the most part, I have decided to just ignore those at this point. However, in this case, I thought there was a unique opportunity to try to bring some consensus between the two viewpoints. ......................................................... Thus my answer to your question that focused on the similarities rather than the differences. Then the response that I get from you is that my post doesn’t even qualify as an answer. Up to this point, I have found our discussion to be rational and gentle. As this is the first thread that we have had significant interaction with each other, and I have thus far appreciated your method of communicating ideas. I hope that this doesn’t indicate that you wish to start insulting my posts. |
||||||
340 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60969 | ||
Answer To Original Question ............................. So how can any man be saved. I think that there is actually very little disagreement on the answer to that question. Those who agree with Calvin or Wesley would both say that salvation is only possible through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. They would also both say that the only reason why anyone would accept that forgiveness is that God draws us to himself. ......................................... Therefore, the scriptures that both sides would use, would be much the same. I did a quick search on the web and found the following two websites that cover the Wesleyan perspective on this including several scriptures: http://www.imarc.cc/harted4ap.html and: http://www.revneal.org/Writings/on.htm ......................................... The only difference is that Calvin calls this drawing "predestination", and says, that it is irresistable and limited to a select group of people. Wesley calls it "prevenient grace", and says that it can be resisted, but is poured out on all people. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [36] >> |