Results 61 - 80 of 100
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bjanko Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | some more things to consider... | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 12125 | ||
Those OT examples are a demonstration of God's righteousness and will be performed on the last day. Additionally, God judged in Christ all the sins of his elect people. Those OT principles are still valid. But the problem is there is no Christian theocracy active now as there was in the land of Palestine back then. But when Christ returns, the theocracy will be restored and so will its judgments of those who are pagan, who rejected Christ, or are tares in the spiritual "kingdom" of today. |
||||||
62 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13452 | ||
If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved. But all are not saved. Only some are saved: the elect. Those are the ones Jesus died for. To say otherwise is to say that Christ is not able to save, effectually, those whom He has chosen. To say otherwise is bring God down and to raise man's will up on a pedestal. |
||||||
63 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13457 | ||
HANK: Note: bjanko, in view of your statement on election, please look again at John 3:16. The text says "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." BJANKO: Thank you. I'm glad you brought this verse up as it supports the view of limited atonement very powerfully. HANK: It does not say that Christ is not able to save, it does not diminish the power of God or elevate man's will. It simply stipulates in clear and unequivocal language the fact that, even though the offer of salvation is universal, the sine qua non is belief in Jesus Christ, i.e., the offer must be met with acceptance. BJANKO: Yes, it describes in very plain terms that whoever believes in Him will be saved. However, it nowhere says that just anyone at all is able to believe in Him! HANK: Belief, in the biblical sense, involves more than mere intellectual affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God. BJANKO: True, but doesn't seem to be releveant here. HANK: All are not saved, that is perfectly true. But all are by no means willing to surrender their lives to Christ either. BJANKO: I would not only agree with this but go further and assert, with the Scripture, that there are none willing to submit their lives to Christ: "As it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD.' (Rom. 3:10-11). When the God draws His elect to Himself, however, (see John 6:34), then those people become willing to surrender; this is evidence of their election. So, you are quite right to put forth John 3:16 as a prooftext of limited atonement. "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." This is a perfect description of those whom the Father has chosen to give to the Son for salvation: The ones the Father regenerates by His Spirit are the ones (whosoever's) who will believe. And those "whosoever's" will be saved, as God has predetermined. This puts all will and decision in the hands of God, thus glorifying Him, rather than in the hands of man, thus glorifying man, the creature. One is orthodox Christian; the other is semi-Pelagian and is false doctrine. |
||||||
64 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13468 | ||
HANK bjanko, you make some good observations, and it seems unconscionable for any Christian to entertain the palest of notions that God is anything but sovereign. We do, however, tread in water over our heads when we presume to read the mind of God with our limited minds, and no better example can be put forth than our pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes, and this would surely encompass the terms election and predestination, about which I know little and understand even less..... BJANKO If you will re-read my posts, I would be very interested if you can actually find any "pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..." I would also take issue that the long-held orthodox teachings on election and predestination, are pretenses "at understanding fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..." These are long-held doctrines, not because they venture into the "secret counsels" of God, but because they are revealed in Scripture. If you fear that they might lead to human pride, trying to uncover every facet of the secret counsels of God, then I would venture to correct you: the doctrines of predestination and election are not what are in question, but your understanding of those doctrines are, as you honestly claim when you said, "about which I know little and understand even less..... " HANK I'm not sure your contextual definition of "semi-Pelagianism" squares with the views of Pelagius. He held that man is born with no bias to evil and is capable of freedom from sin and of salvation by works. He taught that man sins because of his environment alone and not at all because of his nature. All of which is, of course, unvarnished heresy." BJANKO True. That is why I did not say your beliefs were "Pelagian," but rather "semi-Pelagian," which is a technical term, fairly similar with the term "Arminianism." Neither "semi-Pelagianism" nor "Arminianism" is rank heresy; but they are both unbiblical. Whlie they may try to claim that God has some sovreignty in salvation, they always, ALWAYS place man's responsibility and will ABOVE God's sovreignty -- a view which is patently unscriptural. HANK While you and I may have slight variations of viewpoints on the subject of election, neither of which approaches heresy, I think that we are certainly in unison on the belief that God is sovereign. BJANKO I have to admit, I'm not completely sure of your views; but if you are an Arminian, then I would suggest that our differences on election are more than slight and that, while neither of us would be a heretic, our views on God's sovreignty are equally NOT in unison. HANK On this note I submit that it is in the best interests, not only of ourselves but of the forum as a whole, to drop the issue and thus not attempt to resurrect a debate over it that raged on and ravaged the forum for many days in the recent past. Thank you for sharing your beliefs, and it is hoped that I will be privileged to engage in further discourse with you, but on a somewhat less controversial subject. BJANKO Nice conversing with you. |
||||||
65 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13490 | ||
I don't see the discrepancy you are rerferring to in the passages. No part of the Bible contradicts another. You seem to have explained it yourself. |
||||||
66 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13491 | ||
I'm sorry that your philosophy would lead you into the error of making man's will on a higher level than God's sovreignty. |
||||||
67 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13496 | ||
I feel sorry for you that your philosophy of man's will as over and above God's sovreignty would rule your interpretation of Scripture. |
||||||
68 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13497 | ||
TIM If as Calvinism teaches, only those who are drawn can accept the gift of salvation, then John 12:32 destroys the foundations of Calvinistic thought since everyone is drawn. From my perspective, this makes perfect sense. Christ died for all. He desires that all be saved. He offers salvation to all. He draws all. But, the benefits of salvation only apply to those who accept the gift. BJANKO If God desires all to be saved -- and some are not saved -- then God is impotent to save those whom He chooses. Your philosophy is a glorification of man's will, not God's sovreignty. It is a pagan philosophy, unscriptural to the core. You need to interpret all verses in light of the Bible ALONE, and not man's philosphies, and also in light of ALL OF THE BIBLE. Your interpretation's are misinterpretations because they do not consider the context of the ENTIRE BIBLE. Arminianism and Scripture are incompatible. |
||||||
69 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13541 | ||
I have not resurrected this debate, but others who were not satisfied with my answers have brought it once again to the fore. I have no interest in debating it at all. |
||||||
70 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13543 | ||
See my previous response. I have not brought this debate back to life here, but I believe it was Tim and Henry(?) who were questioning me about it. |
||||||
71 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13544 | ||
Tim, I have no desire to attempt an answer. You are an Arminian and the philosophy of Arminius is a man-made one, not a Scriptural one. I believe in the Bible; I do not give a hoot about Calvin or Arminius. |
||||||
72 | Define term inerrancy and is it true? | 2 Tim 3:16 | bjanko | 2519 | ||
The doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture is the teaching that the Scripture is without error. The reason this is so is because the Bible is revelation from God, it is God's words. Since God is a God of truth and cannot lie or be in error, then neither can His words be false or errant. So, at the core, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is rooted in the fact that the Bible is from God Who Himself is unable to err. | ||||||
73 | What's the best way to apply the Bible? | 2 Tim 3:16 | bjanko | 16262 | ||
What's the best way to apply the Bible? |
||||||
74 | Who wrote the letter to the Hebrews? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1096 | ||
I do not know the arguments. I have also heard that Mark might have possibly been the author. It is certainly a "heavenly" letter as are Paul's are, but it's style doesn't seem to me -- at least in its English translations -- to be similar to either Paul or Mark. So, I suppose that's why it could be Barnabas or someone else. I believe its canonicity was sometimes disputed over the centuries and I'm not sure, but I wonder if this authorship question could be part of the reason. This shouldn't be a hindrance though. There are many books in the Old Testament for whom we are also unsure as to who was the author. Anyway, Hebrews is properly a canonical book and, being part of Scripture, was therefore ultimately written through "whoever" by the Holy Spirit. So God, being the ultimate author, should give us assurance as to its truths. |
||||||
75 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 1098 | ||
I agree with you 100 percent. But how do you respond to the person who says, "Yes, no one can snatch them out of the Father's hand, but that doesn't mean they can't leave of their own freewill"? | ||||||
76 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 1143 | ||
Well, I was just wondering what your reply was. I do not believe a person could renounce their salvation. After all, the verse does say "no one" can snatch them out; and if you try to leave, then you are merely trying to snatch yourself out. If someone else can't pull you out, how could you possibly manage to jump out on your own? Of course, you don't know why anyone would renounce their salvation because those who are saved have a new heart and they are glad to be saved and grateful. The person who renounces their salvation merely shows evidence he was never saved to begin with. But anyway, I have also had this conversation with someone else somewhere around this forum and you can read that as well, if you like. |
||||||
77 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 1164 | ||
Wow! NO ONE can snatch us out of the Father's hand -- that sounds like He has a pretty good grip on us; but somehow we can just happen to "somehow" forget our way into hell. Very strange way to look at it, indeed! | ||||||
78 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 1170 | ||
Well, that's not what the verse actually says, but I suppose you can believe whatever you like. | ||||||
79 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 1172 | ||
There would be no point, because you would just proceed to tell me that what is in the text is really not there, read your own meaning into it, and then insist that the context supported your view, even though it clearly didn't. I believe you are more committed to your own views than to the text. |
||||||
80 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 1176 | ||
That's funny. I told you EXPLICITLY that I believe you care more about your own opinion rather than what the text actually says. Now, you write back "assuming" that I will not discourse for some other reason. You took my explicit statements and twisted them around. I will gladly discourse about any text; but I will no longer discourse with you because you not only turn Scripture inside out as it pleases you, but you turn my own words around. You take things as you like to see them. I do not believe you are sincere, but merely want to bait me into a conversation where you can expound your own views. So forget it. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |