Results 81 - 100 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Criticize what no one understands? | 2 Tim 2:23 | reformedreader | 7442 | ||
JVH0212, I believe it to be the vilest of character for any child of God to criticize an opposing view when there is either a lack or absence of a proper understanding. I just visited a website that was antagonistically adamant about their opposition to Calvinism, yet at the same this site promoted Charles H. Spurgeon, who was a 5 point Calvinisit, and confused Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism without any knowledge the two are antithetical to each other. I do not mind someone wanting me to show sound biblical proof for what I believe. But I do mind critical comments about what I believe from a person who really does not understand what I believe. Sam Hughey |
||||||
82 | Vilest of character? | 2 Tim 2:23 | reformedreader | 7508 | ||
charis, I don't think it is overstating at all. Ephesians 4:25 commands us to speak the truth with one another. Whenever a brother is criticized for his view and the one criticizing has not taken the time to truthfully know the facts, then vile is an appropriate term. Since God hates a lying tongue, should we not also find our Lord's truth to be objective enough to be our own? Should our objective standard for Christian character be any less than God's? Sam Hughey |
||||||
83 | A Universal Answer to Bible questions. | 2 Tim 3:16 | reformedreader | 5118 | ||
JVH0212, Excellent suggestions and I would add only one additional thought to the following: 7) Remember that: We must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And SINCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ITSELF, ANY INTERPRETATION OF A SPECIFIC PASSAGE THAT CONTRADICTS THE GENERAL TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS TO BE REJECTED. We must always remember to interpret the unclear verses with the clearer verses. Verses that neither implicitly nor explicitly state something to be a fact cannot be used to determine one's theological belief on any given subject. They might indeed "add" support to other verses to conclude a theological belief on any given subject, but in and of themselves, they cannot create that belief based on their vagueness and ambiguity. We must rely on verses that are clear, distinct and which speak directly to the point we are attempting to make. Sam Hughey |
||||||
84 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | reformedreader | 3143 | ||
RWC, To your statement, "If Jesus' divine nature prevents His human nature from being "tempted to the point of sin," then would it not also prevent Him from being truly tempted at all"?, Why must that be the logical conclusion? God does not need to eat, sleep or feel physical pain, etc, yet Jesus did while in His humanity. The Divinity of Jesus is not the same as was His humanity, therefore, it is not necessarily logical to "assume" Jesus should have not been tempted at all. Sam Hughey |
||||||
85 | Halting short of faith in Christ. | Heb 6:4 | reformedreader | 6272 | ||
JVH0212, A very good explanation and understanding of verses that seem to give Christians trouble interpreting. Many believe "having been enlightened" and "tasted the heavenly gift" must refer to the (alleged) offer of salvation but this is not at all what the writer is referencing. Sam Hughey |
||||||
86 | What is reformation? | Heb 9:10 | reformedreader | 6021 | ||
charis, Verse 11 is the time of reformation. The previous verses spoke of the "insufficiency" of sacrifices and ordinances that shadowed the "sufficiency" of Christ Himself. The book of Hebrews is mainly concerned with the sufficiency of Christ in that many new believes (and some not) were still making trips to the temple for atonement. They were not trusting in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement to put away the condemnation of sin forever. Christ is the reformation (change) of a law only in respect to the levitical law (priesthood), sacrifices and ordinances related to sins. This is not to be confused with the "whole" law, only that "part" of the law specifically related to the end of the levitical priesthood and all associated ordinances and sacrifices. |
||||||
87 | how does John 9.3 and 4 answer reincarna | Heb 9:27 | reformedreader | 2885 | ||
They don't answer the question of reincarnation because there is no such thing as reincarnation. God is quite clear when He says that we die but once and then our judgement comes. A believer has already died to sins and has already been judged guilty. Our sins were paid for by Christ and the guilty/death penalty was envoked on Him. Our judgement is now to live for Christ and with Christ for eternity. The unbeliever, on the otherhand, has not died to sins and upon their physical death, if they have not been called out of darkness, they will be submitted to their judgement of eternal separation from God and cast into eternal torment. Sam Hughey |
||||||
88 | Blood sacrifices during the Millenium? | Heb 10:12 | reformedreader | 3745 | ||
Nrojac, I truly do not mean for this note to be disrespectful to you or anyone else in anyway whatsoever, however, I do intend it to be firm and serious. The dispensational idea of blood sacrifices at "ANY" time since Christ's once and for all blood sacrifice is blashpemy and the epistle to the Hebrews clearly warns those who do not accept the finished work of Christ as the only propitiatory redemptive act that they cannot redeem themselves again through vainful human effort of repetitive acts of blood sacrifices. What you are talking about is nothing more than imaginative eschatology. There is no such thing as a future "literal" millennium, rebuilt temple and especially blood sacrifice. This is nowhere found in scripture. It sounds like this DD is a hyper-dispensationalist who really doesn't understand the scriptures. The typical place dispensationalists use to teach a future temple and sacrifices is in Ezekiel 40 and further. The supposed future earthly millennium is Revelation 20:4. You are correct in not believing in a future blood sacrifice for the remission of sin or as a remembrance of "anything". Sam Hughey |
||||||
89 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7667 | ||
Nolan Keck, I must respectfully disagree with your statement, "God's prior knowledge of all things, based on His relation to them, is the basis of our election." 1 Peter 1:20 refers to the foreknowledge of Jesus Christ, not our election to salvation. Romans 8:29 does not say anything about election being based on foreknowledge. It only says that those whom God foreknew were predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. It does not say on what basis God foreknew anyone or the relationship between foreknowing and electing. Romans 11:2 also does not say on what basis God foreknew anyone, only that He foreknew His people. The idea of electing to salvation those whom God foresaw would accept Him is not in Scripture. Actually, the basis for God electing anyone to salvation is clear from the following verses: Ephesians 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will" 1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" Scripture clearly states that God elected to salvation, His people, whom He would call, based solely and entirely on God's own will and mercy that pleases Himself. It pleases God (or God pleases Himself) to elect a people He would call to receive salvation. If God elects on the basis of foreknowing who would accept Him, then election is based on man’s choosing and not foreknowledge. It would be man’s choosing that caused God to foreknow. Election would be a senseless act on the part of God since one’s salvation will be determined (not predetermined) on the basis of a willful action of the unbeliever at some time in the future. This view would place man’s choosing as the cause and basis for election to salvation and not what God says in both Eph. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:3. God would only predestine (elect) as an after thought as a result of a human's choosing. The word predetermine must refer to an act prior to any action on the part of any other or it is not “pre”determined. Predestination refers to one's destiny (destination) and is foreknown by God simply because God is the one who predetermines one's destination. Sam Hughey |
||||||
90 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7832 | ||
Nolan, I appreciate your response Nolan, but I think some of your statements seem a bit confusing or even contradictory. Your summation seems to contradict everything you previously stated. Your statement, "God elected people to salvation who He foreknew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith" contradicts your previous statement, "I agree with you that man's choosing is not the cause and basis for election to salvation". Which is it? God elected us to salvation based either on His own pleasure or our choosing but it cannot be both. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly and unambiguously states that God foresaw anyone's alleged "free-will" decision and then on that basis elected (chose) to save us. This clearly contradicts Eph. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:3. Neither of these verses say, imply, infer or even remotely suggests the will of the unbeliever is either free or has any determining factor in their salvation. Could you perhaps explain why you would insist on the unbeliever "causing" God to elect him on the basis of his willful decision? Thanks, Sam Hughey |
||||||
91 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7930 | ||
Nolan, Thank you for your response and explanation. May we continue with a need for more clarification and explanation? Who is it that is making this conscious choice? Is it the unbeliever or the believer? If it is the unbeliever, then his will is not free to make a conscious choice. And if his salvation is dependent upon his choice, then election cannot be separated from his choice and his ability to make that choice. This is where I see a contradiction. If God elects to salvation based only upon His own good pleasure, then the unbeliever’s choice both doesn’t exist and would be irrelevant if it did. Now, I do believe the believer makes a conscious “response” to God’s calling but his response is not a decision to receive or reject God’s calling but, rather, as a result of God’s calling. As stated before, Christ said whomever the Father calls, He (Christ) will raise that person to eternal life on the last day. If the Father calls all humans, then all humans will be raised to eternal life on the last day. And we both know that is not true that all humans will be raised to eternal life on the last day and we both know that choosing to be saved is not a condition our Lord placed in John 6:44. God’s foreknowledge of our actions (mental or physical) has no bearing on His electing us to salvation prior to our actions. That would be the contradiction. God elects solely on the basis of His own desire to please Himself. That is the doctrine of election. Salvation is the result of election. The two cannot be separated. We cannot have a doctrine for election and a different doctrine for salvation. They are as inseparable as the Trinity itself. God does not elect anyone on the basis of a foreseeable action on the part of man. If that were true, then God’s election is based on the actions of man and not on God’s own pleasure. Nolan, you are saying (even if unintentionally) that God acts upon the unbeliever’s action by your statement, “God elected people (before the beginning of the world) to salvation who He foreknew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith”. First, there is nothing in Eph. 1:4 that says anything at all about choosing to be saved as part of having been elected since before the foundation of the world. Second, there is nothing in the entire New Testament that says anything about salvation being the result of the unbeliever choosing to be saved. It were so, that action contradicts God electing to salvation on the basis of His own pleasure. You are saying that God elects to save because He knows who will use their free will to choose to be saved. So, if it is on the basis of the unbeliever’s free will choosing that God saves and since salvation is the result of election, it is only the natural course of this view to say that God elects to salvation on the basis of what He foresees the unbeliever doing. Can you show me where any scripture says anything at all about the unbeliever making choices in order to be saved. Again, you cannot separate election from salvation. My view of election to salvation is no different than my view on salvation by election. We simply cannot create antithetical views of election and salvation and I do agree that the doctrine of election is firmly entrenched in nothing but the personal pleasure of God. Since we both agree on that, I fail to see why you do not view salvation as the natural result of election instead of the result of the unbeliever’s actions. Sam Hughey |
||||||
92 | Why evangelize if already chosen? | 1 Pet 2:9 | reformedreader | 4133 | ||
Lionstrong, Thank you for such a sound and biblical apology for both God's election and our responsibilty to obey God. I pray that those who are anti-Calvinistic will at least attempt to honestly see what Biblical Calvinism truly teaches instead of the old worn out stories that never prove to be true. (Isaiah 55:11) So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. Man's will cannot thwart, deny, deprive, correct or change the pre-determined will (word) of God that goes out to accomplish "SUCCESSFULLY" whatever it was sent out to do. Sam Hughey |
||||||
93 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6050 | ||
prayon, With all due respect sir, I think we know this to be true because God stated it to be a fact, not because we (allegedly) found the ark on the top of Mt. Arafat. (Arafat is the name of a Palestinian leader, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat) Although this did happen in the flesh, it is also a "type" of spiritual salvation. The ark represents Christ, Noah and his family representing the human race (literally), the waters have a unilateral meaning. Water was used to destroy and to cleanse, representing the washing of regeneration when the old man dies and the new man becomes alive. This is the Spirit's baptism, not a water baptism. The waters both destroyed and cleansed the earth and the waters never touched Noah and his family but by faith they were saved by the same waters that destroyed all other life. Sam Hughey |
||||||
94 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6270 | ||
prayon, I wasn't attempting to be critical of your spelling, I just wanted to point it out in case you hadn't noticed. My spelling is not always what it should be either. Assumptions can be dangerous, especially when assuming biblical theology on any given issue. This has permeated the church today to such an extent that learning scripture has been left to the theology of assumption and the doctrine of emotions. One may "assume" whatever "feels" right and therefore it becomes "biblical". No personal criticism is intended with this statement, only an observation of what is going on in the body of Christ today where a theological education is all but erased from many churches. Sam Hughey |
||||||
95 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6271 | ||
Reformer Joe, A very astute "theological" observation! Just think, the word "flesh", which refers to "humans", does not always refer to "all" flesh (humans). Sam Hughey |
||||||
96 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6275 | ||
Reformer Joe, It would have been a little short-sighted on God's part to have declared He would destroy all flesh while wanting to save all flesh. God saved exactly whom He wanted to be saved. It would also be senseless on the part of God to have Noah try to "convince" people to be saved (for 120 years) knowing He would destroy all of them, would it not? How would the backyard Bible club respond to such a question? Sam Hughey |
||||||
97 | Is 1 John 1:9 applicable to Christians? | 1 John 1:9 | reformedreader | 2877 | ||
Lifer, Your question has plagued Christians for a long time. It will undoubtedly receive much attention. (I hope) Let's start with the conclusion. As Christians, we are either forgiven for all sins or for only some sins. If "all" sins, then would our asking for forgiveness imply we do not believe we are forgiven and if only "some" sins, then are we still under the condemnation of God for "unforgiven" sin? And, if we die before we confess and ask if God will forgive us for at least one sin that might have been either overlooked or ignored or forgotten, would we still spend eternity as one who has been washed clean by the blood of the Lamb? What do you think? Sam Hughey |
||||||
98 | Does His blood wash away ALL our sins? | 1 John 1:9 | reformedreader | 2900 | ||
Lifer, Romans 8:1 clearly states there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ (saved). If I believe this to be true, then no matter what sin I have ever committed or ever will commit, there is no condemnation to me because I am in Christ. This is not a liscence to sin and when we sin, we must judge our hearts as to why we sin, acknowledge that we have sinned and confess the sin to God. Our confession does not let God know something He doesn't already know and the sin is already forgiven. Unlike the temporary atonement prior to Calvary, Christ's atonement is a once and for all (sins and time) cleansing of sin. It does not prevent us from sinning but it does prevent us from being condemned for sinning. His atonement is a perpetual atonement always being made for His elect. Hebrews 10:11 explains how the Old Testament Priests stood daily ministering offerings time after time the same sacrifice that could not take away sins. However, our Lord is "seated" at the right hand of His Father, having taken away complete and utter condemnation for sins (past, present and future). No present or future work of atonement is necessary since Christ's atonement was complete. When, not if, a Christian dies and has unconfessed sin, that Christian is still a Christian and still under no condemnation of sin. Romans 8:1 settles that argument. There are some, however, who would have us believe that we must continually seek forgiveness in order to be what we already are. This is a works oriented salvation and usually goes hand in hand with free-will theism, though not always. This places the actions of man at the center of his salvation rather than Christ Himself. Hope this helps. Sam Hughey |
||||||
99 | The inevitable BUT... | 1 John 1:9 | reformedreader | 2902 | ||
Lifer, Our salvation is conditional upon nothing we do or not do for we are saved by grace which is God's unmerited favor (love) for those who can do nothing for themselves. The forgiveness of sin is as much a part of our salvation as our salvation itself. In fact, you cannot have one without the other. I do not see John making statements that would lead us to believe if we fail to confess but one sin, we will not be saved. And, lest we forget, salvation without forgiveness is impossible. I believe John is addressing an audience much like our congregations today. There is a mixture of known and unknown lost and saved. Many who profess to be saved are not and the message would naturally be applied to them. I thank God my sins are forgiven and the praise of thanksgiving not only solidifies my belief and faith but glorifies God in that He alone can and has forgiven sin. The reasoning is really very simple when we conclude the most logical antithesis of John's words. If we do not confess our sins, He is not faithful and not just and will not forgive. But we do know God to be faithful and just to forgive and it is never based on a human condition but His grace alone. However, not a single Christian has ever or will ever say truthfully they confessed to God every sin they ever committed in order to be forgiven in order to be saved. We are saved in spite of not confessing our sins. Our salvation should be a settled matter. On the otherhand, if we acquire the desire to sin and not confess, seeing no importance in confessing usually requires seeing no wrong in sinning, then we fall into the 8th verse of 1st John. We have deceived ourselves and most often because we never responded to the true gospel. Hope that helps, Sam Hughey |
||||||
100 | True...but what about 1 John 1:9? | 1 John 1:9 | reformedreader | 2904 | ||
Lifer, Yes, our salvation is complete because of the complete work of Christ. He has given us complete and utter redemption, justification, sanctification and reconciliation (forgiveness). If it is complete, then what further acts of Christ do we need to be or have what we already are and have? Hebrews address this same problem. Many 1st century Jews were still going to the Tabernacle to offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. The writer clearly explains how Christ's atonement was complete and brought an end to any future sacrifice (offering) for the forgiveness of sin. That is why Romans 8:1 can say what it says. I think the problem you are having might be that you are forcing the two verses to fit into perhaps a preconceived idea. I don't believe the two contradict each other because they are part of the same gospel message John is preaching. John is addressing an audience of people who are both unredeemed and redeemed. Perhaps as in our own congregations today there are those who are under the impression they are saved because they walked an aisle, repeated certain words and were baptized. Our Baptist churches are filled with unregenerate church members. John is merely doing the same any preacher would do. When presenting the gospel, there should always be a warning to repent of sin and the consequences for not doing so. There should also be the message of security for knowing that, as Christians, our sins (all) are forgiven (2:12). 1 John 1:9 and 2:12 merely compliment the complete gospel message and warns those who falsely believe they can be saved and have no problems with sin versus those who have problems when they sin and therefore, confess to God to restore the fellowship (not membership) of their relationship. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |