Results 461 - 480 of 629
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | Sin and the Flesh, How are they related? | NT general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 14576 | ||
Dear Steve, Thanks for your response. As I wrote in the question at hand, the meaning of the word flesh sometimes means “person,” “natural decent,” “body,” etc. Sometimes the meaning of the word flesh has nothing to do with anything physical, but spiritual, as in some cases it seems to mean “fallen human nature” or “old self.” For example, you site some passages in the latter half of Rom 7. Here it seem to me that Paul is not talking about sin indwelling his physical body, as you wrote, but rather that sin indwells his old self, his fallen human nature. Even though, Steve, you may not agree with how I define “flesh” in the latter half of Rom. 7, would you agree that the word flesh does not always mean something physical? I wrote, “Do our present corrupted mortal bodies in any way influence us to sin? How?” You answered, “Yes, we offered them to slavery (Rom 6:19), the sinful passions are in our flesh/ body (7:5), nothing good dwells in my flesh (7:18), my flesh serves the law of sin (7;25)” We offering our bodies over to slavery to sin (Rom. 6:19) is not an example of our bodies influencing us to sin. At least, I see us offering our bodies, not our bodies influencing us to offer our bodies to sin. Again in 7:5, it’s the sinful passions that are a work in our body, not our body influencing us. This verse shows a relationship of sin and the body, but not the body influencing. And 7:25 is a case of where I think the word flesh here does not mean body but the old fallen human nature, or the old man. Rom 7:25 "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." If the word meant body, then everything Paul was doing with his body was in service to the law of sin. Rather, it was his old self, his fallen human nature inherited from Adam that was always in service to the law of sin. Now, there may be Scripture that talks about how our mortal body influences us, and that’s what I’d like some input on, but I think that the references you gave, Steve, do not. I wrote, “What generated this question is that sometimes I have to be careful about what I do or say when I'm tired, and I suspect that sometimes my feelings of depression are brought on by an occasional lack of physical well-being. But is there more to it than that?” To which you responded: “… Paul struggled with this (Rom 7:14ff)” Here, Steve, we are not in agreement on what this passage is about. I see it as having nothing to do with sin and Paul’s physical flesh, but rather the struggle with his “flesh,” that is, his old fallen human nature where the law of sin ruled. Paul makes a shorter statement of this struggle in Gal. 5:17. “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” Now, the verse that you referenced, Rom 7:18 says, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” If Paul were saying that nothing good dwelt in his body he was wrong, because if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creation. (2 Cor. 5:17) And the new creation is good. Therefore there was something good in Paul’s body. It is the redeemed Paul himself! So, Paul must mean the old self in which nothing good dwells, not his physical body. I wrote, “So do the Apostles, that is, the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, use the word flesh because there's more to our mortal body than flesh and blood?” To which you responded: “… The word sarx was used in Mat 16:17, flesh and blood are not the same. “ “Flesh and blood” was my attempt at a literary flourish. :-) I’m not sure what you meant by your response. Thanks, again, Steve. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
462 | Are we do pray to Jesus? - II | Matt 6:9 | Lionstrong | 14510 | ||
Dear Brian, Is this a "yes, it's ok to pray to God the Son?" Or are you saying, "no, the Son taught us to pray exclusively to the Father?" Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
463 | Are we do pray to Jesus? - II | Matt 6:9 | Lionstrong | 14463 | ||
Dear Steve, So, now you see that the Lord Jesus himself gives you the right to ask of him as well as his/our Father! Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
464 | Are we do pray to Jesus? - II | Matt 6:9 | Lionstrong | 14379 | ||
Dear Brian, Is that a "yes," Brian? The verse that I sighted, Jesus says explicitly to ask him and he himself will do it. So, we are to pray to Jesus. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
465 | If God knows all,why create the universe | Deut 29:29 | Lionstrong | 14048 | ||
Dear Fran, I don't think a mother's perspective is necessarily a biblical perspective. Although God’s love is beyond our ability to take it all in, his ultimate purpose for creating us was not for companionship. God is his own company. The Trinity, remember? So he has no need for someone else to love or of our love, adoration and worship. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
466 | One land mass? | Gen 1:9 | Lionstrong | 13764 | ||
You might be right, Nolan, because although the Bible has the only accurate account of the the Flood one finds perversions of this account world wide. I don't know, but are there accounts of the landmass break up after the Flood? If there aren't, it would be good negative evidence that the break up occurred during the Flood and not after. Peace, Lionstrong | ||||||
467 | God's naming | Gen 1:10 | Lionstrong | 13763 | ||
God gives names several times throughtout Scripture, the most important of course is: Matt 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. Peace, LIonstrong | ||||||
468 | One land mass? | Gen 1:9 | Lionstrong | 13760 | ||
Very interesting! Thanks, Nolan. Lionstrong | ||||||
469 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13729 | ||
Dear Tim, Rom 11:32 cannot mean that God will show mercy to all. This is proved in the passage of this thread, 9:15. Man has been shut up in disobedience since the Fall, yet God has not extended mercy to all. Case in point: Pharaoh and Esau: Rom 9:13-18 "Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." One point of this passage is that in God his sovereign prerogative to have mercy on whom he will, he did not have mercy on these individuals. And he did this so that his "purpose according to His choice would stand" (v.11). And God's ultimate purpose is the manifestation of his glory. Rom 9:16 "So then it (salvation. compare v. 3) does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." To throw your charge back at you, does your "all" mean all? Peace in the Lamb, Lionstrong |
||||||
470 | One land mass? | Gen 1:9 | Lionstrong | 13718 | ||
Dear Nolan, It is possible for the Bible to treat "in passing" what we might consider to be very significant, don't you think? Case in point: we are very impressed with the vastness of the universe with its kazillion stars flung out unimaginable distances. But in the creation account the significance is given to man's immediate environment, the earth, and of the kazillion stars Moses says, "he made the stars also! What an understatement! So here, the aftermath of a great judgement on man, the concern is not with geology, as significant as it might be to us, and so it (the breaking up of the one landmass) is only mentioned in passing. One other reason that it might be given only a passing reference is that it wasn't an act of God, but only a consequence of a previous event, like when God turned the water to blood, it mentions that the Egyptians dug around the Nile for water. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
471 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13704 | ||
Dear Tim, After your gracious compliment, I don't mean to insult you, but you ignore the logic of your own position. While you recognize that there are verses which teach that some will be lost because of unbelief, you don't seem to see that this logically implies that not all will be saved. And if you don't have all, you must logically have some. Therefore, it is only necessary to present a verse that says some will be lost to prove that only some (not all) will be saved. But let's stick with the passages at hand, Rom 11:32 and 9:15. What does the verse say? To see better what is does say, look at what it does not say. It does not say that the purpose of the shutting up in disobedience is that God will have mercy on all. And you know from Scripture that some "will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." So the "may" does not mean "will." So the "may" in this context must mean "to make it possible for." "God did this to make it possible for him to show mercy to all." And this fits with Rom. 9:15 concerning God's prerogative (not necessity) of showing mercy. This is one of many verses that logically says that only some (not all) will be saved. Matt 7:13,14 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and THERE ARE MANY who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and THERE ARE FEW who find it." (My emphasis) Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
472 | God's naming | Gen 1:10 | Lionstrong | 13649 | ||
Interesting: This and other verses in the creation account. God gave names to certain things in his creation. He left it to man to name the animals. 2: 19. In Isa 40:26, God knows the number of stars and calls them all by name. The naming of something is a special event. Lionstrong |
||||||
473 | A few more things? | Gen 1:1 | Lionstrong | 13625 | ||
"It's not in the scriptures but it made sense anyway, more than having someone say the Bible has things wrong." Dear Norrie, "You will not surely die....When the woman saw that the tree was good for food...." Yes, Norrie, you make my point. Just as it "made sense" to Eve, it still wasn't the Word of God. One need not make up stories to explain a supposed contradiction. There is no contradiction between 1 and 2. Simply read the chapters. It's clear enough, don't you think? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
474 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13624 | ||
Dear Tim, Yes, the verse expresses God’s purpose. God shut up all in disobedience that (for the purpose of) he MIGHT show mercy to all, not that he WOULD show mercy to all. And he hasn’t shown mercy to all, as is his sovereign choice. I did not change “all” to “some” in the verse. I said if one is not a sinner, he cannot be shown mercy, because he has no need of it. So, it is not possible for God to be able to show mercy to ALL unless ALL are sinners. If some are not sinners, he cannot show mercy to all if he so chooses. So in order for God to make to it possible to show mercy to all, he shut up all in disobedience. Although he did not and does not show mercy to all, he MAY do so, since all are shut up in disobedience. But, again, it is his prerogative to do so. The Lord’s abundant mercy is by the free choice of the goodness of his character, not internal necessity. He has to be good (internal necessity). He can be no other way. Because he’s good he can be merciful, and he has been abundantly so, but his goodness does not force (internal necessity) him to be merciful. He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy. And on Judgement Day he will act with severe justice, not mercy. 2 Thess 1:5-11 "This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed." Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
475 | So God is the cause of sin then | Gal 2:17 | Lionstrong | 13605 | ||
Rom. 9:19-21: A very powerful passage! God is soveriegn over what a man will be, and then to hold him accountable for what he does. He has potter's rights to make to make one man a vessel of wrath and hold him accountable for his sins, and to man another man a vessel of mercy and reward him for his good works in Christ! Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
476 | One land mass? | Gen 1:9 | Lionstrong | 13604 | ||
Dear Steve, From this passage I see a possible single land mass, but there's no indication that there were no seasons of the year before the Flood. Where's the Scripture that would support an earth tilt? (I take it that the 23.5 degrees means the angle of earth's axis from the sun.) The waters above and below the earth were already there when God brought the Flood, and somehow God triggered it, but what would cause the earth to tilt, if it wasn't already tilted? And how would the tilt cause the break up of the one land mass and cause continental drift? I had assumed the one land mass broke up when the foundations of the great deep burst open. (Gen. 7:11) Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
477 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13599 | ||
Dear Tim, God’s mercy is “arbitrary” in that it is not based on anything in the sinner. There’s nothing in the sinner that commends itself to God’s mercy. Nothing in us warrants God’s mercy. And nothing in God (“internal pressure”) forces him to extend mercy. God does not owe us mercy. So, we can have no claim on it. Rom 11:32 "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." Rom 11: 32: Since we are all under sin–- that is, if some of us were not sinners God could not show some of us mercy, because we would not need it -- but since we’re all under sin, God may show mercy to anyone he wishes because there’s no one who is exempt from the need of it. “That he MAY show mercy…” But God does not wish to show mercy to all. And he hasn’t shown mercy to all. And that is his prerogative. |
||||||
478 | Mercy's God's prerogative | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13569 | ||
Dear Tim, I see this notion as a nice way of denying God prerogative of having merce upon whom he chooses. It's saying that God can't help but to have mercy, rather than it being his choice to have mercy. Yes, he will have mercy, but it's always his choice. Yes, there will be so many in heaven that we won't be able to count them all, but it will be God's choice. He's not a mercy machine. God is personal. So he will choose to have mercy upon whom he chooses to have mercy. Peace, Lionstrong | ||||||
479 | Mercy's God's prerogative | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13260 | ||
This verse means that it's totally up to God on whom he has mercy. He doesn't owe mercy to anyone. He owes no one a "chance" to be saved, a chance to hear the Gospel. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
480 | God is the Director, not an actor | 1 Sam 9:1 | Lionstrong | 13187 | ||
Steve, Haven't you heard of someone directing and acting in the same movie? Isn't that what God did? Jesus stepped into history to redeem his people. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] Next > Last [32] >> |