Results 1 - 20 of 40
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 232550 | ||
There are loads of do's and don'ts in the Bible. This long list was summed up rather well by Jesus as 2 commandments: Love God with everything you are, and; 2) love your neighbours as much as you love yourself (Mt. 22:34-40). The whole point of the Old Covenant(s) was/were to teach us beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not - and indeed cannot! - be good enough to impress God or to earn our own right of passage into His presence (Gal 3:23-25). His standard really is absolute perfection. His standard is Himself. The only other way possible for anyone to be able to come to God is by Him simply *giving* that privilege to people. And that is in fact what He has done and continues to do. He *gives* that privilege to those that will simply *trust* Him. They do earn it or deserve it. It is totally a gift. And that is not something totally new in the New Covenant. This issue of trust (or, by another word, faith) has always been the requirement (the basis) for a right relationship with God. Even Abraham could *earn* righteousness. It was given to him - *credited* to him - for no other reason than that he believed (trusted, had faith in - Ro. 4:3; Ga. 3:6; Jms 2:23) his Creator, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, the One and Only God that has revealed Himself throughout history and through the collection of writings that He inspired (breathed out) and which we now call the Bible. Is God's standard still perfection? Yes, absolutely. Are you or I ever going to meet that standard? No, absolutely not. Do we still aim for it? yes, but now it is not to try and *earn* God's favor, but rather because he has already given it. We do it as an expression of love and gratitude because of the incredible gift that God gives us (eternal life - actually getting to *know* God - Jn 17:3). All those things you list there (the things that the 'new atheists' love to list) are to be found in the Bible. But when taken in their own context, they do actually make some sense. But the 'new atheists' don't care too much for context. |
||||||
2 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 232551 | ||
oops, correction (sorry): middle of the first paragraph should read "They do NOT earn it or deserve it" (emphasis added). ['Not' is not a good word to forget in a sentence!] | ||||||
3 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 233529 | ||
Oops #2: I did it again and missed it until now. Three quarters of the way through that same first paragraph, it should read: "Even Abraham could NOT *earn* righteousness." (emphasis added). Sheesh! Sorry about that. | ||||||
4 | If not saved and suicide done Lost??? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 234149 | ||
Eternal life, and more specifically salvation - the action of being saved from sin and from the results of sin, is spoken of in Scripture as a past tense (finished, completed) act, a present tense (ongoing, being done now) act, and as a future tense (will be done, yet to be done)act. And all three views of salvation are true and correct. There have already been some verses listed that speak of salvation as a completed past tense event in a believer's life. I would like to add one more. 1Jn 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. (ESV) I love this verse! John is writing to people who are *already* believers... so that they will *know*... that they *have* (already possess!)... *eternal*... *life.* There are also some verses that speak of salvation as as ongoing present tense event in a believer's life. I think this is to emphasize that believers that are still in this world are in a *process.* We are being changed. 1Cor. 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who *are being saved* it is the power of God. 1Cor. 15:1-2 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you *are being saved,* if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 2Cor 2:15-16 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who *are being saved* and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? Then there are the passages that talk about salvation as a future, yet to be completed event. There are some passages that talk about the fact that only those who endure to the end *will be* saved (Mt. 10:22; 24:13; Mk. 13:13). (I think it is worth noting here that it is the endurance of their *faith* to the end of their life, not the endurance of their righteous acts, that is spoken of here. In regards to the discussion here, the one who commits suicide is undoubtedly committing a sin, but it is not some kind of proof of a lack of basic (saving) faith in Jesus any more than the commission of any other sin would be!) There are also a couple of important passages that speak of believing (trusting) or calling upon the Lord Jesus (with faith or trust), and you *will be* saved (Acts 16:31; and Rom. 10:9-13). Paul, when standing before the elders of the Jerusalem Church at the Jerusalem Council, even spoke of his own salvation along with that of both Jews and Gentiles as a future tense event. Acts 15:10 But we believe that we *will be* saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. I am curious about something. What do you see as the "preparation/qualifying/eligibility for eternal life"? How would one prepare oneself, or qualify for, or become eligible for receiving the incredible gift of eternal life? |
||||||
5 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154072 | ||
Hi there, I would agree with you that humans have "a mind, will, intellect, emotions, and moral capacity." I guess the question that is being discussed (or at least that I was trying to ask) is "how much, if any, of those attributes can be found in the other animals that God created?" or to put it another way, "Are any of those attributes unique to humans?". I am proposing that, among the earthly creations, we have a unique moral capacity because we have been uniquely created with a volitional capacity and that this ability to exercise will is the one thing that separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. Lionstrong has proposed, if I understand him correctly, that humans are the only earthly creature with an ability to think or understand (or learn? or reason?) and that this intellectual ability alone is what separates humanity from all other creatures (earthly or otherwise?) and is the one thing that makes us to be in the image of God. How have you come to understand this? Would you suggest that any or all of those attributes are unique to humans? A second comment in response to your post, if I may. You wrote: "God breathed the 'breath of life' into man. No other creation is described this way, and that 'breath of life' is the spiritual component that man alone possesses." You are correct to say that "No other creation is described this way," but I would suggest that you are assuming too much if you conclude from this verse that this _must_ be unique to humanity. I believe that this would be called an "argument from silence" and it is a very weak position to hold. The creation of man is the only creative work of God described in any detail. Should we also assume then that none of the rest of the creatures that God made are created from "the dust of the ground?" I think you would agree that this would be assuming too much. As I see it, _all_ living things on earth (plant, animal, or otherwise (ie. even bacteria and viruses)) are made from the same basic building blocks ("the dust of the ground"). As well, they _all_ break back down into those same basic building blocks ("return to dust") when they cease to be alive. God is the Giver of life. He has not given that uniquely to humanity. We are, I believe, unique among God's earthly creatures, but I would suggest that it is not because we are "living beings" (Ge. 2.7). Looking forward to your response. Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
6 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154074 | ||
Good day! I think I would agree with everything that you wrote in this post. But I am still not sure as to how you view Lionstrong's position that humans alone, among God's earthly creatures, can think or understand. Nor am I sure as to how you view my proposal that humanity is completely distinct from other animals because of our unique volitional ability. Would you mind clarifying that for me? Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
7 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154076 | ||
Hi there, Well, I know that you understand my position as you stated it succinctly when you wrote: "You think man is an animal and that other animals can think and emote but not choose, and that this inability to choose separates man from the “other” animals." But it seems to me that you are changing the subject a bit by responding to that with "I see no biblical basis for classifying man as an animal. And he is not an animal." (That was also the first sentence in your post, so it would seem to be the main point of your post.) Whether humanity can rightly be called an animal or not isn't really the point I was trying to make or ask you about. Would it be better if I called that whole broad group "animated beings?" (And, just for the record, you are right: I would classify humans within that much larger group called "animals," but that they are in a sub-group of their own because of their volitional ability.) In my previous post I asked you three questions. I am still looking forward to your response to them. Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
8 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154078 | ||
Yes. That is my point. (I would also suggest that angels have this same ability.) What think you? |
||||||
9 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154128 | ||
Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean when I talk about volitional ability, or at least what makes it distinct for humans. Yes, I agree with you that animals make choices: (lay in the sun or lay in the shade; fetch the ball or not; climb on the furniture or not, etc. etc). But those kinds of choices that animals make (including whether to obey a master's directive or not) have to do with simply following their desires. Unfortunately, we humans usually make our choices in exactly the same way. *But* we have the ability not to do that, and animals, as I understand it, do not have that ability. For example, humans have the ability to choose to go on a hunger strike (a popular form of protest from a generation ago). We can choose to deny ourselves food. An animal cannot do that. If an animal is hungry (and healthy!), it will go hunting for food until it finds it or it will die trying to find it. Now, having said that, I have heard of animals starving themselves to death. But it was not because of "a choice" that they were making, it was because of a physical problem (ie. disease) or an emotional problem (ie. broken heart). Animals have many and varied characteristics and qualities built into them by God that we would call instinctive repsonses. When we train animals (or try to!), we are trying shape those characteristics so that they get expressed in ways that are acceptable to us. We do that by creating (or using) a desire in the animal that is (hopefully) greater than its natural unfettered desire. A simple example might be seen in paper training a puppy. Its desire is to relieve itself. We try to shape that desire so that the animal has a greater desire to _avoid_ punishment and _receive_ affection by relieving itself in the appropriate place. I guess my point was (and is) that it seems to me that animals do have emotions (although not the full range of emotions as do humans), and that they do have an ability to think (and yes, even rational thinking in some cases, although certainly not to the same degree as humans can), but that they do not have a volitional ability (an ability to choose something other than what they desire). I hope this helps to clarify what I mean. And as for Scriptural support for this view, I do not have a nice systematic list of verses. But it does not seem to me to be contrary to the Word of God. (I do still have to go back and consider a couple of verses quoted by Lionstrong earlier in this discussion.) Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
10 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154129 | ||
Hey Doc! Man, how do keep all that history in your head?! That's awesome! I must admit, I am guilty of coveting a mind like that. You didn't put me to sleep anyway. I found that to be a very helpful post. I was sure that many other people in history have considered this question, but I had no clue as to who, or as to how they answered it. Thanks! From your concluding paragraph: "Aren't their many ways in which God and man are similar? ... Why not affirm all of those in the question of the Imago Dei. Those things, clearly, also make us quite distinctive from beasts." Yes, there are many ways in which we are a reflection of the image of God (intellect, emotion, relational capacity, etc.). I guess the question I am trying to raise (and propose an answer for) is whether or not any of those "ways" (qualities, characteristics) are entirely unique or distinctive to humans. The question is important (or so it seems to me) because of what God said in Ge. 1.26 _after_ having created all of the other animals: "Let Us make man in Our image...." That says that there was something _different_ that was going to happen, doesn't it? Or would you suggest that it is just differences of "degree" rather than some differnce of "kind?" Thanks again for your most informative repsonse. have a good day. Bob |
||||||
11 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154312 | ||
Good day! My apologies that it has taken so long to reply. If I may sir, I would like to press you a little more for your thoughts here. Yes, you are right in saying, "Humans have a penchant for simple answers," and I am, no doubt, as guilty of that as anyone. I am not deliberately trying to _over_simplify this question (or my proposed answer), but perhaps that is, in effect, what I am doing. If that is so, please be patient with me. You wrote: "Finally, I do not think that the answer lies entirely in kind or degree." I would agree that there are (sometimes great!) differences of "degree" in many of the attributes that we share with the rest of the animal kingdom, including intellectual and affective (emotional) abilities. But the _only_ attribute that I have been able to come up with so far that seems to be distinctly different (that is, different in "kind") between us and the rest of the animal kingdom is that quality of volition (the ability to choose something other than that which is the strongest or greatest immediate desire). Is there anything else specifically that you can think of that: 1. would distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom and; 2. which would be part of that image of God that we were designed to reflect? You also wrote, "I guess what I'm saying is that unless the Scripture gives a clear, definitive answer, the answer is probably either beyond our ability to understand or God has chosen not to reveal it to us." Would you not agree that the Scriptures teach us that we are responsible (accountable) for our actions (and that animals are not) because we have at least some ability choose (that animals do not have)? I must say too that it seems to me that this thread has moved away from the question of animal intelligence (rationality) and migrated to the subject of the image of God. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move this discussion to Ge. 1.26 Thank you again for your time and thought. Bob BTW: what are "platonic solids" and what do they have to do with the orbits of the planets? Sorry, but that paragraph was lost on me. |
||||||
12 | Different languages already in place? | Gen 10:5 | RWC | 132807 | ||
Hey there, Someone identified as "Restored" just asked a question very similar to yours which has seemingly gone unanswered for more than 3 years. I have offered a possible explanation (message ID 132804) and would appreciate your thoughts. |
||||||
13 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | RWC | 233526 | ||
You have answered well in parts 1 and 2 here, and you asked and answered well in your discussions with Ed above. Good job! Live ready! | ||||||
14 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232554 | ||
Hi Hoth, I am assuming you did not see her plea for help: question id 219669. She is not violating the rules of the forum or any other rules of decorum, but rather pleading for your help. Grace. Live ready! Bob |
||||||
15 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232558 | ||
Oops, I think I got the wrong id #. It should be (I think) 219676. Sorry. | ||||||
16 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16454 | ||
Hello Joe, You're right. I haven't read a response here that really seems to answer my question. And, I'm afraid, I must include yours in that statement. You come close to *asking* my question when you wrote: "Q: So how can God decree sin (along with all other things) without being the author of it?" Depending on just what you mean by your use of the word "decree," it maybe that you are asking here the same question as I am. (I refer you back to our discussion under Gal. 2:17 and again ask that we get some of these words we are using well defined so that we can clearly understand each other.) But, it seems to me, that your answers to this question miss the mark. The first part of your answer to this question was: "...by bringing sinful people into EXISTENCE..." I am not sure how this answers the question. Yes, God brings sinful people into the world (and/or allows sinful people to be brought into the world). As I understand it, He loves each of them, cares for each of them, and does not tempt any of them or cause any of them to sin. And yet, it would seem that this passage is saying something very different. It says that *God* caused this sin. What I want to know is if this is a figure of speech of some sort, or a misunderstanding based on cultural difference, or if it really means exactly what it says and therefore I misunderstand something about God! The second part of your answer to this question was: "...by providing the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to sin." Again, I am not sure how this answers the question. As I said in our discussions on Gal. 2:17, real choice must include both the real ability to choose and the real opportunity to choose. It seems to me that, if this is correct, then we can only be held responsible (guilty) to the degree that we had real choice. My point in that discussion (Gal. 2:17) was to ask, "how can God hold us accountable for things in which we have no real choice?" In other words, if God has predestined every detail of history, including every sin, what *real* choice does anyone have? It was at that point, if my memory serves me correctly, that you referred me to this passage that we are now discussing seemingly as a proof (or evidence) that God really does predetermine (decree, predestine) even the sins that we commit. But my question (from Gal. 2:17) still stands: how can God do that and not be the author of sin? That seems to be a blatent contradiction. In the passage we are discussing here, how can we say that God is not the cause (author) of this sin? The third part of your answer to this question was: "...by limiting the EXTENT of the expression of the sinful act." Again, as I think I said in our discussion attached to Gal. 2:17, I have no problem with the idea of limited freedom. But there is a vast difference between limited freedom and absolute predestination wherein there is no freedom - and therefore there can be no responsibility. But in particular reference to the passage that we discussing at the moment, it gives no indication of God simply limiting the available choices. It quite specifically says that God Himself *would do* this thing. I am finding that to be a very uncomfortable thing. You began your message by writing: "Your post does bring me to something I had wanted to fit in earlier: whether using the words "author," "cause," and "source" synonymously is correct here." Are they not essentially synonomous? I do not see in the remainder of your message an explaination of why they are not. Then, immediately following that statement, you wrote: "Here is my understanding: Q: Where does sin originate? A: The sinful hearts of human beings." I do believe that sin originates in the hearts and minds of God's created beings (angels and humans), and that we are sinful by nature. We sin because we are sinners, not the other way around. But the strongly Calvanistic point of view, if I understand it at all, says more than that. It says that sin originates from God before the foundation of the world in that God decreed (predetermined, predestined) every detail of history! Am I mistaken in this? Anyway, that question more properly belongs back in our discussion on Gal. 2:17. The question I would like answered here (2Sa. 12:11-12) is "how can God say and/or do this without it compromising His holiness?" If it is wrong for people to perform these actions, then must it not also be wrong for God to *cause* them to do this? Have a very good day. As always, I am looking forward to your reply. Bob |
||||||
17 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16455 | ||
Good day, I am not sure how this passage could reasonably be understood as an anthropormorphism. It is, seemingly at least, a direct statement of what God was going to do. When God is said to repent or change His mind, it is, I think, always in response to a change in the way that humans are responding to Him. And I'm not sure that I would call that an anthropormorphism either. Anthropormorphism is, I believe, a figure of speech (ie. not to be taken litterally) where a human characteristic is figuratively applied to God in order to make a particular point. I don't see how that could be true of these two verses. If I am missing something here, please show me what it is. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
18 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16460 | ||
Hi Charis, You write that you "have been through this one before." Did you come to some answers? How do you understand these two verses here? I did not raise this question for the sake of trying to stir up dissention or any other kind of trouble. I too am convinced that God is good. It is precisely because of this that I am really perplexed by this passage (and a couple of others that I have now encountered) and desire to understand. Simply ignoring passages of Scripture that I do not understand - and especially those that seem to contradict what I think I do understand already - is not an acceptable option for me. I'm sorry if my question has offended you, but I think it is a good question that desires consideration, even if I may not ever have a compete answer this side of heaven. If you have some insight into this that may be helpful to me (or others who are also reading this), it would be much appreciated. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
19 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16606 | ||
Dear kalos, Please accept my humble apologies!! I read this post when you first posted it just over a week ago. I fully intended to reply to it, but never did. I also noticed that you have posted this same message in a few other threads related to this same basic question, but (just going by memory here) I don't recall anyone responding to it significantly in any of those places either. There is very little in what you wrote and quoted here that I would seriously question or take exception with. The problem is that it doesn't seem to answer my question, or, at least, if it does I have failed to see how. I am quite convinced that 1) God is in fact good and that 2) all that He created was good in its original creation. If I may, I'll leave you with two questions that will hopefully clarify what it is that I am asking, both in this particular thread and in the thread which spawned this one (Gal. 2:17). 1. Isaiah 45:6-7 is indeed a fairly easy text to deal with. But how do you understand the passage to which this thread is attached, and (just as importantly) why do you understand it that way? 2. You wrote: "God is certainly sovereign over evil. There's a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree." I am not exactly certain of what you are intending by the use of the words "sovereign" and "decree," but if, as the strongly Calvanist position seems to take, you mean that God has predetermined (ordained, predestined) every detail of history before any of it came to be, than how can He not also be properly called the author (source) of sin? I suppose it would be best if you are going to respond to the second question, that you do so in the thread attached to Gal. 2:17, since that is the question that is asked there and it would be at least somewhat outside of the scope of this particular thread. Again, please accept my apologies. It was not my intent to ignore what you had written. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
20 | What does the word "perfect mean here? | Ps 19:7 | RWC | 233527 | ||
I would add to this list the word 'mature,' meaning fully grown, fully developed, similar to your word 'complete.' | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |