Results 1741 - 1760 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1741 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Reformer Joe | 15856 | ||
More later, but I just wanted to note the perspective you cited as "reformed" is held by others outside of that tradition. Anyone who holds that God is sovereign will agree that no one dies unless it is ordained (or at least permitted) by God. I would suppose that even under a view in which God merely "foresees" the choices we will make, that a just God would not let someone be killed who otherwise would in his life trust Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. Therefore, I don't see how "we" as human beings are giving people any more of a chance by prolonging their lives. Otherwise, we enter into the dangerous territory of claiming that deaths are "accidental" or "untimely" from God's perspective. "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." --Matthew 10:29 "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment," --Hebrews 9:27 Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1742 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Reformer Joe | 15840 | ||
You wrote: "I believe that it is wrong to kill a human to set an example, or based on what they might do in the future, or even to get the fair revenge for what they have done in the past." I do not view the death penalty as revenge or deterrant so much as I view it as justice. When the society establishes a death penalty for heinous crimes, what it in effect is saying is that the values that the crime violates are so cherished that the violator should be completely eliminated from the society. This has Biblical precedent. Even though we are not ancient Israel, obviously it is not always wrong for a society to execute those who violate the highest mores of that society. --Joe! |
||||||
1743 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | Reformer Joe | 15667 | ||
Yes, that's Job; but there is an inclination within each individual to rebel against God. All humans possess it. Those who are not trusting 100 percent in what Jesus accomplished on the cross are 100 percent driven by this sin nature (Roamsn 8:7-8). Satan is busy at work and tempts, but he is not omnipresent. Satan can only tempt in one place at one time, but the idea that we are morally neutral is not a biblical one. --Joe! |
||||||
1744 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | Reformer Joe | 15648 | ||
Completely in agreement. One of the things I remind people all the time is that the Bible is not a collection of writing merely ABOUT God, but rather a collection of writings FROM God. That alone should move believers to treat the Holy Scripures as more than some scientific journal or a human being's personal reflections on some political issue. Sadly, however, as you correctly surmise, many believers do not approach the self-revelation of God with the reverance and wonder and awe (and even FEAR?) that it merits. This includes those who claim that it is inerrant, but live their lives in such a way that shows they believe the Bible to be insufficient for them to base 21st-century decisions on it. It is the difference between believing in the Bible (i.e. holding that it is inspired by God) and believing the Bible (i.e. reverentially learning from it and doing what it says -- James 1:22-25). If we truly believe the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, it should change our entire attitude toward the Bible. Some in countries where believers are horribly persecuted could articulate this much better than I can from my nice comfortable office... Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1745 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | Reformer Joe | 15643 | ||
I agree with your perspective here. We cannot simply say to believers (or unbelievers) who ask questions about Scripture to "not ask those questions." I fear that that leads to more rejecting the claims of Christianity than any amount of the philosophy Charis so apparently despises. The motive behind this thread was not to "disprove God" or reject the Bible, but rather a sincere desire to understand God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. Everything He included in His Word he put there for us to know and think about and reason out. Where I disagree with you is in your statement that "that these questions have caused people to lose their faith." What causes people to reject Christ is their rebellious wills. For unbelievers, most often these questions are not made in search of answers at all, but rather they are made under the assumption that there are no thoughtful answers. Once given thoughtful answers, unless God works a change in them, will still be as rebellious as before. Now in the case of professing Christians, it has been my experience that they do not reject the faith based on the QUESTION of evil and an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God; but many have abandoned it because no one gave them any shred of a reasonable reconciliation of this seeming paradox (especially when you factor in the Calvinist view that all things, including sin, are decreed by God, as we see in 2 Samuel 12 with Absolom's sin). It is not the questions that make people doubt. It is the lack of Scriptural answers given by believers. I think this is what you meant, however. Thanks for your post! --Joe! |
||||||
1746 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | Reformer Joe | 15638 | ||
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree here, Hank. Perhaps it is because I have been involved in the discussion from the beginning of Bob's first question on this issue. What we have been discussing here is not conjecture about God outside the Bible, but rather trying to reconcile two different ideas presented within Scripture: (1) that God is not sinful and hates sin, and does not Himself tempt anyone; and (2) that God decrees all things, including sin. All discussion so far has been biblically-based and the goal has been apprehending what God is truly like from the pages of His self-revelation, rather than playing "make-believe" or trying to judge or question God in his sovereignty. Far be it from any Calvinistic bone in my body to do that! In short, this thread in my opinion fits right into Lockman's boundaries. Regards, Joe! |
||||||
1747 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 15493 | ||
Translation is not the same as commentary. Translation is a conveyance of one piece of text from one language to another, without any elaboration or change upon the ideas being conveyed. For example, if I spoke German, I could translate Hitler's speeches without making the slightest value judgment on what he had to say. My commentary of such speeches, however, would be a very different thing. Commentary is not just "here is what this says in English," but "here is what this says in English, and now here is what the author means by saying this." The thing that stops the "telephone game" is that we have 25,000 fragments of early manuscripts dating from the first few centuries, along with citations from the early church fathers which verify that the Bible we have now is not different from the one we had then. When people do translation, they do not begin with one English translation and bring about another. They go back to the reliable early manuscripts. Bible translation in its technique is nothing like the "telephone game," where once something is verbally said it is not repeated nor written down. --Joe! |
||||||
1748 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 15490 | ||
The message is authoritative, not because it is inspired in its translation, but rather because it is translated from an inspired source. There is nothing miraculous about a translation. If I were to translate some other book, such as Don Quijote, from Spanish to English, how do I know that the text is authoritative? Because we have Spanish copies with which we can compare it The words may be different, but we can be confident that if I know Spanish and I know English, that my careful translation will be accurate to what Cervantes wrote. The same is true regarding Scripture. Scholars who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and understand principles of translation can carefully create a new translation. Again, there is nothing supernatural about such a translation, but the fact that it is an accurate translation from an authoritative text makes us comfortable that what its Author had to say in Greek is so close to what we read in English as to bear the same authority. --Joe! |
||||||
1749 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14633 | ||
Charis: 1. I wasn't dealing with "Gentiles," but with individuals who claim to be believers in Jesus Christ. The only one slandering me as an evildoer is you; and 1 Peter deals with good behavior in the face of false accusations of those who are enemies of the cross (cf. 2:15). This verse is not being used in its proper context. 2.I never claim to be perfect, but the object of discussion in this forum is a perfect standard. I arrogantly hold that the Bible is truth, and that rather than making up reality, we read and believe what God says. 3. While sanctification is a life-long process (with some further down the road than others), it does not take place apart from the Word of God. If you will look back at the post that caused you so much dismay (if indeed you did read the original post which I made regarding the statement "Who made God?"), about three sentences were mine and the rest of the post was verse after verse from Scripture supporting the truth that God is uncreated. If we are to grow in Christ, it is not by sitting around and discussing "what would be neat," but by carefully examining the Scriptures. Some undoubtedly have more experience in doing that, but there is no question that those who are ignoring the Bible in their search for truth are NOT being sanctified. Continued ignorance of the Holy Bible is deplorable to its Author. Finally, Second Timothy 3:16 says nothing about Timothy as an acomplished apostle, but it says a great deal about the Bible: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." This is exactly how I used Scripture (i.e. CORRECTLY); so again, your beef is with Paul and with the Holy Spirit, not with me. --Joe! |
||||||
1750 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14589 | ||
Charis: If you are going to rebuke me, point out Scripture. Your opinion holds just as much weight as mine unless one of them is supported by the Bible (1 Timothy 3:16). How in the world is it bigoted to point to the Word of God as the source of truth about Him? When I frequently address skeptics and atheists and agnostics, I certainly take a completely different approach; but this is a Bible study forum for people to discuss the BIBLE, not to dream up some New-Age fantasies. The person to whom I addressed my reply claims that she is a believer in Jesus Christ, but she is very wrong on several notions about the very nature of God and the nature of humanity. I have brought them up before, extensively pointing her to Scriptures which point out these errors; and the only reply I get is silence and repetition of the same unbiblical notions. Not terribly teachable (2 Timothy 3:16). I am sorry if you see my zeal for doctrinal purity as intolerance. Please be assured that you and anyone else on here can believe whatever you want, but I have a written standard which is very intolerant of falsehood about our Creator. The truth is pretty narrow, Charis, and it is wishy-washiness about standing up for what our holy God has revealed about Himself that has led to such anemia in the church today. Consider this to be correction (2 Timothy 3:16). --Joe! |
||||||
1751 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14506 | ||
Tim: Just as a clarification, I wasn't suggesting that all Arminians hold to the "openness of God," but rather that the argument cannot be an intramural one among Calvinists, since having such a strong view of God's active, sovereign decree leaves no room at all for a God who doesn't know the future. After all, we believe that God has already WRITTEN the future! --Joe! |
||||||
1752 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14365 | ||
God gets the ONLY vote where ultimate reality is concerned! Yes, Tim, I know we agree--again! --Joe! |
||||||
1753 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14364 | ||
And, of course, the Reformed point of view distinguishes between the outward call (given to all men), and the inward, effectual regeneration by the Holy Spirit which enables and persuades a person to answer the outward call. Therefore, one could argue that all who hear the message of the gospel are "called" but only those "chosen" will answer the call. Hence, full agreement! Picking up my horse-beating stick, I have a question for you, Tim: do you believe that the Gospel was extended to Gentiles SOLELY because of Jewish unbelief, or was extending salvation to the Gentiles part of God's plan from eternity past? --Joe! |
||||||
1754 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14362 | ||
Ed: I am glad you brought up the question of how each side of this intramural debate views evangelism differently. I hope you will indulge me here, and Tim, I am sure you will correct me where I am wrong! Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that all who put their trust in Christ will be saved. Both believe that justification comes through faith, and that it is the human who places his faith in Christ. However, the question of WHOSE choice it is greatly impacts how we do evangelism differently. For example, as a Calvinist, I can make terribly persuasive argumants for the gospel of Christ, but I hold that unless the Holy Spirit actually regenerates the heart of the unbeliever, he will continue in his unbelief. Tim, on the other hand, believing that it is God's desire for all to be in heaven with Him, will normally focus on a more "personal appeal" (e.g. the "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" approach) than I would, since I do not know whether God truly has a wonderful plan for each individual. I would present the Gospel in a more general way, seeing my duty as glorifying God by proclaiming the truth whether anyone is saved or not, without focusing on "convincing" someone into the Kingdom. The basic point is the way that we view God's character and how He operates affects the way in which we worship him. What attracted me to Reformed theology in the first place (to which I have only formally adhered for a few years) is the extreme God-centeredness of the system of thought, the sovereignty of God, the high view of God and low view of man which clearly puts him in the category of creation to be used as God pleases. While Tim holds to God's sovereignty, he undoubtedly makes a larger space in his theology for man's individual role in choosing to be saved. This changes how we pray and what we pray for, and also how we view ourselves in light of God. I do not hold that Arminianism is "Word of Faith" (if you were alluding to that system rather than Calvinism!). However, I see a great deal of problematic situations have arisen from a departure from historic, Reformed theology. For example, the "openness of God" controversy that is currently raging in evangelicalism is clearly an Arminian struggle rather than a Reformed one, simply because the idea of God changing his mind and not knowing the future is simply ruled out completely at the outset of Calvinist thinking. Also, we see that a lot of the cults, such as the Watchtower Society and the Mormons, grew out of the "burned over" district of New York where Charles Finney basically threw the Westminster Confession of Faith out the window and turned the Secong Great Awakening as a "revival-by-human-technique" rather than a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit who chooses when and where revival will occur. Granted, this was not a particularly Arminian phenomenon, but it was very anti-Calvinistic. Perhaps I am being myopic in my criticism of other theological views, but other than hyper-Calvinism (which I reject as unbiblical but not necessarily dangerous--just ineffective Christianity), I see no heresy threatening evangelicalism from within the ranks of Reformed, confessional thinking. Perhaps someone else could enlighten me if I am wrong. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1755 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14360 | ||
Tim: 1) The part that says "yet one of you is a devil" is enough distinguishing for me. I think you agree that Jesus didn't select these disciples for salvation in this context. 2)Perhaps it is just late, but I don't understand the point of your question here. Pleas elaborate for me. --Joe! |
||||||
1756 | Hello!Martin Luther KING???Really?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14358 | ||
Praise God for your conversion! Where did your beliefs previously lie? --Joe! |
||||||
1757 | book of barabus | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14357 | ||
Thanks for the info! Know where I can read more about it? --Joe! |
||||||
1758 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14201 | ||
Ed: This thread can be ignored by you. --Joe! P.S. The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism influences a great deal beyond whether one is saved or not. It greatly affects how we do evangelism, and also how we view God and how he acts in the universe, affecting our worship. They are both within the pale of Christianity, but they are completely different worldviews which make a great deal of difference in worship, prayer, and every other aspect of our Christian walks. |
||||||
1759 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14196 | ||
Tim: Judas was not chosen for salvation, but for the betrayal of Jesus. Calvin didn't invent the idea of effectual grace and unconditional election. Read Augustine. --Joe! |
||||||
1760 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14111 | ||
Tim: Following my clarification of different views on free will, where is the biblical support that God's grace only makes salvation possible rather than makes salvation a reality for all who receive it? And the biggest question: what makes one person who receives God's prevenient grace trust in Christ and another who receives God's prevenient grace continue to reject him? Seems that in Arminian view, the former person would indeed have reason to boast, whether it be on the basis of his own goodness, or his intelligence, or his wisdom, or his clear-sightedness, or something. If anything in ourselves is required for God's grace to be salvific, even if it is only cooperating with His prevenient grace, then we do indeed have a reason to boast, and Paul was wrong. Calvinists do not take a few obscure words to try and "explain away" clear statements in Scripture. Calvinists realize that there are verses which are apparent contradictions when taken in isolation. However, when examined in the context of the passages in which they were written, the contradictions can easily be explained away. For example, in Romans 9-11 it is you who are trying to take straightforward statements such as 9:15 and say that God "really doesn't only show mercy to some and not others," despite the fact that almost anyone reading that without a predisposition to reject such a notion would come precisely to that conclusion. One has to ignore Pharoah's hardening of heart as an active choice on God's part. One has to ignore the fact that the very author of Romans was apparently not given a choice as to whether he was one of the elect or not (show me one shred of evidence in Acts 9 that points to Paul's free will in initiating his salvation). Despite your claim that it is Christ who was chosen/elect (same word in the Greek), God makes it very clear that it is a set of individuals who are chosen. Who does the choosing? Let's see: "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness" --Titus 1:1 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure." --1 Peter 1:1-2 "And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven." --Mark 13:27 (Christ isn't gathering Himself here) "knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you..." 1 Thessalonians 1:4 "So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience" Colossians 3:12 "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." -- Thessalonians 2:13 "...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will" Ephesians 1:4-5 Over and over again we see that: 1. God chooses. We do not see one NT passage which suggests that God chooses us because we choose him. Every time a form of the word eklegomai, God is the subject and one or more Christians are the direct object. Never is it used of humanity in general, and the very nature of the word "choose" implies that some are placed in a different category than others. Scripture makes this clear that is is not based on us (or we would have reason to boast), but rather on the wise counsel of God (Ephesians 1:11). It is the Arminian who seeks to "explain away" the clear statements of Scipture. You may accuse the Calvinist of insisting that "all" doesn't mean "all" in all cases (without indicating the contextual basis for his doing so), but it is you, Tim, who are guilty of insisting that "chosen by God" doesn't really mean "chosen by God," but rather "chosen by God because man really made the choice." --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 ] Next > Last [97] >> |