Results 21 - 40 of 126
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: atdcross Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163065 | ||
You said, “I dont see anything that says we are victims.” In general, because of our First Parents’ disobedience, we are all victims of their sins, having become sinners, under the sentence of death, and ruled by demonic powers (Romans 5:12). In particular, we are all victims of one another. One is the victim of murder and another of abusive parents; mild or severe, we are all victims of someone’s negative or sinful behavior. That is not to deny we are responsible for our conduct, responses, failures, our own victimization of others; nor does it relieve us of guilt. |
||||||
22 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163086 | ||
Hi Mark, I am not against the concept of divine discipline; it is Biblical. Like a parent, I just think it is something God does not have on his mind to do unless it is necessary and it is not the ideal way he wants to encourage obedience. In addition, there are some things that cannot, at least in my mind, be construed as discipline, e.g. being sick or raped. The former, if one is to intepret it as from God, is rather divine judgment; the latter is just plain evil, an inspired act from evil powers. |
||||||
23 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163089 | ||
Hi Mark, My closing comments to you. 1. Heb 11 presents those of faith who, despite the obstacles to faith, persevered and did not fall away from their confidence in God. It can be admitted that persecution is not the main issue; faithfulness to God’s promise is. 2. However, we should not forget the history of each person mentioned. For example, Abel was persecuted by Cain. It can be assumed that Noah was persecuted for his preaching (2 Pet 2:5). Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael. Jacob was persecuted by Esau (although, afterwards, they were reconciled). Joseph was persecuted by his brothers. Moses chose persecution (“mistreatment,” NIV). The people of Israel were persecuted by the Egyptians. 3. I can agree that the this chapter does not emphasize persecution but that is because, I think, the writer’s intention is to emphasize people of faith who believed in the promises of God, although they could not see it, regardless of outward circumstances. 4. Then the writer of Hebrews moves into the present situation (chapter 12) where, it seems, the believers were in danger of shrinking back away from faith in Jesus as Messiah. 5. You state, “Verse three speaks of the ‘contradiction’ of sinners against Jesus. This is not necessarily persecution, but could also be opposition, hostility, or rebellion.” But, “opposition, hostility, or rebellion” is persecution. If someone is opposed to you, hostile towards you, and rebellious towards you because you do what is right, what is that if not persecution? Furthermore, I think the writers emphasis was on the event of Jesus' crucifixion. 6. Granted, discipline does not need to be confined through persecution. However, on the contrary, from the context here, as I read it, the discipline is not the persecution itself but their perseverance in the midst of persecution and/or various trials because of their faith in Messiah. In all this, my main point is that God does not intend for his children to suffer. Taken at face value, I do not think any can disagree. The question can be asked, “Is the parent that wants their children to suffer a bad parent?” At face value, how do we think it would be answered? With respect to discipline, it does cause suffering, but it is a suffering necessary to avoid greater evil and suffering and promote that which is good and healthy. However, what parent would rather their children just trust them and obey their word than have the need to discipline them? It seems to me God wanted our First Parents to just obey his word, not by experiencing discipline, but by the mere experience of his voice. I think that is how God would rather we learn to obey him. I have come to know God as a Father who does not intend for us or desire that we suffer. |
||||||
24 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163092 | ||
Hi Doc. You're making me smile. Since we can only envision how someone is looking when they are making their comments, without being insulting, you have this crooked smile, pleading eyes, and hands folded together in appeal...you got me smiling. Anyway, I think throughout this discussion I have presented a fair amount of verses in support of my position. But if you look at my initial Note #162232 (11/14/05), I did enter some verses, especially under point #3 (since that seems to be the main contention). You're welcome to review the Note and show where or how I have misused or misinterpreted the verses. |
||||||
25 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163101 | ||
You asked, “Discipline is their perseverance?” Maybe I was not clear. It is discipline in order that they would be trained and strengthened to persevere. The believers in Hebrews are urged to use the persecution to their benefit, that is, to train themselves by it to greater obedience to Father. However, I do not agree that it is persecution which God “set up” for them although (1) it necessarily occurs because, as I have stated, the world’s hostility to the gospel and (2) God does allow it for the very reason that he needs faithful men to witness for him for the purpose of saving, even those who are his enemies. For my part as a parent, I do not want my children to suffer. I’d rather they obey by their experience of my voice as one who loves them and seeks their best. That is how I have trained them. However, there is no disagreement on the necessity of discipline although it is something I do not want to do and take no pleasure in. I do not see this as discipline but as testing. Jesus needed no correction. Jesus was being tested and proved as to his fitness for the task of redeeming sinful men. Again, (1) Jesus’ life/death is unique and certain aspects of it do not necessarily mean it is to be experienced by all believers. (2) It was God’s “idea” but not without Jesus submission to be driven into the wilderness. It needed to be shown that he was "holy, innocent, undefiled, and separate from sinners." You said, “Please do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that God inflicts suffering for the sake of watching us squirm! But I think the Bible is clear that suffering has a place in our development, and God would be remiss if He did not include it as needed.” I am not arguing the point that suffering is and, at times, is necessary. I am saying that God never planned, intends, or desires that we do suffer. |
||||||
26 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163104 | ||
When I made that comment, my mind was not thinking of divine discipline but things like rape, murder, sickness, etc. Occasions where the Bible does show God inflicting these things or allowing it occurrence, it is due to judgment against sin. I was also thinking in terms of God not desiring, intending, or planning for his people to suffer in any way. Again, there basically is no argument against the idea of divine discipline per se. I can see two reasons for divine discipline: (1) to correct us for either sin or error in judgment, i.e. a purifying from, or (2) although one may already be blameless before God, God desires him to obtain more discernment and power for the task set before him, i.e. a purifying for. The suffering itself, from discipline or otherwise, is not the blessing; the good obtained is the blessing. I have no time to submit specific verses (except for Jer 29:11; Ps 91 and 103:1-6) but, for me, this is the whole tenor of the Bible. |
||||||
27 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166804 | ||
It is not in the Bible that God created Satan so I am unmable to show it. However, God did not create an evil being. If he did, then he would be the Creator and author of evil. Scholars seem to acknowledge that there is a hint in the Bible that God created an angel who was perfect and beautiful. This particular angel, in turn, rebelled against God and was thereafter given the name "Satan". It can be said that God created an angel who, it seems, was innocent and morally good by his obedience to God for a time until he turned against God. However, to say that God created Satan would be misconstrued to suggest that God created and is thereby the author of evil; the term "Satan" suggests his evil nature. God did not create a being with an evil nature, at least, I do not see the chapter and verse where it states he did. From my perspective, I think its more correct to say that God created an angel(s) who later rebelled against God. |
||||||
28 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166817 | ||
Again, I do not find in the Bible that God created Satan and neither do the verses you cite affirm it. They may read that God created Lucifer. That he became evil and, changed in name and character, turned into Satan is not by virtue of his being created. If the scholars are correct that Ezek 28:11ff (along with Isa 11) refers to Satan, then notice what is written: "You ["Lucifer"] were once an example of perfection...your conduct was perfect from the day you were created" (cf.1-15a TEV). This is the description of the angel who is "Bright Morning Star" (i.e. Lucifer; cf. Isa 14:12) as created. God created him for good and not for evil; he was endowed with free will to choose what is good. At this point there is no evil. This angel maintained right conduct before God but only for an unknown amount of time; he maintained the very purpose for which he was created "until [he] began to do evil" (Ezk 28:15b). Satan created evil. There was no evil until "Lucifer" acted in rebellion against God (Isa 14:13-14 TEV). It seems to me that evil is not so much a thing that is created; it is an act that a free will being commits. Without the existence of evil beings there is no evil. As such, evil began with this rebellious angel; if one wants to say evil was created, then it was "created," not by God, but by "Lucifer". Therefore, to say, "God created Satan," is to say God created an evil being. God does not create evil beings; he may have allowed them to exist but he has not created them. Therefore, one may say, God created "Lucifer" but "Lucifer" created evil. |
||||||
29 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166840 | ||
It seems we agree, especially your when you state, "God can be the creator of a being, without being the 'creator' of evil." If the scholars are correct and Lucifer is Satan, then God created Lucifer but not Satan, as I suggested that the name denotes his character and conduct. As such, my objection would be against using the phrase, "God created Satan." I think it is misleading and can be misunderstood as God having created evil or an evil being. |
||||||
30 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166843 | ||
Although I am not sure I understand what your point is, I do want to respond to some verses in particular. Amos 3:6. The calamity is with reference to judgment and not moral evil. Job 1:21; 2:10. As seen "behind the scenes" of Job's story, it is Satan and not God who has "taken away" and "covered [him] with boils." Eph 1:11. Note, it does not say God "causes all things" especially moral evil and every tragedy and sickness that occurs. Matt 10:29. It does not say God caused the sparrow to fall. Prov 16:33. As I see it, God may intervene in the roll of dice, however, there is no indication that his control over the affairs of men are as exhaustive and minute. As the TEV suggests, the men throwing the dice are doing so "to learn God's will" (that is, they are in a posture of submission to God) and, therefore, "God himself determines the answer." |
||||||
31 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166899 | ||
Good day, Doc. Amos 3:6. The evil in Amos is with reference to God executing judgment on those who have committed moral evil; it does not mean God created moral evil. “Evil” would, it seems, be better translated as “disaster” or “calamity”. I am of the impression that the story of Job is not solely or predominately to teach us that God is sovereign; that God is sovereign is never questioned in Job. In any case, the book of Job reveals to the reader that it was not God who gave Job the boils and sickness; neither did God execute the calamities against Job that caused the loss of all that he had. Eph 1:11. Are you saying my position “would be in keeping with the rest of Scripture”? Also, I’m not sure I understand what point you are trying to make with quoting Gill. Are you saying that God created/authored moral evil or sin? Matt 10:29. It’s pretty frightening to picture the hand of God just smashing a helpless, innocent bird to the ground for no reason. God does have the power to do it and if that is what he feels like doing, so be it. However, I don’t think the Bible, at least for me, give that kind of picture of God. My comment does not suggest in any way God’s hand being forced. In brief, God set in motion certain laws in nature and, it seems to me, those laws, unless God through nature intervenes to overrule the normal course nature normally takes, determine the occurrence of certain events. Ps 104:21-30 does not seem to contradict this notion. 1 Kings 17:4-6 is a good example of God overruling the natural order. Prov 16:33. Are you suggesting God doesn’t work in the lives of men submitted to His rule over them? I am merely suggesting that it is not necessary to assume by the verse cited that God’s “control over the affairs of men are as exhaustive and minute”. As for God working in the lives of those who are submitted to him, I do not think it can be denied He works on their behalf. |
||||||
32 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166932 | ||
I agree. Evil is not created; it is a state of being. However, I am not sure that Satan is unable to, in some sense, create (a God-given ability he may possess as created). |
||||||
33 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166975 | ||
If “we are here to study the Bible”, why bring up 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? Besides, I don’t agree with it; it is not Biblical. Furthermore, since it is not what we are here to study, I’ll have to ignore if (that is, if I am to follow your advice; same goes for Gill). You stated, “That's pretty frightening to think that there is something out there that can force God's hand!” What technique you used here “in order to make it easier to attack” does that fall under? My remark was only to express what I think is a frightening thought. It was not intended to make attacking your point easier. I’m not that deft in the art of logic. Regarding your comment that I ignored your explanation, unfortunately, it seems to me that you missed my brief remark regarding the other passages mentioned. Would you rather I assert, “The Bible says so-and-so, therefore, you must be wrong”? |
||||||
34 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166979 | ||
Yes, Doc, the Bible says God is sovereign and I agree with it. I do not agree that with your fanciful notion of the kind of sovereign He is since it is contrary to Biblical revelation (notice, I did not qualify my statement with, "In my opinion"). I do not need to read the LBCF since (1) as you stated, we are dealing with the Bible, and (2) since truth is found in the Bible, the LBCF is unnecessary as well as patently false leading to heretical conclusions about God and salvation notice, again, I purposely refrained from stating either "It seems" or "In my opinion"). What is important is that I do agree with the Bible (note the courage with which I make my assertion for, again, the third time, I do not qualify it with "It seems" or "In my opinion"). Agreeing with you is inconsequential and I give no importance or value whatsoever to the LBCF. It has also been an unpleasant experience reading your responses and responding. Do not miscontrue that it is because your arguments are so impressive and weighty as to devastate any objections I may conjure up. With all due respect, discussions with you are not about the Bible since (1) you do not use the Bible but fancies of a certain theological position; (2) you argue your point by attacking the person, and (3) you use sarcasm as a "technique that caricatures an opponents argument in order to make it easier to attack". I am ignoring your comments from now on. |
||||||
35 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166980 | ||
-----------------------------------------------------Doc, I have found that me first response was filled with grammatical mistakes and not as clear on certain points as I would like it to be so, since I am unable to edit it, I am reposting it. -------------------------------------------------- Yes, Doc, the Bible says God is sovereign and I agree with it (but I do wonder if you are getting me mixed up with someone else because I cannot find where I specifically discussed God’s sovereignty with you on this thread). I do not agree with your notion of the kind of sovereign He is since it is contrary to Biblical revelation (notice, I did not qualify my statement with, "In my opinion"). I do not need to read the LBCF since (1) as you stated, we are dealing with the Bible, and (2) since truth is found in the Bible, the LBCF is unnecessary as well as patently false leading to heretical conclusions about God and salvation (notice, again, I purposely refrained from stating "It seems" or "In my opinion"). What is important is that I do agree with the Bible (note, again for the third time, I do not qualify it with "It seems" or "In my opinion"). Agreeing with you is inconsequential (as far as my conscience is concerned) and I give no importance or value (in comparison to Biblical revelation) whatsoever to the LBCF. It has also been an unpleasant experience to read your responses and respond to them. Do not misconstrue that it is because your arguments are so impressive and weighty as to devastate any objections I may conjure up. With all due respect, discussions with you are not about the Bible since (1) you do not use the Bible but fancies of a certain theological position; (2) you argue your point by attacking the person; and (3) you use sarcasm as a "technique that caricatures an opponents argument in order to make it easier to attack". As it is not my purpose to prove my position is correct, please be advised, I am ignoring your comments from now on. -------------------------------------------------- Doc, amy further cummunication between us is ended. -------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
36 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167000 | ||
"As you wish", from Princess Bride and it really translates to "I love you." Well, thank you, Doc, I love you too in Christ. |
||||||
37 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167069 | ||
Repentance involves not only the acknowledgement that we are sinners, but a complete reversal of lifestyle from disobedience to God to obedience. To "believe with your heart" is to repent; obedience to God is the "bringing of fruit worthy of repentance." Confessing with one's mouth without this repentance has no saving value (as also repentance without the public confession has none either). |
||||||
38 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167082 | ||
Matt 3:2 - the first call of the Gospel; 3:8; Mark 1:5 - "repent and believe"; Luke 3:3; 13:3; 5:32; Acts 3:19; 26:20; 2 Cor 7:9-10; 2 Pet 3:9; Rev 9:20-21; 16:9. | ||||||
39 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167097 | ||
No. I said, "To 'believe with your heart' is to repent." I do not mean that repentance and belief (faith) are synonomous but that true faith requires repentance. Without faith in God there is no repentance that leads to salvation. However, repentance is of no value to the saving of one's soul without faith. Many people repent of that evil they may have done but their repentance, instead of directing it with faith in God, merely reform their lifestyle. Change in lifestyle alone offers nothing if not mixed with faith (Rom 10:3). I offer some Bible verses in post ID# 167082. |
||||||
40 | Essentials, where is the proof? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167134 | ||
Good day Tim, Not being familiar with the Greek of the NT, I am forced to rely on scholars. In the first place, looking at the Strong's, I notice that in John 3:36, I notice: 1. The Greek word for the first instance of "believeth" (KJV) is a different Greek word from its use in the second instance for "believeth" (KJV). 2. The Greek word used in 3:12,18 is the same as that used in the first instance in v.36, which, again, is different from the second instance, "believeth" (KJV). 3. Some of the popular and more accurate translations have "disobey" (RSV, NASV, TEV, cf. less popular known, Moffatt, Revised English Bible). In the second place, Vincent states, "More correctly as Rev., 'obeyeth not'. disbelief is regarded in its active manifestation, disobedience" (Word Studies; cf. Linguistic/Exegetical Key to the Greek NT; Robertson Word Pictures). Mayfield agrees that "he who does not obey" is the "better translation" and comments, "The opposite of faith is actually 'refusal to obey'" (Beacon Bible Commentary; cf. "The Gospel an Epistles of John", F.F. Bruce). Notice that Michaels writes, "The last verse of the chapter brings the reader back to the point reached in verses 18-21" (NIBC), which is what I suggested (cf. EBC). What Leon Morris asserts in his NICNT commentary on John is very instructive - as is also his footnote with reference to the BAGD - and answers directly to your asertion that the word translated as "disobey" can also be translated as "not believe." In conclusion, I do not go along with your suggestion because: 1. (a) Words are different. To be more accurate in translation, I will go along with the TEV. (b) Context does not demand what you assert but rather suggests, especially with vs. 16-21, that "disobeys" is the better translation of the Greek word. 2. The commentaries agree that the word translated "disobey" (TEV) emphasizes the activity of faith (something that I attempted to point out but they said it better). To me, it seems this emphasis is lost if translated merely as "disbelieves". 3. The contrast made in vs.12,18 is that of believing and disobedience when seen in its context, especially in light of vs.19-21. Their condemnation is "because their deeds were evil." In conclusion, if disobedience is the activity of unbelief, it seems to me that repentance - a truning to obedience - is, as I have suggested, the activity of faith. If your translation be insisted on, it should be with the understanding that an activity is emphasized, that is, the activity of diobedience. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |