Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ron Johnson Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Ron Johnson | 2500 | ||
I have cut and pasted in your three questions and now will try to answer them "directly", as best I can. 1) If God pre-chose only some individuals that were to be saved, why did he destroy them in the flood? I guess you could always say the Noah and family were the only ones he chose but why then go to all the trouble of populating the world and wipe it out with a flood? Answer: I'm not sure what you mean here. Who is the "them"? I suppose you refer to all of mankind dying in the flood. But this has nothing to do with election/free-will. To be blunt, everyone dies sooner or later. The only difference in this case (the Flood) was that all but 8 died all at once rather than just some each day. It is possible that some of them were elect and went on to paradise. Although this is doubtful in view of Gen 6:5-8 which seems to say that only Noah was found acceptable by God. But to imply a lack of election because of the timing and/manner of the physical deaths of many people is mixing apples and oranges. The same question could then apply to any case of mass slaughter of humans, some of whom may be elect and saved while others are not. Bluntly put, the question makes no sense. Sorry. 2) If God had his "Elect" already in mind and knew they were going to be saved because the could not resist God, why then did Jesus have to die? Answer: Jesus had to die and rise again to be the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for the sins of the elect. The fact that a sinner has been chosen by God unto salvation is an act of a loving and gracious God showing forth his mercy towards someone who not only doesn't deserve mercy he actually deserves eternal punishment. But God is just as well as loving. Hence the penalty for the sin had to be paid by Someone who had no sin of His own to atone for. Hence the perfect sinless humanity of Jesus was an absolute requirement. He also had to be divine, infinite in His capacity to atone for the sins of more than just one person. God couldn't simply choose someone to salvation out of His loving nature without also satisfying His just nature. And to respond to one statement in your answer to your own question, Jesus was not sent to show us the path. He WAS/IS the path! 3) Why would it be harder for a rich man to enter the Kindgom of Heaven? Answer: One whose heart is set upon his earthly riches to the point that he prefers them to God is evidence that he has never been truly converted and has no real love for God (cf 1 Jn 2:15 and similar Scriptures). Hence, as it is obviously absurdly impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, it is even more absurd, or "harder", for the unconverted rich man to enter heaven. This question, by the way, would probably fit in better with a Lordship/cheap-grace debate rather than election/free-will. But in many respects the two questions are closely linked, anyway. But that is another topic for another time. Also, at the end of your comments you made a very telling remark that in effect contradicts your whole point. If God can over-ride the will (your words), then the will is not truly free, is it? And that is precisely the issue. Scripture, from beginning to end, shows that the will of fallen man always runs away from God rather than towards Him. (cf Rom 3:9-18; etc) The only way for God to save any person is to perform in such a way as to over-ride that evil will which is inherent to each and every one of us. Hope I have answered you directly enough. Ron (A poor sinner saved by the gracious choice of a loving and just God!) |
||||||
2 | Does your pastor know your name? | Heb 13:17 | Ron Johnson | 2449 | ||
Scripture tells us that church leaders will be held accountable to God for their ministry. 1 Cor 3:9-15 describes the testing of their work, as by fire. Heb 13:17 specifically addresses the issue you raise - that church leaders will be held accountable for the spiritual state of the individuals in the church. With that in view, I cannot see how a church leader can justify NOT knowing, and knowing well, all the members of the church. This obviously would include their names. I think the modern trend toward huge mega-churches with thousands of members is very much a problem in many areas, with this issue at the forefront - there is no way the leader of a mega-church could fulfill his responsibility to the individuals in the body if their number is so large that it would take years for him just to say hello to everyone. |
||||||
3 | One group or two? | John 6:37 | Ron Johnson | 2421 | ||
IMHO, the two phrases refer to the same group. The first phrase describes the manner of coming, I.E. given by the Father. The second phrase then describes how those who have been given are securely retained. Note the "and" that conjoins the phrases, and also note the similar descriptions as those who come/one who comes. Note in v.45 that those who come are those who have heard and learned from the Father - single group. See also v.65 that specifically states that no one can come unless specifically granted this by the Father. | ||||||