Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Morant61 | 20082 | ||
Contrary View................................... Greetings Bill! I read the entire site! Painfully! :-) It is difficult to sum up this man's position, but bascially: Jesus is truth, everything else is opinion. The problem with this is that Scripture makes truth statements. For instance: 1) Jesus is God. 2) Jesus rose from the dead. 3) Jesus was born of a virgin. 4) Jesus died for our sins. If we applied this web sites line of reasoning, it would be nonsense to debate whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead. One side might say He only appeared to be dead. The other side might say that Jesus actually was dead. But, Jesus is truth and what we are saying is only opinion. Unless you can explain it to me better, I can't go along with this position. While it is true that we are only human, and that sometimes are bias effects our views, the fact remain that Scripture is revealed truth. One plus one cannot equal both two and three. As Joe pointed out (very well, I might add), the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism are great. 1) One view understands that God elects to save certain individuals and leave the rest in their sin. 2) The other view understands that God wants to save all, but the gift must be accepted. The basic difference is not one of semantics, but of intent. Let me know what you think! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Bill Mc | 20092 | ||
Gentlemen, I had to read Jim's site about three times before I could see where he was going with the Argument argument. I'm not saying that I agree with his conclusions, but I did find them interesting. I, too, agree that the world (and, in fact, Christendom) believes in many different Jesuses (I'm not sure how to spell the plural of Jesus, maybe it should be Jesi). But I do think that we all tend to create God in our image to some extent. We all have filters that we perceive truth through. Please, Joe and Tim, do not take what I am about to say as a personal attack. I respect you both. You both have been helpful to me in different aspects and I appreciate it. But, brothers, you cannot be both right if the issue is as diametrically opposed as you insist. I have to admit, I have not studied Calvinism or Armenianism at all. Not one wit. Why? Because of the arguing present over it. There is a staunch, 5-point Calvinist at my church (his label, not mine) who has the most hateful things to say about Armenianists that I left his Sunday School class. Is this my problem? Could be. But I did not view the issue as edifying to the body of Christ at all. (Joe, I am not pointing at you, brother. You have never come close to saying some of the things this Calvinist has said.) Does my lack of understanding in this area cause a deficiency in my understanding of the plan of salvation and God's nature? Not from my perspective. Why? Because I believe that everything that we need to know to be saved is in the scripture and the same Holy Spirit that revealed the meaning to Calvin and to Armenius will reveal the meaning to me. God does not say that He would send Calvin and Armenius to remind us of what Christ said or to lead us into all truth. He gives us the Holy Spirit to do so as we humbly submit ourselves to having our minds renewed by God's Word and the mind of Christ available to us. What does Calvinism or Armenianism add to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Once you are saved, does it matter one wit whether you chose or whether God did? For those who are not saved, do we have the right to decide who the chosen are and are not? Now, you're probably both, Joe and Tim, saying, "Bill doesn't understand my view at all." This is true. But it is also true that what little I do understand of the argument has led me to 'perceive' the argument as I've stated it, whether my perception is correct or not. This is the connotation it presents to me. Again, is it my problem? Probably. But, from my perspective, God has had true believers all down through the centuries that have placed their hope and trust in Christ alone as revealed through the scriptures by the Holy Spirit. How either Calvin or Armenius could add anything to the full revelation of God through Jesus Christ is beyond me. I believe that if you try to add ANYTHING to the gospel, then you detract from it. To insist that God has given a 'fuller' revelation to any one individual then what His Word says smacks of favoritism (which God does not show) and the beginnings of cultish theology. We are ALL of one Spirit if we are in Christ. We were ALL baptized into His body, the church. In closing, I agree that truth is important. That was one thing that Jim said that did make sense. We are all growing in our knowledge of grace and truth and the love of our Lord. Jesus, as Jim said, is the embodiment of grace and truth. We cannot find either apart from Him. Well, I've said enough. Grace and peace to you both. I love you both in the Lord. Now, on to really important matters...Did God predestine for a certain number of angels to dance on the head of a pin, or do the angels, having free will, choose who will and will not? :) In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
3 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Morant61 | 20099 | ||
Response................................. Greetings Bill! I will definitely agree that many who debate the issues do so in a very unchristlike manner. However, Joe and I are examples that such does not have to be the case. To address your main point though, it is not a question of what Calvin says about the Bible or what Arminius says about the Bible. The issue is what does the Bible say about salvation. The terms Calvinism and Arminianism are simply catch-all phrases which identify a persons understanding of what Scripture does say. I deveoloped my understanding of salvation when I was just a young boy, long before I had ever heard of Calvinism and Arminianism. In fact, I don't even totally agree with Arminianism in every point. I don't buy that election is based upon foreknowledge. I veiw election as corporate and continued upon a faith response to Christ. The point is that these two systems really are the only options presented in Scripture. Either Christ provides salvation for all or He only died for those whom He choose. There is no other possiblity (at least that I have ever been able to find). As Joe pointed out before, the view one takes totally changes how one approaches evangelism. I for one believe that salvation is available for all. Therefore, I do my utmost to present the gospel to everyone, knowing that if they do not accept the gift of salvation they will be lost. Regardless, you, Joe, and I, are still all brothers in Christ! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Reformer Joe | 20185 | ||
Like Tim and Arminianism, I held to most of the theological distinctives of Calvinism before realizing what Calvinism holds. It simply was a way to describe my understanding of the Bible. Neither of us are claiming some "extra-Biblical revelation" as Bill seems to indicate that we are. This is not Joseph Smith stuff we are talking about here. The Holy Spirit obviously did not "reveal" the correct interpretation to both of us, either, since the law of non-contradiction was still in force last time I checked. As for me as a Reformed guy, I do my utmost (or should do my utmost) to present the gospel to everyone, realizing that God uses the proclamation of His word to draw the elect to Himself and that if God does not regenerate them, they will continue in their rejection of the truth of Him and be lost. We both evangelize; neither of us holds that only a select group should be evangelized; what it does affect, however, is the content of our evangelism (you will never hear me telling any individual anymore that "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" since that may, in fact, not be true). I would encourage Bill and others to examine the two schools of thought. Theological knowledge is not something to be ridiculed or ignored. Saying "all I need is me and my Bible" doesn't work, either, because most of what we hold regarding the Holy Scriptures was taught to us by others (pastors, books, etc.) We may have analyzed their teachings in light of Scripture and come to particular conclusions (a GOOD thing), but the fact remains is that God never intended for us to be "biblical mavericks," rejecting the commentary and excellent preaching and teaching of God's word over the centuries. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Joe, is the Bible not sufficienct? | Lev 16:34 | Bill Mc | 20191 | ||
Dear Joe, You write: 'Saying "all I need is me and my Bible" doesn't work, either, because most of what we hold regarding the Holy Scriptures was taught to us by others...' Are you saying that if a person knew how to read and all that he had was the Bible, that it would not be enough for him to arrive at a saving faith? If so, that is a pretty strong statement, even for you. Granted, most all of us sit under someone's teaching. But how do you know if it is valid teaching or not? The Bible. I do believe that all that is necessary in a humble soul, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit of God. In fact, I would recommend that any new Christian avoid sitting under anyone's teaching for at least a year so that only he and the Holy Spirit can spend time learning what God's Word says and means before having it filtered through someone else. I don't know about you, but I have no desire to chew someone else's food to get my nourishment. God promised me that he would lead me into all truth through His Word. Right or wrong, I trust Him to do so. Commentaries are exactly that - 'com'ments from 'men', nothing more, nothing less. I recently tried to discuss an issue with my pastor and all he wanted to do is read from his commentary. I said, "Pastor, why can't we just stick with God's Word and let the Holy Spirit and other scripture interpret this passage." "Oh, this commentary explains it very well," he replied. Made me what to puke. Commentaries have their place AFTER God's Word, not before it or alongside it. What do you think? Does one truly require more than the Bible and the Holy Spirit to know truth? In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
6 | Joe, is the Bible not sufficienct? | Lev 16:34 | kalos | 20194 | ||
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and TEACHERS (emphasis added). (KJV) Eph 4:11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;(RSV) |
||||||
7 | Do all TEACHERS teach the truth? | Lev 16:34 | Bill Mc | 20198 | ||
Dear kalos, Thanks for the response but it was not an answer. Why? How do you know whether or not these TEACHERS are teaching the truth? Do we trust everyone who is a TEACHER? Do all TEACHERS teach the same? I think not. If I sat under Joe's teaching for a year and then sat under Tim's teaching for a year, how would I know which line of thinking is the truth? We all know that their are false TEACHERS amongst us (in the organized church). Not everyone who teaches, should be teaching. So how do you make the determination of who is 'given by God' and who is not? In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
8 | Do all TEACHERS teach the truth? | Lev 16:34 | Kwaku | 20203 | ||
First of all, every believer as well as Bible teachers must accept the fact that God has clearly and obviously spoken to reveal His Divine Will in the Bible. Hence, whatever taught from the pulpit, Bible teacher or an angel in glittering lights must be tested in the light of the Scriptures. If it is out of line, you shouldn't try to overcome any hurdle of doubt to reject it. However, having said that, one should be well-equipped and well versed in the Scriptures. Pastor Kwaku |
||||||
9 | Do all TEACHERS teach the truth? | Lev 16:34 | Bill Mc | 20207 | ||
Pastor Kwaku, That was my very point to begin with. As you have said, one should be well-versed in the Scriptures. My original proposal was that a man who is able to read will be able to understand the Bible through the enablement of the Holy Spirit if that is all he has access to. The premise being advanced here is that God has had different men down through the ages who He has given a 'deeper revelation' of scripture to than what is available to the 'average' Christian. So I asked what, aside from the Bible, would be necessary. The answer I got was teachers. But what right do teachers of the scriptures have to add to or detract from the Holy Spirit's revelation of the scriptures. And how does one guage whether one is being taught truth or not. I think that the question ultimately has to go back to the fact that we, individually, must know what the Bible says and means in order to guage anyone else's interpretation. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
10 | Do all TEACHERS teach the truth? | Lev 16:34 | kalos | 20225 | ||
Thank you for proving my point. You wrote: "My original proposal was that a man who is able to read will be able to understand the Bible through the enablement of the Holy Spirit if that is all he has access to." If merely the ability to read equals the ability to understand the Bible through the Holy Spirit is true, then does this truth apply to everyone EXCEPT teachers? Also, in my previous post, the one with which you disagree, I did nothing except quote Scripture. You can't be disagreeing with me, because I didn't write anything of my own. That only leaves the quoted Scriptures -- what part of the Scripture do you not agree with? |
||||||