Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 100016 | ||
The mere fact that you believe believe that the WCF is unsound in it's theology does not mean that it is indeed unsound. I've read The WCF and I've read the posts of EdB. Meaning you no disrespect Ed, but believe me, it's not even a contest as to whose theology I'm inclined to believe. :-) By the way, what they wrote caused many of them their lives. The threat we face pales in comparison. John |
||||||
2 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100033 | ||
John I never said the WCF was unsound. I said, "what was said, "was that the WCF was not Scripture nor Biblical."" It was written by man from man's interpretation of scripture so it is nothing more or less than man's opinion. I prefer to discuss the Bible not man's perception of the Bible. A point you seem to keep missing. As for you not liking my theology is exactly why there is vanilla and chocolate ice cream. However the point you miss is, people get tired of someone telling them they are wrong eating vanilla and starting endless circular debates over the issue. I will say one thing by the fact you said, "I've read The WCF and I've read the posts of EdB. Meaning you no disrespect Ed, but believe me, it's not even a contest as to whose theology I'm inclined to believe" shows one thing you do take every opportunity you can to drag any discussion to a personal level. Why attack my personal theology just because I don't agree with you? You most certainly did mean disrespect here. EdB |
||||||
3 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 100044 | ||
"It was written by man from man's interpretation of scripture so it is nothing more or less than man's opinion. I prefer to discuss the Bible not man's perception of the Bible. A point you seem to keep missing." Dear Ed, When you and I discuss a passage from scripture we each offer our opinions of what the passage means. Our opinions are of no real value unless scripture itself substantiates them. The divines of old were well aware of that fact and it was they who gave us the principle of "sola scriptura". Prior to receiving this principle, Christians who disagreed with the Church of Rome were compelled to receive their interpretation of Scripture as if it were Scripture itself! Anyone who disagreed could be declared anathema. My point is simply this: Just because an interpretation of Scripture is given by a fallible man does not mean that it is not a correct interpretation. God has given teachers to lead us into the deep things of His Word. It is our responsibility to ascertain whether or not Scripture itself substantiates the teaching, which we receive. We do this by hard work, prayer and reliance on the Holy Spirit I’m all for following the example of the good Bereans who made Paul "toe the line" by breaking out the Old Testament as evidence of his gospel God Bless, John |
||||||
4 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100049 | ||
John You said, "My point is simply this: Just because an interpretation of Scripture is given by a fallible man does not mean that it is not a correct interpretation." I wholeheartedly agree provided the man giving the interpretation does so maintaining context, rules of understanding dictated by the original language, agrees with the nature and flow of the rest of the Bible, does not conflict with God’s nature or past examples, and does not try to explain what God simply has not revealed. You then said, “It is our responsibility to ascertain whether or not Scripture itself substantiates the teaching, which we receive. We do this by hard work, prayer and reliance on the Holy Spirit” In this lies our problem your trying to apply man’s opinion to something God has never fully revealed. It can’t be done! Let us give it a rest! EdB |
||||||
5 | Who, does the Bible say, are the "elect" | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 100060 | ||
Dear Ed, Lets take this one step at a time. Perhaps God will grant us the understanding we both desire. The Bible teaches that the the term "elect" refers to those who will one day be with Christ in Heaven. Matt 24:31 "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. Mark 13:20 "Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days. Do you agree with my definition of "elect"? If not, please provide me with your definition and which passages support it. Thanks, John |
||||||
6 | Who, does the Bible say, are the "elect" | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100070 | ||
John Lockman has asked us not discuss this subject and out of my respect for Lockman and my desire to see this forum move on I'm not going to answer your question. There is far more to Christianity than what you or I think elect means. John one more thing how come every time I make a point you can't refute you either choose to ignore it by changing the subject or remaining silent. Yet within days you bring the subject up once more in another thread. To me that doesn't seem like someone that wants to discuss something but rather someone looking for a platform to expound his philosophy. EdB |
||||||
7 | Who, does the Bible say, are the "elect" | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 100087 | ||
Dear Ed, What we have here is a failure to communicate! The term elect is not a theological term; elect is the term used by the writers of Scripture. I offered my definition and asked for yours for a reason. That reason being that is imposible to discuss the meaning of a word if we begin with different definitions. I respect your decision not to participate, but disagree with your reason. "every time I make a point you can't refute you either choose to ignore it by changing the subject or remaining silent" If that is indeed the case I apologize. It annoys me also when members appear to do it to me. What point did I overlook? I promise to try to address it. Some times I just get a bit mixed up :-) Nevertheless I do understand your frustration. I'll try to do better. God Bless, John |
||||||
8 | Who, does the Bible say, are the "elect" | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 100094 | ||
John The meaning of the word "elect" is central in the debate of Calvinism. External to that debate it's meaning has little significance being almost universally accepted as referring to the righteous who are in Christ. Therefore to get to the crux of the matter would require us to debate Calvin’s view and that is exactly what Lockman has asked us not to do. Therefore I’m dropping the subject. EdB |
||||||