Results 1 - 20 of 42
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Ten Commandments obsolete? | Rom 10:4 | orthodoxy | 6641 | ||
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Christ fulfilled the entire Law by his atoning work. But the Law has never been the way of salvation. It has always pointed to Christ. But no in the sense that it still does apply to us, _through Christ_ as a manifestation of God's character. So even though we no longer stone for adultery (might not be a bad idea though), we can still learn at least the following things from Mosaic discourse on the subject: 1) God deems it as worthy of temporal execution, so the state would do well to affix penalties to marital unfaithfulness; 2) since execution has been replaced with excommunication, the church should not be squeemish about excommunicating for it; 3) extra-marital sex is more serious than pre-marital sex (not the death penalty for the former, but less than that for the latter); 4) there are clearly defined limits to acceptable sexual behavior. It must be remembered that these commands have nothing whatsoever to do with justification, but everything to do with sanctification. We are called to obedience, and we know how to obey by examining the Law through the lens of Christ. |
||||||
2 | Birthday of the church? | Acts 2:41 | orthodoxy | 6640 | ||
No. The church, as the people of God, started with Abel and Seth. God has been working through a specific people ever since then. Pentecost marks the first time that significant numbers of gentiles were included. | ||||||
3 | All, but not All? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6639 | ||
Treat the examples of Christ and Adam as parallel. You didn't act to receive Adam's sin. In exactly the same way, you do not act to receive Christ's righteousness. Of course we still do receive Christ's righteousness, but it's like receiving, say, a swift kick to the head, or how the earth receives rain. No action on our part is required. Let me put it this way: Does Christ's death all alone, by itself, bring about justification? Or is some action in receiving it required? I want to say that the blood of Christ is sufficient by itself with no action on our part. Do you? Reprobation is not spelled out very clearly in Scripture. It is simply the flip side of election. You can't have one without the other, for if God chooses some people to save, that means that he chooses other people not to save. If I can prove election, reprobation follows. |
||||||
4 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6628 | ||
I'll take your suggestion and focus on a single area. Namely, the distinction you draw between the "offer of the gift" and the "acceptance of the gift." I deny that such a distinction exists. I do not think that the gospel is offered. I do not think that the gospel is accepted. I think that the gospel is _applied_ by the Holy Spirit on the elect. God _saves_ sinnesr, he does not _offer_ salvation. Can you find any place in Scripture that says that he does? About hermeneutics. I can apply exactly the same standard to you as you did to me. The reason that non-Reformed students of Scripture place so much emphasis upon isolated phrases is that when the entire weight of Scripture is considered, it disallows anything but Reformed theology. And you are committing exactly the thing you refuse to allow me to commit. 1John 2:2 _does not say_ that every individual is saved. That is the fallacy of division, saying that what can be said of the whole can be said of every part of the whole. You simply can't do that. 1John 2:2 makes no reference to individuals. None at all. You have to assume that "the world" always means "every individual," an assumption I deny as having no Scriptural basis. |
||||||
5 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6627 | ||
I'll take your suggestion and focus on a single area. Namely, the distinction you draw between the "offer of the gift" and the "acceptance of the gift." I deny that such a distinction exists. I do not think that the gospel is offered. I do not think that the gospel is accepted. I think that the gospel is _applied_ by the Holy Spirit on the elect. God _saves_ sinnesr, he does not _offer_ salvation. Can you find any place in Scripture that says that he does? About hermeneutics. I can apply exactly the same standard to you as you did to me. The reason that non-Reformed students of Scripture place so much emphasis upon isolated phrases is that when the entire weight of Scripture is considered, it disallows anything but Reformed theology. And you are committing exactly the thing you refuse to allow me to commit. 1John 2:2 _does not say_ that every individual is saved. That is the fallacy of division, saying that what can be said of the whole can be said of every part of the whole. You simply can't do that. 1John 2:2 makes no reference to individuals. None at all. You have to assume that "the world" always means "every individual," an assumption I deny as having no Scriptural basis. |
||||||
6 | Calvanism -vs- Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6626 | ||
I know the distinctives of Pelagianism. I do not think that Arminianism is coherent unless it denies all three of those things. TULIP, as silly an acronym as it may be, is a self-referential system. You cannot pull one letter out without getting rid of all of them. Thus, since Arminians deny particular redemption, they must also deny total depravity and salvation by grace. At least, you have to do this if you want to remain consistant. Your statements in your second paragraph are immediately contradictory. Allow me to demonstrate. 1) Salvation is wholly a work of God. [This would mean that nothing we do is involved. Salvation depends on divine fiat.] 2) Salvation comes to those who receive the offer of salvation. [If salvation is only an _offer_ is not wholly an act of God]. You can't have it both ways. The time for man to make a choice ended with Adam. That was the covenant of works. As soon as you add any aspect of choosing you turn the atonement into a pass/fail prohibition test, just like eating the fruit. If you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? They believe exactly the same thing and they've got their theology worked out completely. Plus they've got good views on worship, and even though their opinions on the Sacrament are pretty weird, they're often better than most Protestant churches. So if you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? Where did you go to college? And how can you possibly get around the statements of God's sovereign choice in Romans? I'd be fascinated to hear how you can interpret "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" as anything but elective in nature. You sat under _Hasker_?! Yes, I've read him. Heard him speak actually. May God have mercy upon you. In case you hadn't been following him lately, Hasker is currently at the forefront of the utterly godless and pagan "open theism" movement (and I will neither retract that nor apologize for it). I couldn't get through the book without throwing it across the room on a number of occasions. Don't get me started on Hasker. Suffice it to say that I do not regard him as a Christian brother. You can believe a lot, but open theism is too far. Enough on that. I really don't want to talk about it here or at all, for that matter. |
||||||
7 | When is the World not the World? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6574 | ||
You cannot understand individual verses apart from the whole of Scripture. 1) Your original assertion was that there is no other way to read "world" than "every individual person in the world," even though that isn't actually what the text says. I suggested a few viable options, which would render your original assertion, that there is only one way to read this verse, invalid. 2) It sounds clear to me, and it clearly doesn't mean that everyone is atoned for. How? Other passages in Scripture. You can't just pick out a single verse and say that it is decisive. And there really isn't a "plain meaning of the text" any more than there are brute facts. _Everything_ is interpretation, the trick is to make sure that your interpretation is Biblical. 3) If the atonement is an accomplished fact for every individual, why doesn't everyone go to heaven? Because they didn't receive the gift of salvation? Is refusing the gift sin? Wouldn't that sin be atoned for? 4) I don't think that the unforgivable sin is a problem for me it all. It clearly states that God does not forgive everyone. If the atonement is an accomplished fact, something you have already admitted, this means that he did not die for everyone. Actually, this is a good illustration of why individual verses _cannot_ be allowed to define our doctrine. Your reading of this verse is in direct contradiction with the following verses: Rom. 9:12-15 Jude 4 Eph. 1:11-12 Rev. 20:15 and many others as well. Your interpretation also stands in direct contradiction to God's pattern of election in all of history. God chose Abel, not Cain. Noah, not the rest of the people. Abraham, and no one else. Isaac, not Ishmael. Jacob, not Esau. Judah, not Reuben, Simeon, Levi, or Joseph (or any other of the brothers). Moses, not Aaron. David, not Saul. And the elect, not everyone. It is also in stark contrast to God's covenantal language. It is _he_ that placed emnity between the serpent and the women; it is _he_ that provided the lamb in place of Isaac; it was _he_ who brought the Israelites out of Egypt; it is _he_ who was struck that the Israelites might drink; it is _he_ who is both the promise and the keeper of the promise. There is absolutely nothing left for us to do. Plus, you still have to come up with a way of making the atonement both an accomplished fact and somehow conditional upon something other than God. |
||||||
8 | One God; Calvin is his prophet? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6571 | ||
Piling on personal abuse doesn't make me wrong, and neither does it answer anything I have said. | ||||||
9 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6558 | ||
I think that limiting discussion to a few verses is a decidely bad way to go about this. The Gospel cannot be condensed to a few sentences. It took God a very large book, so why should we try and abridge it? I think it is hinging far too much on far too little to say that 1John 2:2 is decisive. First of all, "the world" does not have to entail every single individual in the world. To me, this looks synonymous with "the nations" which simply means "the Gentiles." Second, if the first is not the case, Scripture often uses hyperbole. Calvinists can say that Christ died for the world. But again, this does not necessitate that he died for everyone in the world. Since people are not actually mentioned, "the world" is decidedly vague. Third, you are still left with the problem that if Christ died for something, then it is paid for and nothing bars that person from heaven. Yet not all go to heaven. Problem. Finally, there is the matter of the unforgivable sin. To me, this is a blatant statement that Christ did not die for all sins. THe only way to get around this is to say that Christ's death is not actual forgiveness, but possible forgiveness. This is not an option. Anyone have a solution? |
||||||
10 | Was Pilate guilty for Christ's death? | Matt 27:24 | orthodoxy | 6556 | ||
Well, in one sense, obviously. Everyone is guilty for Christ's death. But I get the feeling that that isn't exactly the sense you were getting at. I suppose Pilate does share some of the specific guilt for the crucifixion. He tried to get Christ released several times, but he did cave in to the Jews when they threatened his career. The Jews are primarily responsible (no, this doesn't make me anti-Semitic, we would have done the same thing) but Pilate is not without guilt either. He would not have executed Christ without the provokation of the Jews, but neither did he have the courage to preserve the life of an innocent man. |
||||||
11 | Arminianism: Another Gospel? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6552 | ||
Okay, this is sounding a lot more like the Arminianism that we all know and love. I would agree that Arminianism is more semi-Pelagian than actually Pelagian, but Mr. Keck's presentation of Arminian doctrine is far to close to Pelagianism for comfort. This is what I was referring to when I quoted Galatians. And I have yet to be convinced that Arminianism isn't simply a restatement of Roman Catholic theology, which has salvation being a cooperative effort on the part of man and God, a gospel of works. I'm not convinced this case can be made, but you are welcome to try. It would certainly save me a lot of grief, since the church I attended for 15 years is pretty solidly Arminian. I have a lot of friends there that I don't want to have to consider heretics, but I'm still not convinced that this is a real option. Actually, the point I was trying to make with the passage from Galatians is that Paul considered his gospel to be the only gospel, and all others to be damnable. Thus, it is certainly within our interest to find out what this gospel is. I read Romans, and chapters 1-9 clinch the argument as far as I'm concerned. "Calvinism," if one wishes to call it that, is basically there. I can't see Arminianism working. I'm currently a sophomore/junior (class/credit). My majors are: philosophy, Biblical studies, history. |
||||||
12 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6526 | ||
Why? What has changed? God never seems to be overly concerned with this. Why should we? | ||||||
13 | What is an apostate? | 2 Thess 2:3 | orthodoxy | 6524 | ||
"Heresy" is actually a difficult term to nail down. Definitions include: unbiblical doctrine: this is the broadest definition of heresy that which denies one of the ecumenical creeds and councils: Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, etc. A few others may be included, but these are most widely accepted. anything that has been condemned by the whole church in council: Pelagianism, Donatism, Manicheism, Montanism, Tritheism, Modalism, Gnosticism, etc. Since the church was only united as a single organization for a few centuries, most of these will be pretty old, but most of them are also hardy perennials, like weeds that you can't get rid of (Gnosticism and Pelagianism especially) Personally, I use "heresy" most frequently to refer to the last two, since there is so much unbiblical doctrine floating around. "Apostasy" is much easier to define. It is simply turning one's back on God. Thus, only a one-time Christian can be apostate. Pagan's cannot, for they were never in the covenant to begin with. Also, covenant children cannot ever be pagan, only apostate, since they started out inside the covenant. Hope that helps. |
||||||
14 | Accusations obligatory? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6502 | ||
Hmm. So the very nature of the atonement doesn't count as "the Good News of the Kingdom of God?" May I ask what does? As far as Paul is concerned, saying that Christ's death is not an actual atonement _is_ denying Christ. He calls everyone that differs on matters of the gospel to be eternally damned. Mr. Keck suggested something that would alter the very nature of the atonement, shifting it from an accomplished fact to a realizable possibility. That counts as pretty fundamental, and I will defend it to the death. | ||||||
15 | Please explain your position | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6349 | ||
It can, but it dosen't have to, even in Scripture. Scripture is a work of language just like any other, in the sense of its actual construction. Granted, it is divinely inspired and all that, but it is still basically literature, and must be understood as such. You don't read the Psalms the same way you read the gospels the same way you read Revelation the same way you read Proverbs. And you don't ignore hyperbole, such as the examples provided here. Whether or not you interpret these uses of the word "all" as exhaustive is determined by your doctrine of soteriology. If you want universal atonement, then it's exhaustive, for these are some of the very few verses that can be made to suggest such a thing. But if you do not believe in a universal atonement there is no reason to interpret these verses as anything but hyperbole. |
||||||
16 | Allocation or possession? | Heb 11:1 | orthodoxy | 6209 | ||
I was trying to dispel the common illustration about faith that equates it with assuming that the chair will hold me when I sit on it, or that the car will work when I drive it. That is most decidedly not faith. The popular argument goes something like: You put faith in the chair when you sit, so put your faith in God and be saved. The problem is not only is this not real faith, but we possess no saving faith of our own. And I do believe that some believers are given more faith than others. Certainly all are given "enough" to be saved. But some people have a much more difficult time trusting God than others. |
||||||
17 | Where is faith from? | Heb 11:1 | orthodoxy | 6156 | ||
Faith is a gift from God, and is the means through which God applies his grace in our lives (Eph. 2:8). Hebrews 11:1 is a good starting place, but there is more to it than that. Faith is the gift of God's spirit and has no origin in man (Rom 1:5, 5:2, 12:3, 1Tim. 1:14). It is the same for all believers, but is not something that we naturally possess and may allocate as we see fit. | ||||||
18 | Must prophesy speak to original audience | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5961 | ||
I am not disputing the fact that Scripture can prophacy about events that have not occurred yet. And yes, Daniel 7:7 does refer to Rome. But this does not mean that the original audience had no idea what was going on. They may have only had a crude, simplistic, and incomplete undesrtanding. But the imagery itself probably meant something to them. Furthermore, assigning ancient empires to Daniel 7 fits with the rest of Scripture pretty well. Rome, Medo-Persia, the Ptolamies, the Selucids, and the Greeks all make showings later in Scripture. The American continent was not even known to the old world for more than two millennia after the time of Daniel. Prophacy? Sure, but I think that's pushing it. Yes, I do say that the church should have no interest in Jerusalem than in any other city. It's just a place, like any other. And you have to be more than a "Futurist" to think that Jerusalem plays an important role in the eschaton. You also have to be at least a bit dispensational. I do believe that the Second Coming is still to come, but I'm self-consciously anti-dispensational. In Revelation, I believe that "Jerusalem" is used both literally and figuratively. But I also believe that all of the literal uses have occurred in the events surroinding its destruction in the war around 70AD. The references that are figurative have to do with "Jerusalem" as the ideal city of God, and nothing at all to do with an earthly location that is not simply a contribution to the imagery. About Zech. 14. Unless someone can provide a better interpretation, I believe that this happened during the first Advent and the destruction of Jerusalem. |
||||||
19 | Is the United States in the Bible? | Dan 7:4 | orthodoxy | 5952 | ||
This is nonsense and an abuse of Scripture. I do not believe that God has placed things in Scripture that are useless for 2500 years, and if Daniel 7:4 has to do with Britain and the US, then that's exactly what's happening. Not only that, but Baxer is, or at least seems to be, dispensational. I'm willing to ditch his entire method of interpretation from start to finish :) |
||||||
20 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5885 | ||
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, item iii: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39, 4:12; John 3:3, 5, 8, 16:7-8, ; I John 5:12 Of course, that is the Reformed position, and it doesn't work unless you have Reformed soteriology. Also, faithful members of the covenant have the right, based upon the promises of God, to expect that God will work in their children. Thus, Christians who lose a child may be comforted thus, but unbelievers may not. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |