Results 1 - 20 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: benjamite Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | TNIV: How Will It Affect Us? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33436 | ||
Makarios, blessed one, Thanks for the link. I looked at the website and went through the "List of Translation Inaccuracies...". Also, there was quite an impressive list of opponents. (I'm not familiar with all of them, but I did recognize some Theologians and Greek scholars.) In the "List", there are many valid points. Will this list matter to the TNIV's target audience? Probably not. What are the hot items in Christian bookstores? Theology? No. Greek/Hebrew Studies? No. Commentaries? Maybe some. Max Lucado? Yes. LaHaye and Jenkins? Yes. Wilkinson? Yes. What does that say? Most of Christendom doesn't care about the deeper things. "What does verbo-plenary mean?" is not even asked, much less understood. I'm not saying that this is the way it ought to be - it isn't. It is sad, very sad. What's the problem? Is it marketing? Is it teaching? (Probably both, but it is much more convenient to market to the "uneducated masses" than it is to teach them how "huios" (son) differs from "teknon" (child).) May your blessings return upon you tenfold, Benjamite |
||||||
2 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33565 | ||
Right. (Since I consider myself a "4-pointer", I switched the "L" in TULIP to "U" for "Unlimited atonement".) I got (or paraphrased) my definitions from James White's "The Potter's Freedom". (A response to Geisler's "Chosen But Free" - these would be the two books I mentioned I read since Christmas.) I also see Biblical support for White's "6th point" - God is Free (but that wasn't the question, this time around). Back to the issue at hand, "L" Limited atonement - quoting from PF p. 40, "The intention of Christ in His cross-work was to save His people specifically. Therefore Christ's sacrifice is perfect and complete, for it actually accomplishes perfect redemption." To be honest, it sounds great, except I see too many verses which I can't harmonize with this view. Universal Propitation - I mentioned 1 John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Universal Love - John 3:16 Universal Redemption - 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false prophets "denying the Master who bought them". The above verses are my own thoughts, before consulting other sources. Charles Ryrie rightly asks, "Did Christ purpose...to make provision for the salvation of all people?" (Basic Theology, 318) I say He did. 1 Timothy 2:4, "(God our Savior,) who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.", v. 6, "ransom for all" Note: 2 Peter 3:9 doesn't fit this mold, because the "you" Peter is speaking to is the church. (cf. 1:1, 3:1, and 3:8) (i.e., Christ will return when His body/bride is complete - when the church is saved.) 1 Tim 4:10 "..living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." Yes, He saves believers, but He is the Savior of all men. "All men" is not limited to the elect in this case because it is in contrast to believers. Hebrews 2:9, "...by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." It is only after this verse that the author narrows the scope to "many sons". Acts 17:30-31, "...declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in rightousness..." the call goes out to everyone. These are just a few verses. Are they enough? For now, they are for me, but I'll have to do a little digging to find more. In Him, Ben |
||||||
3 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33583 | ||
Emmaus, I don't think this needs to be an "in house conversation" (meaning, as you say, "within the Reformed tradition"). Would you mind expanding on your TULIP? I mean, the words are different, but how would this "play out" differently from the TULIP of the "Reformed tradition"? Also, would you mind backing the points up? Benjamite |
||||||
4 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33591 | ||
Since you've only answered a couple of the verses I mentioned, let me think on Hebrews 2:9. As for 1 Timothy 2, do I understand you correctly as saying that God desires all "kings and all who are in authority to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"? I don't see how that helps the case for limited atonement (unless one happens to be a king or someone in authority). Wasn't Nero the emperor at the time Paul wrote these words? As for 1 Timothy 4:10, I agree that there are different degrees of salvation, "saved" and "unsaved". The point is that, in his death, Christ was able to save all men (the payment is actually offered to, and is good to save, all men), (why not call this "common grace") especially of believers ("effecacious grace") because they have accepted Christ's payment. |
||||||
5 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33593 | ||
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to at least give it a shot. From what you say, it sounds like there are a lot of interesting points. Thanks also for the link. I'll get back to you about it. Benjamite |
||||||
6 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33645 | ||
Dear WAK, For what it is worth, let's see if we can answer your questions. First, let me invite you to bring whatever verses you have with you to the table. We would be glad to discuss them if you would like. Now for your questions. "If you're elected, I will answer the door???" Only the elect come knocking. There is no desire to know God. Romans 3:10ff; John 6:44. The fact that God chose to save any (even one), when all deserving of Hell (meant to be taken literally), is not bad news. Please, in my neck of the woods, "Hell" has become a swear word when it is not used in proper context. I would appreciate if you would use it only as given in Scripture. I'm not sure that anybody has a problem with the fact that God is there for all who ask. The question is "who is asking?" Please, again, when you return, I invite you to bring your verses to the table. Perhaps they can shed some light on the subject. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
7 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33647 | ||
Hello Brother Tim, That is an interesting thought. However, there are some who would say that in John 12:32, the idea is that He will draw all "peoples", meaning not just Jews, to Himself. Perhaps He is actively drawing from all nations. ("Men", as I recall is not in the Greek, is not in the orignal. Can you verify that for me?) Would this fit the context of the passage? The word "draw" if I am not mistaken is active. Meaning that what is drawn actually comes, like a sword or a fishing net. Obviously, if it could be passive (i.e., the drawing only works if the object drawn wants to be drawn) then John 6:44 could possibly be interpreted that way. Your thoughts? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
8 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33691 | ||
To answer your question first, the Bible explicitly states, "elect" (Romans 8:33 and elsewhere). Why He did, doesn't matter. The fact is that He did. As the Lord, Himself, told Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." He "loved the world" (no qualifications given) He "gave His only begotten Son" (from the immediate context, to the world, not just to the elect.) "that whoever believes in Him" (the offer is open for any whoever.) This verse doesn't address the issue of who will believe or how they will believe, and therefore doesn't qualify the offer. The offer is open to and is good for everybody. Just because some people don't (or "won't") believe doesn't mean that the offer isn't good for them. John 6:37, "all that the Father gives me will come". All who have been predestined for salvation will be saved. But unless I am missing something from this verse, the blood is still good for all. 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Despite the fact that whoever will come may have life, only those who are drawn by the Father will come and be saved. From 45, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." I'd have to do a little more research on this one, as I understand it now, "Everyone who is drawn comes." 6:65, "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." Only the elect can come to Christ. That has nothing to do with the extent of the offer of redemption. Is the death of Christ only able to save the elect? These verses don't address that issue. Is it good enough to save everyone, if they would come (even though they don't.)? Yes, and I can honestly tell an unbeliever, "Christ died for your sin. Now, you must accept His payment to have eternal life." Romans 5:6, "Christ died for the ungodly." (All of them. Note, this verse does not just say "us" - it is a general truth, 5:8 personalizes it. 5:6 can stand alone.) If, by your comment, you mean that the Reformed understanding of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 needs to be reconciled with the rest of Scripture, I agree with you. The way it stands, it isn't now, but needs to be. God wants "thelo" everybody to be saved. God intends "boulomai" all the church (we might say "elect") to come to repentance. Scripture does interpret scripture. I cannot reconcile particular redemption with the balance of the New Testament. Your turn, Ben |
||||||
9 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33707 | ||
Actually, I misspoke when I asked about the verb being "active" or "passive". I am familiar with the active, passive, as well as the middle voice. ("I'm doing something to myself.") I guess my question was more along the lines of, how persuasive is the drawing? Since, I see you have Reformer Joe to deal with, I'll leave the two of you alone. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
10 | TNIV: How Will It Affect Us? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33722 | ||
Hey Brother, I saw your note and meant to get back to you, but I got a little sidetracked. As for a REAL translation, some have tried. I do like the NASB '95. Another one that is worth mentioning is the New English Translation. (www.bible.org) To be honest, there's too many bibles as it is. Unless we take all the NIV, KJV, etc. and have a worldwide "book burning" (which I do not advocate), there will always be far too many different Bibles on the scene. However, because there is the ability to make more kinds of Bibles, right or wrong, it will happen. Realistically, we will never again have the perfect Bible, this side of Glory. We don't have the Autographs available, and even if we did, most don't have the ability to read them. Translations can only do so much. For example, why did you choose "Makarios" instead of "Eulogetos"? (Aside from the fact that it is hard to represent an eta in English.) They translate the same into English, for the most part, but are different Greek words. You didn't chose "Eulogetos" probably for the following reason - "Eulogetos" is used only of God. How do we translate that into English? It is automatically diluted by means of translation. In that sense, we are all somewhat uneducated. Is Zondervan right in what they are doing? I agree that they are not. (We still have "man" and "son" in our vocabulary, among other words.) There are those who prefer a "thought" translation like the NIV. Maybe it does better express the thought of the author, but it sure doesn't look like it. Well, I admit these are somewhat random thoughts on the issue, but I wanted to make sure that I followed up with you. Makarismoi! (Oops, the "blessings" in the Septuagint are all "eulogiai"). Ben Ben |
||||||
11 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33985 | ||
Legeis Hellenisti? Lego Hellenisti. First, if I can't ask a question, why have the forum in the first place? However, if you know the Greek, you can still go ahead and talk to me. Let's forget about other books for the moment, and let Scripture interpret Scripture. If the books don't fit with Scripture, the books are wrong. As for the last part of your first paragraph, I agree with you. All the verses must fit into my view, as well as yours. Again, each verse must fit into my view, or my view is wrong. I have done the legwork and the so called "pre-wrath view" doesn't fit with the sum of Scripture. The whole tribulation is God's Wrath, not just the last part of it. (Again, Rev 6:16-17) Am I wrong? Please, bear witness with Scripture. Regarding the one verse you mentioned, what it means is that all the verses, of all of Scripture, must be taken into consideration without compromising any other verse in all of Scripture. (2 Tim 3:16-17) I have given you five verses (on the subject). I have not pulled one verse out of context. If I have, please bear witness. If we were counting, that would mean you have to come up with 75 (fifteen for each). Thus far, you've only given one (well, granted, that wasn't really related to the pre-wrath view). If you have the Van Kempen book, this should be easy. In response to your other remark, I don't have scripture "twisted around". Happy Hunting, Benjamite |
||||||
12 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33994 | ||
First, let me say, "Thank you". Please understand, Scripture matters. Yes, Van Kempen, and even LaHaye and Jenkins, and others might be great reading, but compared with Scripture, God's Word, they don't matter, nothing matters - not books, not websites, nothing. I am working on a more detailed response, than this, but I felt this needed to go out first. In Him, Benjammite |
||||||
13 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34031 | ||
To answer your first comment, what I meant was, no human being can claim the infallibility and inerrancy found in the Bible. (Romans 3; 2 Tim 3:16-17) When you or I say something, but the Bible disagrees, we are wrong, no questions asked. Sure, commentaries, and other works, might have their place, and they can be pretty useful at times, but they are not Scripture. If they don't correctly handle one verse that relates to the given subject, they are wrong in that spot, but it still means that they are wrong. Between the writings of man and the Bible, the writings of man pale in comparison, to such an extent that they don't matter. |
||||||
14 | Is sanctification a joint effort? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34696 | ||
Does the believer have to cooperate? Argument from individual passages of Scripture: I would look to Philippians 2:12ff to answer this. Paul says "work out your salvation" (side note: this is most definitely NOT to be confused with "work FOR your salvation"). He then gives practical "advice" as to how to work it out (stuff that we must do for sanctification). Argument from reason (and Scripture as a whole): From our standpoint, sanctification might be seen as a two way street. Otherwise, why would we need the bulk of Scripture? Does Scripture only give sound doctrine, or does it also give practical application? It gives both. If sanctification were entirely of God (from our standpoint), why would He need to tell us what to do, instead of just doing it in us, for us? On the other hand, from God's standpoint, "He who began a good work will perfect it." and "We are His workmanship" to do the deeds that "God prepared beforehand". (Phil 1:6; Eph 2:10) I guess, and you probably won't like this, my answer to your question is "yes". Sanctification is entirely a work of God and the believer will co-operate in the sanctification process. I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
15 | Is sanctification a joint effort? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34723 | ||
Zach, I enjoy questions. (As long as you don't ask how much I ate for dinner.) Judging from the last two questions, I take it that you see the answer to your first question as "Yes". Romans 6:11 says, "Even so, consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ." From my understanding of the how "consider" is used, in the Greek, it is a "present imperative" meaning basically that 1) it is a command or a request, and 2) the considering is an ongoing process. Now lets look at James 4:7 - "Submit therefore to God...." Here (and in the following verses) we have an "aorist imperative" - meaning that it is a command that doesn't carry with it the idea of an ongoing process. Rather than "keep doing it", it just says "do it". "Submit", "resist", "draw near", "cleanse your hands", "purify your hearts", "Humble yourselves". Do we do these once? I don't know about that, but if we aren't doing them, we must do them. Can we refuse to daily submit? Do we still sin? Yes. 1 John 1:5-10. I would, however make a distinction between what God would like to accomplish in us, and what He intends to and will do, Philippians 1:6; 2:13. I could say more, but I have to go now and this is enough to start with. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
16 | Is sanctification a joint effort? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34782 | ||
Zach, I love the way you phrase your questions. (By the way, they ususally end with a question mark - ? .) Growing is a process, agreed. As our conversation continues, you seem to be wanting to be steered in different directions. Originally I might have sent you towards Romans 6-8. Now, however, I hear a lot of 1 Corinthians in your "questions". In Corinth, there were many who had been believers for some time, and they should have grown. Paul, however calls them "still fleshly". They should have been ready for solid food, and yet they were not. They still needed milk. (1 Cor 3:2ff) It should be noted that Paul rightly rebukes them for this. At the same time, it is not the planter, nor the waterer, but it is God who causes the growth. I still see the Bible preaching both 1) that it is God's work entirely 1 Thess 5:23-24; Phil 1:6; Rom 8:28ff; Gal 5:22-23; Eph 2:10 2) that it appears that we must have some part in it. (Otherwise, why the rebuke in 1 Cor 3?). cf. 1 Peter 1:13-16; 2 Cor 5:10; etc. (not meant to be "unbalanced" - but it is getting a little late) To answer Tozer's quote, "Tanning salons aside, one cannot get a suntan at night." (I must have heard it from someone, but I don't remember from whom.) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
17 | Where was satan when he first sinned? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 41205 | ||
I'm having a hard time seeing it there, actually. I see the mountain of God as being distinct and separate from the garden of God - the former being a euphemism for "Heaven" the latter for "Eden". On the basis of Job 38:4-7, I believe that the angels were created before the creation of the earth, and that Satan's fall, likewise, was before the creation of the earth. |
||||||
18 | Where was satan when he first sinned? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 41383 | ||
As I said before, I see the "Garden of God" as a euphemism, or another name, for Eden. "But if in all instances where Mount of God occurs in the Bible it refers to the one in Jerusalem, then why would be a different Mount in Ezek 28 and if one decides that it is a different one what right or basis does he have to conclude this?" Aren't you doing just that by equating it with Eden (and not Jerusalem)? In truth, there were a number of mountains called "the mountain of God", not just one. Ex. 3:1, Horeb Ex. 4:27, I assume the same (Horeb) Ex. 18:5, Sinai (might Sinai be the same as Horeb?) Ex. 24:13, Sinai Ps. 68:15, "the mountain of Bashan" 1 Kings 19:8, Horeb Daniel 9:20, I conceed is probably Jerusalem, one of the many "mountains of God". These must be considered as well. Note that in 1 Kings, Jerusalem was already in existence. See also Galatians 4:25 for the location of Sinai - Arabia, not in Israel. With this as evidence, why do you fault me for saying, "I see the mountain of God as being distinct and separate from the garden of God - the former being a euphemism for 'Heaven' the latter for 'Eden."? As to equating Jerusalem with Eden, there were Cherubim to guard the way back into Eden. There was a world-wide flood to destroy any remaining evidence of Eden (Gen 6-9). Jerusalem is not the same as Eden. Since Ezekiel uses figurative language for the description of Satan, why must the rest of it be absolutely literal? Remember, Satan is a spirit being (Eph 6:11-12). Again, I do see the Garden of God as being Eden. I don't see the mountain of God, in this instance, as being Jerusalem (and there is much Biblical precedence for it not having to be Jerusalem). I see it as being Heaven - the only other location we knew about during the days before the fall. Remember Ezekiel 28:16 says he was cast from the mountain of God, it does not say "garden of God". The text allows for this to be a separate event from the deception and curse in Genesis 3. |
||||||
19 | Where was satan when he first sinned? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 41399 | ||
Okay, let's deal with these three thoughts. 1. There is no other Eden (as far as location is concerned). Eden was, however a person's name (2 Kings 19:12; 2 Chron 29:12; 31:15; et. al.) 2. They DO NOT all refer to the same mountain. (Let there be no misunderstanding.) That was my point. Sinai (or Horeb), the Mountain of God, is in Arabia NOT ISRAEL. The Jews want to build their temple in ISRAEL (not on Sinai). Don't tell me that there is only one Mountain of God, to do so is to directly contradict the Word of God. Please see the references, in my previous post, to a) Sinai or Horeb, b) The mountain of Bashan, and c) Jerusalem. Jewish tradition not supported in Scripture is tradition and not the Word of God. Please don't equate the two. 3. "stones of fire" are mentioned only twice in Scripture Ezek 28:14 and Ezek 28:16 (not in Job 28:5-6). Apparently we'll find out what they are when we get to the Mountain of God (Heaven). To say that there is fire under the earth is apparently a reference to volcanoes. (Job 28:5). |
||||||
20 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34812 | ||
Hello Tim, You say that my view is logically inconsistent. I have presented what I believe to be solid Biblical support for the other four points of Calvinism, but I am willing to be corrected. I don't see Biblical support for Limited Atonement. You say that Calvinism is consistent if, and only if, one holds to all five points. This, in itself, is a difficult claim to make, because as proof of an "if-and-only-if" statement, you need to show how it is false with one side ("Logical consistency") matched with all other options of the other side (each point individually, any two points, any three points, or any four points). I do not expect that from you. That is really beside the point because whatever logic dictates, I care more about whether my view is Biblically consistent. Christ did die for all 1 John 2:2 "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" Romans 5:6 "Christ died for the ungodly (all of them)." Romans 5:8 may personalize this, but 5:6 says for "the ungodly" without qualification. John 3:16 "God so loved the world, that whosoever..." Hebrews 2:9 "He might taste death for everyone" God chose to save some - Romans 9 Man cannot and will not come to God of his own "free will" - Romans 3:10ff Once saved, saved forever - one cannot lose one's salvation - Romans 8:28ff; Philippians 1:6. Well, what do you think? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |