Results 1 - 20 of 40
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | If not saved and suicide done Lost??? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 234149 | ||
Eternal life, and more specifically salvation - the action of being saved from sin and from the results of sin, is spoken of in Scripture as a past tense (finished, completed) act, a present tense (ongoing, being done now) act, and as a future tense (will be done, yet to be done)act. And all three views of salvation are true and correct. There have already been some verses listed that speak of salvation as a completed past tense event in a believer's life. I would like to add one more. 1Jn 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. (ESV) I love this verse! John is writing to people who are *already* believers... so that they will *know*... that they *have* (already possess!)... *eternal*... *life.* There are also some verses that speak of salvation as as ongoing present tense event in a believer's life. I think this is to emphasize that believers that are still in this world are in a *process.* We are being changed. 1Cor. 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who *are being saved* it is the power of God. 1Cor. 15:1-2 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you *are being saved,* if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 2Cor 2:15-16 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who *are being saved* and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? Then there are the passages that talk about salvation as a future, yet to be completed event. There are some passages that talk about the fact that only those who endure to the end *will be* saved (Mt. 10:22; 24:13; Mk. 13:13). (I think it is worth noting here that it is the endurance of their *faith* to the end of their life, not the endurance of their righteous acts, that is spoken of here. In regards to the discussion here, the one who commits suicide is undoubtedly committing a sin, but it is not some kind of proof of a lack of basic (saving) faith in Jesus any more than the commission of any other sin would be!) There are also a couple of important passages that speak of believing (trusting) or calling upon the Lord Jesus (with faith or trust), and you *will be* saved (Acts 16:31; and Rom. 10:9-13). Paul, when standing before the elders of the Jerusalem Church at the Jerusalem Council, even spoke of his own salvation along with that of both Jews and Gentiles as a future tense event. Acts 15:10 But we believe that we *will be* saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. I am curious about something. What do you see as the "preparation/qualifying/eligibility for eternal life"? How would one prepare oneself, or qualify for, or become eligible for receiving the incredible gift of eternal life? |
||||||
2 | journal article | Heb 6:4 | RWC | 233715 | ||
Here is the new link to this article: http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/heb6.pdf |
||||||
3 | Believing but Falling Away? | Heb 3:12 | RWC | 233541 | ||
The second to last sentence, "Sometimes the reality of the lack of an 'eternal life' relationship becomes apparent in this life (He. 3:14)" could also have Ga. 5:4 as a reference. | ||||||
4 | should not enter into his rest | Heb 3:11 | RWC | 233539 | ||
Moses and Aaron would also be included in this primarily because of the Waters of Meribah (Nu. 20:11-12, 23-29; 34:1-5; De. 32:48-52; 34:1-5). | ||||||
5 | cf. Heb 3:2 question re. faithfulness | Heb 3:6 | RWC | 233534 | ||
In verse 5, Moses is stated to be "faithful... as a servant...." The distinction (point of contrast) in v. 6 is that "*but* Christ was faithful as a son...." It seems like the author is saying that their faithfulness might be comparable (similar? equal?), but that their difference is in the fact that Jesus is the Son whereas Moses was a servant. Please see and comment on my question to this effect linked to Heb. 3:2. | ||||||
6 | Superiority of Christ to Moses | Heb 3:3 | RWC | 233533 | ||
Hi Doc, Please see my question linked to Heb. 3:2 about why the faithfulness of Moses is being compared instead of contrasted to the faithfulness of Jesus. Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks. Live ready! |
||||||
7 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 233529 | ||
Oops #2: I did it again and missed it until now. Three quarters of the way through that same first paragraph, it should read: "Even Abraham could NOT *earn* righteousness." (emphasis added). Sheesh! Sorry about that. | ||||||
8 | What does the word "perfect mean here? | Ps 19:7 | RWC | 233527 | ||
I would add to this list the word 'mature,' meaning fully grown, fully developed, similar to your word 'complete.' | ||||||
9 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | RWC | 233526 | ||
You have answered well in parts 1 and 2 here, and you asked and answered well in your discussions with Ed above. Good job! Live ready! | ||||||
10 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232558 | ||
Oops, I think I got the wrong id #. It should be (I think) 219676. Sorry. | ||||||
11 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232554 | ||
Hi Hoth, I am assuming you did not see her plea for help: question id 219669. She is not violating the rules of the forum or any other rules of decorum, but rather pleading for your help. Grace. Live ready! Bob |
||||||
12 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 232551 | ||
oops, correction (sorry): middle of the first paragraph should read "They do NOT earn it or deserve it" (emphasis added). ['Not' is not a good word to forget in a sentence!] | ||||||
13 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 232550 | ||
There are loads of do's and don'ts in the Bible. This long list was summed up rather well by Jesus as 2 commandments: Love God with everything you are, and; 2) love your neighbours as much as you love yourself (Mt. 22:34-40). The whole point of the Old Covenant(s) was/were to teach us beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not - and indeed cannot! - be good enough to impress God or to earn our own right of passage into His presence (Gal 3:23-25). His standard really is absolute perfection. His standard is Himself. The only other way possible for anyone to be able to come to God is by Him simply *giving* that privilege to people. And that is in fact what He has done and continues to do. He *gives* that privilege to those that will simply *trust* Him. They do earn it or deserve it. It is totally a gift. And that is not something totally new in the New Covenant. This issue of trust (or, by another word, faith) has always been the requirement (the basis) for a right relationship with God. Even Abraham could *earn* righteousness. It was given to him - *credited* to him - for no other reason than that he believed (trusted, had faith in - Ro. 4:3; Ga. 3:6; Jms 2:23) his Creator, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, the One and Only God that has revealed Himself throughout history and through the collection of writings that He inspired (breathed out) and which we now call the Bible. Is God's standard still perfection? Yes, absolutely. Are you or I ever going to meet that standard? No, absolutely not. Do we still aim for it? yes, but now it is not to try and *earn* God's favor, but rather because he has already given it. We do it as an expression of love and gratitude because of the incredible gift that God gives us (eternal life - actually getting to *know* God - Jn 17:3). All those things you list there (the things that the 'new atheists' love to list) are to be found in the Bible. But when taken in their own context, they do actually make some sense. But the 'new atheists' don't care too much for context. |
||||||
14 | Have I plagiarized someone? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173849 | ||
No problem; thanks for clearing that up. | ||||||
15 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154312 | ||
Good day! My apologies that it has taken so long to reply. If I may sir, I would like to press you a little more for your thoughts here. Yes, you are right in saying, "Humans have a penchant for simple answers," and I am, no doubt, as guilty of that as anyone. I am not deliberately trying to _over_simplify this question (or my proposed answer), but perhaps that is, in effect, what I am doing. If that is so, please be patient with me. You wrote: "Finally, I do not think that the answer lies entirely in kind or degree." I would agree that there are (sometimes great!) differences of "degree" in many of the attributes that we share with the rest of the animal kingdom, including intellectual and affective (emotional) abilities. But the _only_ attribute that I have been able to come up with so far that seems to be distinctly different (that is, different in "kind") between us and the rest of the animal kingdom is that quality of volition (the ability to choose something other than that which is the strongest or greatest immediate desire). Is there anything else specifically that you can think of that: 1. would distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom and; 2. which would be part of that image of God that we were designed to reflect? You also wrote, "I guess what I'm saying is that unless the Scripture gives a clear, definitive answer, the answer is probably either beyond our ability to understand or God has chosen not to reveal it to us." Would you not agree that the Scriptures teach us that we are responsible (accountable) for our actions (and that animals are not) because we have at least some ability choose (that animals do not have)? I must say too that it seems to me that this thread has moved away from the question of animal intelligence (rationality) and migrated to the subject of the image of God. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move this discussion to Ge. 1.26 Thank you again for your time and thought. Bob BTW: what are "platonic solids" and what do they have to do with the orbits of the planets? Sorry, but that paragraph was lost on me. |
||||||
16 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154129 | ||
Hey Doc! Man, how do keep all that history in your head?! That's awesome! I must admit, I am guilty of coveting a mind like that. You didn't put me to sleep anyway. I found that to be a very helpful post. I was sure that many other people in history have considered this question, but I had no clue as to who, or as to how they answered it. Thanks! From your concluding paragraph: "Aren't their many ways in which God and man are similar? ... Why not affirm all of those in the question of the Imago Dei. Those things, clearly, also make us quite distinctive from beasts." Yes, there are many ways in which we are a reflection of the image of God (intellect, emotion, relational capacity, etc.). I guess the question I am trying to raise (and propose an answer for) is whether or not any of those "ways" (qualities, characteristics) are entirely unique or distinctive to humans. The question is important (or so it seems to me) because of what God said in Ge. 1.26 _after_ having created all of the other animals: "Let Us make man in Our image...." That says that there was something _different_ that was going to happen, doesn't it? Or would you suggest that it is just differences of "degree" rather than some differnce of "kind?" Thanks again for your most informative repsonse. have a good day. Bob |
||||||
17 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154128 | ||
Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean when I talk about volitional ability, or at least what makes it distinct for humans. Yes, I agree with you that animals make choices: (lay in the sun or lay in the shade; fetch the ball or not; climb on the furniture or not, etc. etc). But those kinds of choices that animals make (including whether to obey a master's directive or not) have to do with simply following their desires. Unfortunately, we humans usually make our choices in exactly the same way. *But* we have the ability not to do that, and animals, as I understand it, do not have that ability. For example, humans have the ability to choose to go on a hunger strike (a popular form of protest from a generation ago). We can choose to deny ourselves food. An animal cannot do that. If an animal is hungry (and healthy!), it will go hunting for food until it finds it or it will die trying to find it. Now, having said that, I have heard of animals starving themselves to death. But it was not because of "a choice" that they were making, it was because of a physical problem (ie. disease) or an emotional problem (ie. broken heart). Animals have many and varied characteristics and qualities built into them by God that we would call instinctive repsonses. When we train animals (or try to!), we are trying shape those characteristics so that they get expressed in ways that are acceptable to us. We do that by creating (or using) a desire in the animal that is (hopefully) greater than its natural unfettered desire. A simple example might be seen in paper training a puppy. Its desire is to relieve itself. We try to shape that desire so that the animal has a greater desire to _avoid_ punishment and _receive_ affection by relieving itself in the appropriate place. I guess my point was (and is) that it seems to me that animals do have emotions (although not the full range of emotions as do humans), and that they do have an ability to think (and yes, even rational thinking in some cases, although certainly not to the same degree as humans can), but that they do not have a volitional ability (an ability to choose something other than what they desire). I hope this helps to clarify what I mean. And as for Scriptural support for this view, I do not have a nice systematic list of verses. But it does not seem to me to be contrary to the Word of God. (I do still have to go back and consider a couple of verses quoted by Lionstrong earlier in this discussion.) Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
18 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154078 | ||
Yes. That is my point. (I would also suggest that angels have this same ability.) What think you? |
||||||
19 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154076 | ||
Hi there, Well, I know that you understand my position as you stated it succinctly when you wrote: "You think man is an animal and that other animals can think and emote but not choose, and that this inability to choose separates man from the “other” animals." But it seems to me that you are changing the subject a bit by responding to that with "I see no biblical basis for classifying man as an animal. And he is not an animal." (That was also the first sentence in your post, so it would seem to be the main point of your post.) Whether humanity can rightly be called an animal or not isn't really the point I was trying to make or ask you about. Would it be better if I called that whole broad group "animated beings?" (And, just for the record, you are right: I would classify humans within that much larger group called "animals," but that they are in a sub-group of their own because of their volitional ability.) In my previous post I asked you three questions. I am still looking forward to your response to them. Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
20 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154074 | ||
Good day! I think I would agree with everything that you wrote in this post. But I am still not sure as to how you view Lionstrong's position that humans alone, among God's earthly creatures, can think or understand. Nor am I sure as to how you view my proposal that humanity is completely distinct from other animals because of our unique volitional ability. Would you mind clarifying that for me? Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |