Results 1 - 20 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Spurgeon's calvanistic contradiction? | Not Specified | RWC | 13545 | ||
I know this subject has been raised already, (see the thread started with the question "Is God responsible for evil? 02/27/01), but it seems to me that it was not sufficiently answered by those holding to a strong calvanistic point of view. So, if I may, I would like to raise the question again in slightly different form. C.H. Spurgeon wrote in his "Sum of Saving Knowledge," at least as I have had it quoted to me, "In eternity past, God did most wisely decree, for his own glory, whatever comes to pass in time: and in a most holy and infallible manner executes all his decrees, without being author of the sin of any creature." How can both of his assertions be true? How could God predetermine (that is, "in eternity past... decree")that "whatever comes to pass in time" (which must therefore included sin, since sin has come to pass in time), "without being author of the sin?" If God decreed that it must exist before before it existed, that would, by definition, make him the author of sin, would it not? Bob |
||||||
2 | 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. |
||||||
3 | 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!] | ||||||
4 | 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. | ||||||
5 | 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? |
||||||
6 | Define the word "cult". | Bible general Archive 1 | RWC | 12883 | ||
I realise that this question was asked quite some time ago now, but I would like to add a thought. I think that this word is one that must be used with great care because it does not have a very precise meaning that is commonly accepted. Different people will have significantly different understandings of what it means. When we use this word, we should also explain clearly what we are intending it to mean. For example, in an evangelical theological context, the word cult can be - and often is! - used to mean any identifiable religious group that does not agree with the basic or central beliefs of the individual who is using that word. In this context, evangelical Christians will regularly refer to Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) and Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) as cults. In an academic or liberal theological context, the word cult is often used to refer to any religious practises which involve sacrifice. In this context, almost all pagan religions (past and present) would have certain practises that would be called a cult. The rites and practises of the ancient Jewish Temple would be called a cult. In this context, note that it is usually the specific practises of sacrifice that are called a cult, and not the group of people. In psychological context, the word "cult" is often (though certainly not always!) used to refer to any group that would seem to practise techniques used for "brainwashing" or mind control. In this context, the particular religious or spiritual beliefs of the group have no relevance, but rather the definition seems to center on the social dynamics of the group in question. I hope that this is helpful to someone, and I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback that any of you might have. |
||||||
7 | Apostles4-2day | Bible general Archive 1 | RWC | 12884 | ||
May I suggest that yes there are both apostles and prophets in the church today, and that there have been since the "birth" of the church at Pentecost. That does not mean, however, that any of them of them have the same degree of authority as did the 12 (or 13) apostles appointed by Christ. I haven't time at the moment, but if you like, I can did dig out a study that I did on this a while ago and give some scriptural support for my view. In a nutshell, I have come to understand an apostle (other than when speaking of one of the 12 or Paul) to generally refer to a missionary, and more specifically a church-planting missionary. A prophet in the New Testament (again, except when referring to one of the 12 or Paul) seems to have a greatly reduced authority from an Old Testament prophet. A New Testament prophet (other than the 12 or Paul) seems to be one who would interpret a message rather than dictate it, and sometimes even interpret it wrong (as in Agabus on at least one occassion). I would appreciate any hearing other thoughts. |
||||||
8 | where did God come from? | OT general | RWC | 13780 | ||
If I may so, your 15 year old sounds rather like me at that age! That seems so long ago now... The simple answer to the question "where did God come from? is, of course, that He has always existed. But what does that really mean? How can that be? If eternity means an un-ending linear sequence of events, and if everything else that exists (or has existed, or will exist) somewhere in that sequence of events had to have at least a beginning (if not not an ending as well), then surely God must *also* have had a beginning at some point in that sequence of events. But God did not have a beginning because He is the only thing that exists completely outside of that sequence of events. That sequence of events is what we call "time" and it is itself a created thing. We exist in (and are presently confined to) "time." We - and the whole universe! - are living out the sequence of events in a dimension called "time." God is the Creator of that. He is not confined to it. When God "looks" at His creation (the whole universe), He looks at it from eternity, that is from outside of the dimension of time. What that means is that He can see the beginning of time and the end of time and every milli-second in between all in the same moment. And the best part of that whole thing is that He doesn't just look in on us from outside, He actually entered into the realm or dimension of time and, more than that even, He actually became one of us. He did that ultimately so that we would have the ability and opportunity to enter into *His* realm of eternity. The plain and simple truth is that we cannot really wrap our minds around the concept of eternity. We try to think of it in terms of "un-ending time," and we do that because we are really confined to time (at least that is true for those of us in *this* world). But eternity is not "un-ending time." Rather it is being outside of the created dimension of time. I hope that this may be of some help, even if it is only "food for thought." I wrestled with this question (and several others!) for many years before I became a believer. I pray that your 15 year old will diligently seek and find some of those answers in much less time than it took me. Make sure that he or she knows that there *are* some answers to be found, but that there are also always going to be unanswered questions. And thank God for that! Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
9 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 153948 | ||
Although this discussion is now quite old, with only a couple of additional repsonses in the last several years, I would like to propose a different point of view for your response. I do not think that this concept is "mine" (unique to my way of thinking), but I did not see it in this discussion and I think it would be worthy of consideration. I do believe that angelic beings and human beings are to be considered as distinct from the rest of the animated beings that God has created. Angelic beings and human beings do have at least one characteristic that makes them different than the animals, but it is not their "rationality." I think it is their "will" (the ability to make choices of right and wrong). It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels morally accountable and which keeps the rest of the animal kingdom outside of that accountability. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels fall into the category of "persons" and which disqualifies the rest of the animal kingdom from being thought of this way. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans (and angels?) to be uniquely created "in the image of God." Does this point of view not fit better with both the larger picture presented in Scripture and with the reality of the world in which we live? |
||||||
10 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154021 | ||
Thank you for your prompt reply. First a comment for clarification, and then I have two questions, if I may. You wrote: "The uniqueness of men and angels is not their volition, their ability to choose; and the image of God in man is not the will." and... "So, the image of God is not the will, but rationality." First, for clarification, I did not mean to suggest that the image of God is _simply_ our volition. Rather, I was suggesting that our volition is what makes us distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom that God created. As I understand it, there are three basic attributes that God built into humans and angels that makes us "persons". Those attributes would be intellect, emotion, and will (volition). It is, as I understand it, the combination of these same attributes that makes us "in the image of God;" that is, that we are "persons" and the rest of the animal kingdom is not. It seems to me that all animals, to one degree or another, have God-given intellectual and emotional ability. But humans (and angels) are the only created beings that possess volitional ability, and are, therefore, the only beings that are morally accountable before God. First question: You wrote: "As the above quoted passages demonstrate, knowledge, not will, is the basis of responsibility." In all three of the passages that you quote as support for this conclusion (Ro. 1, Lk. 12, and Jms 4), the main point (the problem, the issue) is centered on volition not knowledge. The whole point being made in each case is not that the humans had (or did not have) knowledge, but that they did _act_ (choose) correctly based on that knowledge. Would these verses not rather be supportive of the view that volition is basis of our accountability before the Living God, not our knowledge (or lack of)? Second question: I am wondering if we have the same basic definitions for "understanding," "knowledge," "intelligence," and "rationality." I know that you were asked about your definitions once or twice in this discussion 4 years ago, but I am still not clear as to how you have conceptualized these things. Can you please explain to me how (why) the intellect that you seem to admit that animals have is different in "kind" (and not just "degree") from the intellect that humans (and angels) have? I do ackowledge differences of _degree_ in God-given intellectual abilities between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, and sometimes those differences are obviously vast. But it goes too far, it seems to me, to say (as I think you did in one of your previous posts) that humans have the ability to "think" and that no other animals can do that. If, however, you were to make that statement about volition rather than intellect, then I think it would be true. Does that not seem so to you? [yes, that is a third question... sorry] Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
11 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154072 | ||
Hi there, I would agree with you that humans have "a mind, will, intellect, emotions, and moral capacity." I guess the question that is being discussed (or at least that I was trying to ask) is "how much, if any, of those attributes can be found in the other animals that God created?" or to put it another way, "Are any of those attributes unique to humans?". I am proposing that, among the earthly creations, we have a unique moral capacity because we have been uniquely created with a volitional capacity and that this ability to exercise will is the one thing that separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. Lionstrong has proposed, if I understand him correctly, that humans are the only earthly creature with an ability to think or understand (or learn? or reason?) and that this intellectual ability alone is what separates humanity from all other creatures (earthly or otherwise?) and is the one thing that makes us to be in the image of God. How have you come to understand this? Would you suggest that any or all of those attributes are unique to humans? A second comment in response to your post, if I may. You wrote: "God breathed the 'breath of life' into man. No other creation is described this way, and that 'breath of life' is the spiritual component that man alone possesses." You are correct to say that "No other creation is described this way," but I would suggest that you are assuming too much if you conclude from this verse that this _must_ be unique to humanity. I believe that this would be called an "argument from silence" and it is a very weak position to hold. The creation of man is the only creative work of God described in any detail. Should we also assume then that none of the rest of the creatures that God made are created from "the dust of the ground?" I think you would agree that this would be assuming too much. As I see it, _all_ living things on earth (plant, animal, or otherwise (ie. even bacteria and viruses)) are made from the same basic building blocks ("the dust of the ground"). As well, they _all_ break back down into those same basic building blocks ("return to dust") when they cease to be alive. God is the Giver of life. He has not given that uniquely to humanity. We are, I believe, unique among God's earthly creatures, but I would suggest that it is not because we are "living beings" (Ge. 2.7). Looking forward to your response. Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
12 | 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 |
||||||
13 | 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 |
||||||
14 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154077 | ||
Correcting myself! I wrote: "The whole point being made in each case is not that the humans had (or did not have) knowledge, but that they did _act_ (choose) correctly based on that knowledge." I meant: "...but that they did *not* _act_ (choose) correctly..." Such a small word... such a big change in meaning. Sorry everybody. Bob |
||||||
15 | 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? |
||||||
16 | 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 |
||||||
17 | 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 |
||||||
18 | 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. |
||||||
19 | Adam and Eve ashamed of their nakedness? | Gen 3:7 | RWC | 154081 | ||
I know that this question and discussion is now a few years old, but I would like to offer an answer and any responses would be much appreciated. (I am working on Genesis 3 currently.) The only thing that we really know for sure about this situation is that something changed, and that the change was substantial. Sin entered into the picture and the picture was suddenly different! The point of view for Adam and Eve was changed. We cannot say with any certainty that anything about their appearance changed (although someone has suggested that they had been clothed in light and that this was removed when they sinned). But there was certainly something different about how they viewed themselves and each other (and about how they viewed God!). I guess the answer that I would offer (and I think it is the answer that the Bible offers) to this question is, "Because sin separates (divides)!" There are at least 2 and probably 3 immediate separations or divisions that occured when they sinned. 1. They are separated from each other. 2. They are separated from their Creator. 3. They are separated from themselves. (This not intended to be chronological list. I think they all happened simultaneously. It is the order in which the become expressed within Scripture.) SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER Their immediate reaction is to cover themselves. They were trying to hide themself from the other. No, not totally. But they were now instantly and keenly aware that there was a relational separation or division between them that had not been there before. SEPARATED FROM GOD In the next verse (Ge. 3.8), the separation between them and God becomes immediately apparent. As soon as they sensed God's presence, they tried to hid from Him. They were now instantly and keenly aware that there was a relational separation or division between them and God that had not been there before. SEPARATED FROM THEMSELF This one is less obvious, but I think it is just as true. The first separation is between human and human. The second separation is between human and God. This third separation is _within_ the human: we are separated from ourself. FULFILLMENT OF GOD'S WARNING It seems to me that this separation is the fulfillment of God's warning that in the very day in which you eat of it, you shall surely _die_. Death, as I have come understand it, is separation. Physical death is the separation of the immaterial (soul-spirit) from the material (our physical body). Spiritual death is the separation of soul-spirit from God. Your thoughts and constructive criticisms of my understanding on this are welcome. Looking forward to your repsonses. Bob |
||||||
20 | One Language | Gen 10:5 | RWC | 132804 | ||
Hi there, That is an excellent question, or at least I think so since I have wondered the same thing myself many times. The best answer that I have come up with (and I don't pretent to be any kind of authority!) is that 10:5 is not saying that people were already dividing into language groups prior to 11:1, but rather that this particular group (the sons of Japheth as per 10:2) were the ones who became the coastland peoples (NKJV) and after the events of Gen. 11:1-9 they were divided further into their own language groups. Note that 10:5 begins with "From these...." I hope that is helpful. If someone has a better answer, I would be grateful to hear it. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |