Results 1 - 20 of 154
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 21896 | ||
I can tell that you are attempting to drag this discussion down into the ditch so I will discontinue the converstion before one says something they regret. It is amazing how individuals hide behind a forum and say stuff they would NEVER say verbatim to peoples faces. If I am wrong about RC Sproul, just simply say "You know schwatzkm, I am not sure you grasped fully what RC was teaching." Or "Could you tell me where you got that piece of info. from. I have never understood RC to say anything like that." THe way you handled the situation shows your spiritual immaturity. About RC Sproul, I heard him do a full 1/2 hour segment jumbling up the "Godlen chain of redemption." I know what I heard and will search his website in an attempt to purchase his tape. The reason why it stuck out in my mind was the gymnastics he went through to jumble up the passage. |
||||||
2 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 21846 | ||
I could not place everything in one post. I tried to post in logical divisions. Sorry. | ||||||
3 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 21845 | ||
”1. God can do what He wants according to his own unchangeable nature. The question isn't "what can God do?," but rather "what HAS he done?" “ Joe, he did create a world full of beings that are able to make free choices. When I say free, I do not mean that we make choices in a vacuum. A casual read through the O.T and N.T. reveals that men, women, and nations were faced with REAL choices. The pre-exilic prophets clearly paint a picture of Israel at the crossroads: Serve God or Reject God. Their future was determined by their actions not what God had determined they would do before time began. Why would God present them with a choice if He had already determined the choice they would make? ”2. Please go back and re-read my previous post beginning with: "One last thing: you seem to be under the common misunderstanding that Calvinists believe that the sovereignty of God means that man does not make his own decisions." I have never stated than man is not free at all to make choices. I have said that man is not ultimately free, because he is bound by his nature and by circumstance. Within those two bounds we have complete freedom. Let me give you a concrete example. Let's say in my free will I purpose in my heart to invade Libya and rename it Joeland. I have the will to do that, but I think we would agree that I am not in a situation to carry out my will, because God has not allowed me to be in a position of enough means and power to do so. The unregenerate likewise are limited by something else: the depravity of their nature. They have a range of choices that they can make in life, but they will not ever will to do anything that honors God. Paul declares that the unsaved are unable to please God at all because they are completely enslaved to their sinful nature. This does not mean that they want to do what is right but can't, but rather that they don't WANT to do what is right in the first place, or at least not from the right motives. “ Not much to work with in your scenario because it is very unrealistic. I do, however, understand where you are heading and still disagree with Reformed Theologians on this issue. First, let me point out something we can both agree on: No choice is made in a vacuum. We all have external influences that will affect our choices; therefore some philosophers have come to the conclusion that no one is free. All freedom is just an illusion because every choice we make is predetermined by how we were raised, the country we grew up in, what side of the tracks we were born on etc. I would say on some level we never completely make a free choice. Two, In order for God to determine everything that happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future, God will have to place barriers before individuals to accomplish his will. If Sally was presented the option of choosing X or Y but God determined that Sally would choose Y God would have to place a barrier in front of choice X. Another words, God is going to have to make choice Y more attractive than Choice X. Or God is going to have to take choice X completely out of Sally’s equation—Kind of like taking over JoeLand. You really had no choice before you. When God does that to Sally, we go back to the illusion of freedom concept. Sally thinks she is making her own choices, but something more than just external influences (her social standing, the side of the tracks she was born on etc.) has already made her decision for her—God. This would take the Nihilist concept of no freedom to the next higher level. We not only combat our environment, but we also have to contend with what God has already determined would happen. So, I still don’t feel I do not understand Reformed Theology and feel you have presented it clearly but like all other presenters. I just don’t buy into it. |
||||||
4 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 21844 | ||
“You write: "1. What is the Biblical basis for your belief here?" Aside from the other verses I quoted…” There are other ways you can approach each verse you quoted in prior posts that does justice to both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man—God knows the choices we will make because of His foreknowledge not because He has determined EVERY event that happens. A number of verses (Gen, Jer, IS. verses in particular) you quoted in past posts deal with God sending other nations to bring about judgment on Israel for willingly choosing to disobey God (I am sure we can both agree on this statement). It is a far jump, in my mind, to take those verses and say because God wanted a specific event to happen God has determined ALL events that happen both past and present. Romans 9:18-24 These passages again deal with the Israel question: What is God’s plan for Israel after the cross (Wow! That question is almost as hot as the calvanist arminianist debate.) How does Israel fit into this new economy? If you look at the passages quoted from Jeremiah that Paul uses, you will see that Israel was placed in their predicament as an act of their own free will! The predetermined plan God was fulfilling was based on Israel’s choice not something determined by God before the foundation of the Earth. If Israel makes the correct choice, the potter, God, will make them into a vessel of honor. If Israel makes the wrong choice, the potter, God, will make them into a vessel of dishonor. Jer 18:5-10 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and IF THAT NATION I WARN REPENTS of its evil, then I WILL RELENT and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and IF IT DOES EVIL in my sight and DOES NOT OBEY me, THEN I WILL RECONSIDER the good I had intended to do for it. NIV Paul even concedes this point in the last few verses that close this chapter: Rom 9:30-33 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because THEY PURSUED it not by faith but as if it were by works. THEY STUMBLED "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV Notice some key words…They pursued….They stumbled. The emphasis on their situation was based upon the poor choices they made not something God determined they would before the dawn of time. God did determine that if they did make poor choices He would punish them, but He did not decree that Israel would reject Him. What about the hypothetical questions that occur throughout the 8th chapter of the book of Romans? God did choose the older child to serve the younger. God did use pharaoh to bring about judgment on Israel. God did, through the death of Christ, seem to change Israel’s position in the scheme of things (Don’t want to debate this issue.) which made them a vessel of dishonor. But does that mean that God DETERMINES EVERYTHING? My answer is no. God does have a plan and He does intervene in the affairs of men, but that does not mean He has dictated EVERY event that is going to happen and that has happened. It goes back to the jump in logic: God intervened in X situation therefore he must INTERVENE or DETERMINE the outcome of ALL situations. I can’t make that jump. |
||||||
5 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 21842 | ||
I am sorry it took so long to respond. I have been swamped at work and am squeezing this post in during my lunch. “Why do you feel you have the liberty to rearrange the order Paul set for his "golden chain of redemption"? Those he FOREKNEW, he PREDESTINED, he CALLED, JUSTIFIED, GLORIFIED. All of these are describing the same group of people. Who is the subject of all of these verbs? Who is the object? Again, the verse clearly indicates that God did not foreknow events, but rather PEOPLE. “ I agree 100 percent! I am glad you have come to a common Armenianist assumption: God’s foreknowledge comes before his predetermined path! RC Sproul, however, would string you up and shoot you for conceding that point to an Armenianist in this debate. J RC jumbles this list up and places Predestined as first on the list in the ordered chain, because it is the only way the passage will make sense—In his Theology. My point, however, wasn’t on the ordering of words in this verse but the overall purpose (intent) of this verse in the scheme of Romans 8. This verse, in my humble opinion, has nothing to do with God determining who or who will not be saved; it has everything to do with God “knowing” who will be saved and off of God’s knowledge determining a pathway of holiness for his elect people! That will teach and preach in both camps. Lets look at this one verse again. “For those who God forknew he predestined…” God knew before time who would accept the free offer of salvation (we both agree on that). Off of God’s knowledge he has predestined, not salvation, but that each person who makes that choice “Should be conformed to the likeness of His son.” That is not salvation that sounds like Sanctification to me. God predestined each believer (those he foreknew would make the correct choice) to live a holy life. God knows who will be saved not because he created some to be saved and some to be lost but because of His foreknowledge. Each person that is saved is predestined to a lifestyle of holiness or to put it in Paul’s language “conformed to the likeness of His son.” |
||||||
6 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21805 | ||
Weather we like it or not, Truth divides people (perceived or real truth). "...what is this morbid desire to know the theoretical extent of the application of the blood of Christ?" I don't think "morbid" is the word I would use to describe a desire to know the extent of Christ’s sacrifice. God created man with an intense desire to explore and make sense of the universe around him; that desire has poured into Theology. I think the problem with this curiosity lies when people feel they have hit the gold mine of truth and everyone who disagrees with them is either ignorant (that has been implied countless times. I remember one thread where someone made fun of a persons grammer and spelling! Talk about a red-herring.) or they are not applying correct hermeneutical tactics when approaching the scripture (I wish I had a nickel every time someone used the phrase “In context the passage really means…”), or you just don’t really understand what Calvin or Armenius taught (Usually what they are saying is they know more about what Calvin taught than….lets say Norman Geisler as a recent example of my latest debate on this issue.). Which I always wondered, having read a number of Norman Geisler’s books and listened to some of his debates, how they would fare in a debate with him on what Calvin taught? I am sure not well but I digress. Sometimes each point mentioned above is used legitimately during a debate. There are times when I don’t understand a person’s shade of calvanism, but that does not mean I have not wrestled with the issue and am not “in the know” as to what Calvinist generally believe. I recently read a book that covers the 3 major views on Calvanism concerning predestination and election! If there are 3 major views on Calvanism, I wonder how many variants of those three views exist? Sad to say, many times the tactics sited above is used as a subtle jab against their opponent attempting to attack their credibility to help aid in their “winning” the debate. After all, who would listen to someone who doesn’t know how to interpret scripture correctly and has no idea as to what Calvin really taught? I am sure that is what you feel is “morbid” about the C and A debate. I don’t mind lively, spirited discussions between C and A’s but we as believers must take the high-ground when debating and not use some of the more un-Christ like debate tactics taught in college and high-school debate teams. Our purpose should not be to “win” a debate but to arrive at truth. Just my 1 cent in this matter |
||||||
7 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21736 | ||
I will check the book out. I have promised Lionstrong that I would read White's book and I might as well add another one to the list. |
||||||
8 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21735 | ||
I have three levels of belief: 1.) Essential Christian Doctrine. A church must believe these core beliefs: Deity of Christ; Salvation by Grace etc. 2.) Peripheral issues that I consider important to me. Example: I will only attend a church that is Armenianist in their view on election, spiritual gifts must be more than a good Bible study (not just theory) etc. 3.) Perepheral but not "personally" essential to me. Usually teachings that I havn't put my fingers around fall into this category. An example would be my current denominations end-time scheme. I disagree with it but I allow a lot of grace when it comes to eschatology. I believe point one is essential just to be considered orthodox and Point 2 and 3 will vary from person to person. If a church does not embrace a doctrine they consider important it is better to leave than cause dissension in the body--which by the way is a sin. |
||||||
9 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21731 | ||
I would agree with you on this issue. that was my poor attempt at humor. I know Geisler has attempted to strike a "middle" ground position in this debate in his book, Chosen but Free. I know Lionstrong did not like the book and I felt Geisler was attempting to merge Calvanism with Armenian but nevertheless at least he recognizes the difficulties present in this debate. |
||||||
10 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21721 | ||
That was funny LOL! I wonder how long that lasted? | ||||||
11 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21714 | ||
Calvanism equals all things Arminianism equals some things Calvminian equals most things. The middle between "all" and "some" is "most" :-) Just trying to be funny. |
||||||
12 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21710 | ||
I have read Ed's post and agree with many things he has pointed out. Let me tell you my take on this matter. I think human nature is what has divided us into denominational boundaries. We naturally gravitate to people who agree with our interpretation of the Bible on pet doctrinal beliefs (I am not referring to Orthodox vs. un-Orthodox teachings. I am referring to those beliefs that most would consider secondary issues: Rapture of the church; Bible Prophecy charts; Sanctification issues etc.). Whenever someone stands in the pulpit and declares something as true and others don't see that teaching as true they only have 3 options at their disposal: 1.) Choose to stay in the church and not make a big deal out of it 2.) Attempt to change the other person’s view 3.) Choose to leave the church and attend one that views the Bible the same way they do on the issue at hand. Let me share a personal testimony that my wife and I had in a church in Texas. For a short period of time my wife and I attended Hillcrest Christian Church. This church comes from a background that espouses the belief, “No Creed But Christ.” They had no official creed (statement of beliefs on paper) and actually criticized churches that chose to write down their beliefs on paper stating “all creeds do is divide the church of Jesus Christ!” Therefore, creeds were looked at as something evil and not to be tolerated among real Christian churches. The only difference I found in the “Creedal Church” and the “Christian Church” was the former laid everything they believed out in the open and the latter left you guessing and probing in the dark trying to find out where they stood on issues. My family spun our wheels until finally we boiled down what the church body as a whole embraced: Their un-written creed! Yes, they had a creed but chose not to write it down. I will list 4 beliefs that I did not agree with that most of the church body at Hillcrest did: 1. Baptismal regeneration. 2. Amellinanism 3. Dispensationalism 4. O.T has no application to the N.T. believer By the way, the pastor found out that he violated one of the unspoken creeds of the church after 10 plus years of ministry: Verbal Plenanary Inspiration of the Bible. He did not believe in the verbal plenenary inspiration of the scriptures. Talk about one ugly scene that would have been avoided if the Elders of the church had produced, in writing, their doctrinal beliefs prior to hiring him as their minister. Allow me to make two observations about this church’s denominational attempt to unify the body of Christ: 1.) In the name of Unity, they produced another division in the body of Christ. You now have a “non creedal” division in Christ’s body. 2.) The slogan “No creed but Christ” sounds spiritual but it is not practical. They have creeds, they just choose not to write them down on paper. You will find out what their creeds are when you find yourself thrown into World War XXXXXX in their adult Sunday school class. I appreciate this denomination's attempt to unify the church but feel it will never work until Christ comes back for His bride. Yes, denominational biases are reflected in our forum but let me ask you and others on this forum a question: Do you embrace a truth because it comes from your denomination? Or do you reflect the beliefs of your denomination because it is True? |
||||||
13 | "Herodians" who were they? | Matt 22:16 | userdoe220 | 21533 | ||
I agree. After I read his post in this thread--and after the railing attack--I went to Casiv's history to view his past posts. I still have no clue what he is talking about in this post and many others I read through. Talking in riddles and bragging about his superior revelation when challenged seems to be his norm when posting on this forum. You have me curious about praismaster, now. I plan on taking lunch and review some of His or her comments. :-) |
||||||
14 | "Herodians" who were they? | Matt 22:16 | userdoe220 | 21531 | ||
"If you want to pick a fight..." No. I just want to pick your brain. I want you to answer the question, "who were the Herodians." "I came to this forum with hopes of sharing some light..." If you really came to this forum with hopes of sharing some light, than why won't you answer my question? I will restate it for you. "Who do you believe were the Herodians and how does your belief differ than searcher56 and Nolan? Please, shed some light on this issue. "what about UNITY and HARMONY?.." Well, truth divides...Ask Jesus. "When you people of arrogance who know it all..." Is it arrogance to ask you to answer a question about your beliefs? Is it arrogance to disagree with your position on a topic? I would say no to each question. It is arrogant to berate others for disagreeing with you when you won't even explain to us your beliefs. It is arrogant to tell someone they are wrong and not even share with them the truths you have learned--especially when they ask you for further clarification. "...I'm sorry you don't understand..." What don't "we" understand? How can we understand your position if you won't tell us in plain language what you believe and not in riddles? Since your railing, loveless attack on me, I have reviewed some of your past posts and realized that it is normal for you to never answer a question directly. When challenged, you always elevate yourself as the Beneficiary of some special secret knowledge that only you have and everyone else as spiritually blinded from the real truth hidden in the scriptures (Letters). That is arrogance. "And if any man think he is saved and another is not, then I caution you in love to reconsider your views" Didn't Jesus teach that the way to heaven would be the road less traveled? Didn't Jesus teach that he is the only way to the Father? Didn't Paul teach that there was only one name by which men can be saved? Tell me how I am missing the plain language of the gospel taught by the apostles and Jesus himself. "This is not only to you who has questioned me falsely" How is asking you to tell me your beliefs about who the Herodians were "questioning you falsely?" Are we not supposed to question the beliefs of others? Or would you prefer us to accept everything you say blindly? "…but to those who understand what is really going on.." Could you tell us in the forum what is really going on? Again, you are speaking in riddles and not explaining your beliefs. From reviewing your previous posts, I wonder if you really are a believer in Christ or are you just playing around on this forum trying to get a response from the members. |
||||||
15 | "Herodians" who were they? | Matt 22:16 | userdoe220 | 21521 | ||
All I wanted was a straight answer from you and not a riddle. You left me, and I am sure everyone else, wondering what you believe about the Herodians and why the other two authors are wrong. Sorry I offended you by asking you to provide further clarification. Trust me I will not offend you again in this way. | ||||||
16 | "Herodians" who were they? | Matt 22:16 | userdoe220 | 21438 | ||
I understand from reading Searcher56 and Nolans post what they believe about the Herodians. They have answered DavidB's question. After reading your post I still have no clue what you believe about the Herodians. All I can gather from your posts is that you value the book of Proverbs and enjoy using the Strong's concordance. I guess what I am saying is that your post does not answer DavidB's question at all. What are you trying to say in your post? Are you saying the Herodians were not supporters of Herod? You have implied in your post that searcher56 was wrong, threw out a number of passages from Proverbs (nothing wrong with that) but you are leaving the forum in the dark concerning your word study and the proper view of who the Herodians were. |
||||||
17 | Muselim Religious | Eph 2:8 | userdoe220 | 21248 | ||
Suprisingly, there is an article in the Dallas Morning News Religion section on this topic. One thing that is interesting is that each person converted because they appreciated the "disciplined life" that muslims lead. Wow! What an indictment to Christians. I think Foster's book, "the celebration of discipline", needs to be read from the pulpits. I would use this to bring up the one of the practical ramifications in the calvanits/armenianist debate but I will refrain. |
||||||
18 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21197 | ||
:-) | ||||||
19 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21187 | ||
I nominate sirpent to be the forum leader for the Song of Solomon! :-) | ||||||
20 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21181 | ||
I have a few observations: 1. Re-occuring themes come up for a good reason. book entitled "Doctrines that Divide" one thing you will notice as that not much has changed in 1800 years of church history and a number of beliefs stem from your understanding of predestination and free will. So, there will always be re-occuring themes on the forum. 2. Try to keep posts short. I don't have time to respond to a 6 page critique filled with 50 scripture verses (I know I am over-exaggerating). Tim Morant is the king of getting the most out of few words--My hat goes off to you. I know...I need to practice what I preach. 3. Don't copy or cut and paste articles from other authors. I don't mind qoutes--actually I like them--but I don't want to respond to RC Sproul; I want to respond to Sir pent (Not that he does that, I just had to use a name of someone on the forum). I am relativly new to the forum and stay because I enjoy hearing how other people from different Theological understandings approach certain passages. My 2 cents...Well maybe 1. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |