Results 101 - 120 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Did One Mode Send the Other? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5006 | ||
Greetings RevC: I tried to send this yesterday, but my computer crashed! So, here we go again! You quote several passages here that say the same thing about the Father and the Son. I'm not going to go indepth into these passage, simply because we already agree about these passages. Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods. Therefore, anything that can be said about the nature of the Father (eternal, all-knowing, all-present, ect...) can also be said about the nature of Christ, since He is fully God. However, I would like to address the John 10 passage. This is an excellent passage regarding the debate that we are having. I agree with you that we should not press the neuter 'hen' too much. Most commentators believe that there is an indication here (based upon the neuter gender) that Jesus is talking about essential unity, not numerical unity. However, there is not enough linguistic evidence to press the point too much! However, I believe that the entire context of the passage illustrates my belief that the Father and the Son are co-equal members of the Trinity. Obviously, the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. They say so in John 10:33. However, there are also distinctions made between Christ and the Father in this passage. For instance, in John 10:36, Jesus says, "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" If Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only refer to offices or modes of operation within the Godhead, how can the Father set apart and send the Son? Then, notice in John 10:38 that Jesus wants them to "...know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." If modalism is true, how can the Father be 'in' the Son, and the Son 'in' the Father? 'In' is a preposition refering to location. I look forward to you response! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
102 | Human and Divine Natures in Conflict? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5007 | ||
Greetings Sharp! I just finished responding to RevC about this topic, so it is fresh in my mind. First of all, let me state again that you and I agree that there is only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity never has stated that there are three Gods. So, everything you quote in your response, I agree with. The only difference we have is whether or not the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit refer to real distinctions within the Godhead or only modes. This is an important distinction because trinitarians believe that anything that can be said about the Father's nature (omnipotent, all-knowing, eternal, ect...) can also be said about the Son's nature, since He is fully God. The doctrine of the Trinity says that all three members of the Godhead are co-equal and co-eternal. However, the point that I think best addresses our differences is your last few statements. You wrote: "Jesus prayed not my will but thine be done, would not that be in referance to the flesh, complete human nature, or two wills in the Godhead?" If I am understanding your position correctly, you believe that the human nature of Christ was unaware of the Divine nature. Therefore, when He prayed, he was just acting like any human, not realizing that He was actually God. Therefore, the prayers were meaningless and unreal. I believe, that during the incarnation, Jesus was fully aware of both of His natures. He was fully man and fully God, and He knew it. However, He was temporarily subordinate to the Father (Jn. 14:28, Phil. 2:5-11). Thus, His prayers were real. The incarnate, 2nd Person of the Godhead, was praying to the 1st Person of the Godhead. What do you think? God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
103 | Trinity vs. Modalism | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5032 | ||
Hey Sharp! Thanks for the response! I still think that we are not on the same wavelength about our definitions. In your response, you wrote: "His prayers were not empty in any way however I cannot see one God praying to another God. By the word omnipotent only one can be omnipotent,if one has all power, all means all." Trinitarians absolutely do not believe in multiple Gods. I don't see one God praying to another God. I see God the Son praying to God the Father, but there is only one God. We are almost saying the same thing, except with one important difference. That difference is why modalism was declared a heresy by the early church councils. The difference simply is this: There is only one God eternally existent is Three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.) Modalism deinies the reality of the three Persons and turns them into modes only. But, we agree on the point that there is only one God. I don't have any problem with God the Son praying to God the Father, because God the Son was temporarily subordinate to God the Father during the incarnation (Phil. 2:5-11). Concerning your last point about receiving more than one Spirit, the doctrine of the Trinity says that the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. If you are filled with the Spirit, you have all Three, since They are One. P.S. - Can I get a little personal? It seems to me that Modalist really don't believe that Trinitarians only believe in one God. Most of the response I have gotten seem to spend most of the time trying to convince me that there is only one God. I already believe there is only one God. The point of debate is does the Trinity or Modalism best explain what we know about the nature of that one God. By the way, can you clarify this statement for me: "If Jesus was fully God and fully man, which he was, would not that flesh have to submit to the Spirit?" I'm not sure I understand your point. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
104 | Biblical or Not? | John 7:17 | Morant61 | 167403 | ||
Greetings Mitch! I just went to the web site that you mentioned. On it, I found an audio clip from one of Kenneth Copeland's sermons, where he makes the following claim: "It was not the physical death of Christ on the cross that paid the price for sin." Is this Biblical or is it heresy? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
105 | Biblical or Not? | John 7:17 | Morant61 | 167407 | ||
Greetings Mitch! The clip is from a sermon entitled 'What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost", tape # 020022. If you have it or would care to purchase it, we could discuss the quote. :-) But, since you limit me to discussing quotes from his web site, here is one: " Here's some good news: When the Word says we are to be partakers of Christ's suffering, it means we are to enter into the victory Jesus bore for us on the cross. The only suffering we encounter in sharing His victory is spiritual. That's what the Word is talking about when it says we are to be partakers of Christ's suffering. In other words, the only suffering for a believer is the spiritual discomfort brought by resisting the pressures of the flesh, not a physical or mental suffering. Jesus has already borne for us all the suffering in the natural and mental realms." Source: http://www.kcm.org/studycenter/articles/faith_hope/suffering_with_christ.php Is this Biblical? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
106 | Biblical or Not? | John 7:17 | Morant61 | 167410 | ||
Greetings Mitch! Yes, I read the rest of the article my friend! However, Mr. Copeland's statement is not Biblical. Here is what the Bible actually says about suffering. Paul calls Timothy to join with him in suffering for the gospel in 2 Tim. 1:8. Was this suffering physical or mental? According to 2 Tim. 2:9, his suffering included being chained like a criminal. 1 Peter 2:20 describes suffering as taking a physical beating unjustly. John suffered because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus on the Island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9). History tells us that he was impriosoned there. Jesus says this to the Church at Symrna in Rev. 2:10: "Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life." In light of these passages, would you still say that the following statement is Biblical: "In other words, the only suffering for a believer is the spiritual discomfort brought by resisting the pressures of the flesh, not a physical or mental suffering." Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
107 | Biblical or Not? | John 7:17 | Morant61 | 167414 | ||
Greetings Mitch! Did we read the same quote? Copeland did not say that we might suffer physically or mentally but we had to overcome it. He said that there is no physical or mental suffering for a believer! The Scriptures I cited demonstrate that there is physical suffering for believers. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
108 | Is BeDuhn correct on John 8:58? | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 145123 | ||
Sorry! I meant to post the following as a question.................................. Greetings Ben! The following is supposed to be a quote from DeDuhn's book. I have no way of verifying it at the moment, so please let me know if the quote is in error. ********************************************* One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. I n this verse, the words egw eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say “I am he,” the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that egw eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency i n how words are handled by biased translators. If egw eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. ****************************************** There are a couple of logical errors that I see in this short quote. 1) No one claims that 'ego eimi' is always used as a title for God. 'eimi' is simply the present, active, indicative, 1st person, singular verb of being, while 'ego' is simply the first person pronoun. The phrase 'ego eimi' is found 48 times in the Nestle Aland Greek text. It is often used in questions concerning identity, as in the English 'I am he'. It is often used as the subject of predicate nominative statements. "I am the Christ", ect.... So, no one disputes that 'ego eimi' has uses other than as a title for God. 2) The author says that if it is not a divine self-proclamation by the blind man then it CANNOT be a divine self-proclamation by Christ. Why can't it? Where is the rule? :-) Words and phrases can have different meanings in different contexts. 3) The context of John 8 clearly shows that Jesus is using the phrase differently than the blind man. a) First of all, Jesus was not responding to a question of identity. No one had just asked Him, 'Are you the Savior?' So, 'I am he' does not fit the context. b) Secondly, the phrase 'ego eimi' stands alone without any predicate nominatives. In fact, there aren't any helping words at all. c) Thirdly, no matter how one views the use of 'ego eimi' as a title for God, Jesus is clearly saying that he existed at the time of Abraham. So, 'I have been' would be a horrible translation. d) Finally, the reaction of the crowd makes it perfectly clear that they understood Jesus' statement to mean more than 'I am he' or 'I have been'. They wanted to kill Him. It would certainly be unusual to kill someone for simply saying that they exist. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
109 | 'I AM' or 'I exist'? | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 145124 | ||
Greetings All! Is there evidence that 'ego eimi' in John 8:58 can be used to mean more than 'I exist'? There certainly is such evidence. Consider some of the following passages. 1) John 8:24 - "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (NIV) This is one of the places where I do not like the NIV's translation. The Greek here literally reads, "...if you do not believe that I am". What exactly is so important here that one could die in his sins for not believing? Must one believe that Jesus exists? The people to whom Jesus was speaking clearly knew that He existed? ;-) Jesus is clearly speaking of 'identity', not existence in this verse. As we will see later, 'I am' has been used by God in the same way. 2) John 8:28 - "So Jesus said, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.'" Here we have the same sort of construction as in John 8:24 and John 8:58. Again, the Greek simply says 'I am'. Would the Jews only believe that Jesus existed after they killed Him? Or, was Jesus speaking of more than just existence? 3) John 13:19 - "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He." Again, what does it mean to believe that 'I am'? It must mean more than that He simply exists! The answer is found when we discover that God used this same phrase in exactly the same manner. 4) Is. 43:10-11 says, "'You are my witnesses,' declares the LORD, 'and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.'" Notice what God says about Himself in the middle of v. 10, "...so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he". Guess how the LXX translates this OT verse? They translate it, "that you may know and believe...that 'EGO EIMI'" Clearly, 'ego eimi' is used many times in the New Testament as simply 'i am', without any particular theological significance. However, just as clearly 'ego eimi' is used a number of times with great theological significance. Unless one believes that Jesus 'ego eimi', one will die in his sins. Jesus (John 8:24). Some would not believe that Jesus 'ego eimi' until He died (John 8:28). Jesus told His disciples things in advance so that they might believe that He 'ego eimi' when they take place. The Jews tried to kill Jesus for saying that He 'ego eimi'. Why? The answer is found in Is. 43:10! The Jews clearly understood that Jesus was using 'ego eimi' with very clear theological meaning. He was claiming to be God. Look at John 10:31-33: "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 33 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'" The message is clear my friends! Unless we accept Christ as God, we cannot be saved! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
110 | Is Jehovah lying? | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 145448 | ||
Greetings Ben! Thanks for the response my friend! I assume that you would agree that the following two statements cannot both be true in the same way: 1) There are no other gods. 2) There are other gods. So, how would you reconcile the statements of Jehovah and the statement of Paul. Simple - Jehovah is speaking of actual gods, while Paul is speaking of things that are only 'called' gods. There is a major difference. I could take a hunk of wood, and carve an idol out of it and call it my god. However, it would not really be a god, would it? It would still just be a hunk of wood. Notice that Paul's comments are in full agreement with this point. He says (in your version) that there are "those who are called 'gods'", but that doesn't make them gods in fact. In fact, didn't you read the very first part of Paul's statement? "There is no God but one"! Is. 37:19 also makes this point: "They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands." Both times that the word 'gods' appears in this verse it is the Hebrew word 'elohim'. Notice that the first occurance speaks of their 'gods', but the second occurance denies that there were actually 'gods'. Ex. 4:16 is an easy verse to explain. "He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him." Jehovah is simply making an analogy. Moses would speak to Aaron in the same way that God speaks to Moses. Notice the words 'as if'. Jehovah is not saying that Moses IS A GOD! :-) Exodus 7:1 is the same sort of statement: "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.'" However, Is. 43:10 is an example of an unqualified direct statement by Jehovah: "'You are my witnesses,' declares the LORD, 'and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.'" So, how do you reconcile this statement of Jehovah with the teachings of the JW's? How can Jesus be 'a god', if Jehovah Himself says that there is no other gods - either before or after Him? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
111 | But what did Jehovah say? | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 145492 | ||
Greetings Ben! To a certain degree, every translation is an interpretation! :-) You accuse me of relying upon an interpretation, not a translation, yet you want to 'add' a distinction that does not exist in Hebrew or Greek. There is no distinction between 'God' and 'god' in either language. So, Jehovah does not say in Is. 43:10 that there is no other 'God' formed but Him. He says that there is no other 'elohim' but Him. So, the question still stands my friend! Was Jehovah wrong? If you really want to be a witness for Jehovah, then it is essential that you proclaim what He actually said my friend. He explicilty said that there are no other 'elohim'. Therefore, Jesus cannot be a 'god' other than Jehovah. He must be Jehovah. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
112 | How can it be a revelation yet err? | John 10:29 | Morant61 | 11398 | ||
Greetings Isa! Christians do not believe that the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament. The New Testament is simply the continuation of God's saving acts. Both testaments are fully in accord with one another and equally God's Word. I understand that Muslims believe that Islam has superceded Christianity. However, what I don't understand is the attempts to tear down the Bible. If, under your system of belief, it was a revelation of Allah, then surely it cannot be full of errors in the way that you describe it. This seems to be a contradiction in your faith. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
113 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Morant61 | 18876 | ||
Greetings Yoshua! You said in your post that there was no verse in the Bible that validates Sunday as the Day of the Lord, but there is a verse in the Bible that invalidates Sabbath keeping - Col. 2:16. Col. 2:13-17 says, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." The clear teaching of this passage is that the Law is fulfilled in Christ (Rom. 8:2) and no longer has authority over Christians (Gal. 3:25 and Heb. 7:12). As such, we can no longer be judged about Sabbath keeping. From past experience, I know that you will probably reply that the Sabbath in Col. 2:16 is plural and therefore does not apply to the weekly Sabbath. However, there are two reasons why this argument will not work: 1) The Greek word for Sabbath ('Sabbaton') is used interchangebly in both the singular and the plural. The word is used 68 times in the New Testament, and only once does it refer to more than one Sabbath (Acts 17:2). There we know it refers to more than one Sabbath because there is a numeral in the text telling us that it does. There are even several verses where the plural Sabbath is used with the singular day (Luke 4:16, Acts 13:14, and 16:13) This is conclusive proof that the Sabbath referred to in Col. 2:16 is the weekly Sabbath. 2) The second proof that the weekly Sabbath is referred to in Col. 2:16 is the fact that this list is taken from Num. 28 and 29. In these two chapters, we find the exact same issues dealt with as Paul deals with in Col. 2 - Yearly festivals, monthly feasts, and weekly Sabbaths. So, here we have one clear Bible passage that specifically says that we can no longer be judged based upon Sabbath keeping. It doesn't say that someone can't worship on the Sabbath if they choose to do so. It just says that no one can be judged for not doing it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
114 | Isn't 24 more than one? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 133450 | ||
Greetings Rowdy! You asked for one, I gave you 24! Which of these verses listed any requirement other than faith? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
115 | Was Peter the Leader? | Rom 3:28 | Morant61 | 12464 | ||
Greetings Brian! I was doing some research to find out why the Catholic Church believes that Peter was supreme among the other apostles. I found this quote: "For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Cæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter. To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven -- an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22). The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church -- that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, "Feed my sheep", constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock. (For a further consideration of the Petrine texts see article PRIMACY.) To the twelve Christ committed the charge of spreading the kingdom among all nations, appointing the rite of baptism as the one means of admission to a participation in its privileges (Matt., xxviii, 19)." (Full article can be accessed at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) I have two main problems with this presentation. 1) We do not see anywhere in the New Testament that Peter functions as the chief of the apostles. In fact, a stronger case could be made for James than for Peter. Peter is shown in Acts as presenting his case before the other apostles and waiting for their decision. Peter is opposed by Paul. Even the historical references to the early church structure (I think the article did a good job of summarizing these) affirm that structure existed, but none of them name Peter as head of anything. 2) I also have problem with the interpretation presented of Mt. 16:18. The text says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The problem here is that there are two different words used in the Greek text. Jesus said to Peter, "You are 'Petros'." However, He said that it would be upon the 'petra' that He would build His church. I am not trying to force you to defend an entire faith. I am simply curious as to how you would address these concerns. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
116 | Arminianism: Another Gospel? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6536 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Like Nolan, I approach the question of the extent of the atonement from an Arminian perspective. As such, I feel that your characterization of Nolan's view is inaccurate. Arminian's hold to the doctrine of unlimited Atonement. As such, the atonement is not just potential. It is actual. Christ atoned for the sins of the world. 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse, and many others, make it clear that everyone's sins have been atoned for. Calvanists and Arminians agree that not everyone will be saved. One point we disagree on is how the distintion is made between the saved and the lost. We may never agree on this point. However, I don't feel that it is fair to make Arminianism 'another Gospel' as you did in one of your earlier posts. Galatians is comparing the Gospel of Grace with the Gospel of Works. Calvanism and Arminianism, while differing at several points, both fall well into the boundarys of orthodoxy. I love to debate with Calvanists, but I don't consider them heretics! p.s. - I checked out your profile. How is your schooling going? What year are you in? Enjoy your schooling while it lasts. It will be over before you know it. I'm hoping to get back to school one of these days, but it is difficult when you have four kids. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
117 | Calvanism -vs- Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6567 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Thanks for the reply! Let me respond to each of your paragraphs for organizational purposes. 1) I really don't want to speak for anyone else, so I'll deal with my understanding of Arminianism. I really can't agree that Arminianism is any-kind-of-Pelagianism. Calvanism and Arminianism have much more in common than Pelagianism and Arminianism. Pelagianism did not believe: a) Depravity. b) Original Sin. c) Salvation by Grace alone. While Calvanism and Arminianism disagree on several major points, they do both teach that man is born a sinner, that man is born guilty, and that salvation is provided and obtained through God's grace alone. 2) Let me take a stab at your challenge. The following statements are very broad statements, but I think they illustrate the primary differene between Calvanism and Arminianism. a) Calvanism teaches that salvation is wholly a work of God. The only receipents of this salvation are those whom God has sovereignly elected to salvation. b) Arminianism teaches that salvation is whollly a work of God. The only receipents of that salvation are those who respond to God's sovereign offer of salvation. This salvation is a free gift offered to all alike and based entirely upon the death of Christ. Therefore, man adds nothing to salvation. God has simply sovereignly allowed man an option: accept or reject. However, acceptance or rejection does not add to or take away from the objective and accomplished fact of the atonement. Our choice only determines whether or not we get to receive the benefit of God's free gift. 3) I did a major paper (60 pages - Whew!) on Romans 9-11 in college. I also think that it clinches the argument (sorry, but I see Arminianism :-)). If you have any particulars that you would care to discuss or debate, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. It would probably require another thread. 4) Great majors! I didn't plan on taking any philosophy (or at least as little as possible) when I was in college. However, I ended up with enough to almost major in it. If you have been studying philosophy, you might have read one of my professors - Dr. William Hasker. Keep up the good (I'm assuming) work! Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
118 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6725 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I actually responded to this post a couple of days ago, but for some reason it was lost (or non-elect :-) ). Allow me to respond to each of your paragraphs. 1) I partially agree with you about TULIP. If you have P, you must have TULI. However, you can have T, without having ULIP. Suppose for instance, that God elected everyone. Arimians believe in T. They just don't go along with ULIP. 2) This is a tough one to answer quickly. Let me state it this way. I believe in an unconditional atonement, but a conditional election. The atonement is an accomplished fact at Calvary. Nothing I do or say will ever change the fact (from my perspective) that He atoned for the sins of the world on the cross. However, I can choose whether or not I want to be a part of the elect body. 3) Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are not the same, so I don't know where this paragraph came from or why! 4) I share your concerns about Dr. Hasker's theology. He and I seldom agreed on anything when I was in class under him. However, He was an excellent professor. He was always fair and honest. I definitely would regard him as a brother in Christ, while whole heartedly disagree with his view's on the knowledge and nature of God. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
119 | What is Psalm 51:5 saying then? | Rom 5:12 | Morant61 | 75544 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! Thanks for your response my friend! I do have a question for you though. If Psalm 51:5 is not saying that David was born a sinner, then what do you see it as saying? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
120 | Is it Sin or Me? | Rom 5:12 | Morant61 | 75624 | ||
Greetings Discplerami! If there is not such thing as a sin nature, then what was Paul referring to in Rom. 7:18-20? "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." If sin is only something you do as a result of your free will, then how come Paul was doing that which he did not want to do? How come he talks of 'sin dwelling in him'? Paul's point throughout Romans is very clear, that apart from Christ we are slaves to sin. Sin is a violation of God's law, but it is also an inherited, corrupted nature, which cannot do right unless defeated by the power of Christ. Are we to read Rom. 7 as saying: "I do what I don't want to do but I really did want to do it!"? Romans 7 makes no sense apart from human depravity. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |