Results 121 - 129 of 129
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Radioman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Problems with Election Theory - Part One | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 995 | ||
Greetings, jg8ball! I have made my sincere reply, although I didn't address it to the respective question listed in the tree. I am writing this to remove a question that is no longer unanswered. Hope you don't mind. See you later! | ||||||
122 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 994 | ||
. . . P.S. . . . Regarding your submission, "Problems with Election Theory," I sincerely thank you for the background info. Now I see that for you Calvinism is neither a mere intellectual issue nor a matter for debate for the sake of debate. Rather it is a practical issue. However, I remind you that to my knowledge, I have never once in any of my answers used the word "Calvinism". For the record, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I suppose I'm somewhere in between strict Calvinism and strict Arminianism. I'm not saying either group is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. I never even used either of those terms (Calvinism or Arminianism, except perhaps to distinguish between the two or to reply to your comments and questions regarding Calvinsim, but not to defend strict, absolute, undiluted Calvinism). . . . In the same submission, I agree with you: you have to research it and determine for yourself whether you believe election is true and what your understanding of election is. . . . I also agree with your statement that ANYONE who ... believes in God's Son and turns to him for salvation SHALL BE SAVED. This is consistent with every statement in the Bible regarding salvation. Whosoever will may come. However, Scripture also plainly teaches that we neither chose nor sought out Christ; instead he did the choosing and the seeking of us (John 15:19). He came to seek and to save that which was lost. For an unregenrate man to say that he is seeking Christ is like the mice saying they are seeking the cat. If they are seeking his location, it is only for the purose of avoiding the cat. . . . I fear that to give detailed answers to your question "Problems with Election Theory" would take hours. Also that to answer in detail might stir up more emotion and hostility, which certainly is not my intention. I sincerely wish to give you helpful answers. Even if you don't agree with the answers (which is your right and privilege), my intention is to be helpful. Whether I have been helpful remains to be seen. My prayer for you is that the Lord will show you in His Word that which you are seeking to know and understand. Whatever your decision, I pray that it will be the right one for you. . . . Take care. Thank you for your interest and input. Disclaimer: I am not infallible. Calvin (there -- I used the word) is not infallible. No study Bible footnotes are infallible. Only the Scriptures are WITHOUT error and INCAPABLE of error and ONLY in the original manuscripts . . . . I apologize for not thoroughly proofreading this answer. If I tried to proof it, I'm afraid I would spend another hour thinking of one more thing after another that I would want to add. Because of Dry Eye Syndrome, if I don't stop reading and typing now, I will go temporarily blind. It will have to stand as is, typos and all. . . . I thank you for your time and patience. Take care. In Christ, Radioman |
||||||
123 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 993 | ||
In reply to: "Questions for my Calvinists friends." . . . Re: your question 1. I'm not sure that there is an answer to your hypothetical question, "Why go to all the trouble of populating the world and wipe it out with a flood?" For that matter, why did God go to the trouble of creating a world of humankind when He knew that the vast majority of that creation would be lost and never see eternal life? This is the kind of "Why" question that is God's business and none of my business. I would not dare question God about WHY He does this or that? One thing we do know is that all God's acts are consistent with His Eternal nature. All God's acts are done in perfect justice and righteousness. And, like it or not, our finite minds cannot grasp all the ways of God. . . . Nor does He owe us an explanation. Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJV) "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." What IS revealed is, not Calvinism, but a BIBLE doctrine of election. What is NOT revealed is questions that ask: if election were true, then why would God do this and why would God not do that? . . . Re: your question 2. Heb 9:22 KVH "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Without shedding of blood is NO remission -- for neither the elect nor the non-elect nor the undecided. That is why Jesus had to die on the cross. . . . Re: your question 3, Matt:19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25. Q: "Why would it be harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" A: It is more difficult because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does. . . . (Compare, for example, the conversion rate in the mud hut villages of Zambia, Africa with those of Marin County, California, Beverly Hills, California or Jupiter Beach and Jupiter Island, Florida. This may or may not be an apt comment on the above question or answer. However, it remains a fact that it IS more difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and it is a fact for the reason given, i.e., because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does.) . . . Now I have given sincere, if not lengthy, answers to your original 3 questions. I'm not trying to win a battle of wits; I merely seek to answer your questions as they were asked. . . . (More to come) |
||||||
124 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 973 | ||
PART TWO. Why won't Calvinists answer directly? 1) Who is a Calvinist? If I don't call myself a Calvinist, who are you to put that label on me? 2)Answer what directly? Sometimes the questions are so off topic, so hypothetical and broad, that they cannot be answered. . . . 3) Do you respond directly? You all never respond directly to the Scriptures used to defend election. I've rarely, if ever, seen an anti-electionist directly answer a scripture or an argument used to prove election. You usually answer a question with more questions or with sophistry that only confuses the issue. I've read more rambling remarks, irrelevant Scripture, hypothetical questions, "why" questions full of suppositions and way off topic, angry comebacks and just plain nonsense in the anti-Calvinism answers and questions. How is anybody supposed to answer such wide-ranging, hypothetical questions? . . . I would also note that the underlying resistance of the anti-election people is due to their idea that God just wouldn't be fair if election were true. And so they ask WHY questions that are worded to get the other person to agree with them. If election isn't true or doesn't exist, why does the Bible make 250 references to the subject? . . . Again people keep raising objections to what they call Calvinism while not bothering to even try to read and understand a definition and explanation of the doctrine. It's as if I had driven a Honda Accord for 20 years. Then you come along. You've never even seen a Honda Accord, but you've already decided you don't like Accords and don't want one. In that situation do you think you could convince me the car is no good? Having never seen one, you wouldn't have the slightest personal knowledge on which to build an argument. At best, you would be limited to quoting the writings of others, parroting their ideas while having none of your own. . . . Again, if I ever saw a well-thought-out, Scripture related question re election, I would make a sincere attempt to answer it. . . . In conclusion, thiese remarks may have sounded harsh and critical. Such was not my intention. I have love and respect for you and all who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I respect your right to your own attitudes, opinions and beliefs. It's just that I cannot sit by silently and read all the criticism, mockery and misunderstanding of the Bible doctrine of election. As Dylan said, "Don't criticize what you don't understand." If you've read this entire answer, then I thank you for your time and patience. Let's keep searching and learning for greater wisdom and understanding, shall we? After 30 years of serious Bible study, I feel as though I've only begun to scratch the surface in knowing and understanding Scripture. My thanks to you and the other users for stimulating me to continue to search, study and pay attention to the details of the Bible. Always look forward to reading your questions or comments. In Christ, Radioman |
||||||
125 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 972 | ||
PART ONE. It is not my purpose to sound unkind or to "feel" superior to others. But, I would like to make a few comments in answer to your previous questions on election). . . . To begin with, you are trying to disprove a doctrine -- election -- of which you have no knowledge or understanding. What attorney, professor or debater ever successfully disproved something of which he had absolutely no knowledge? An effective opponent of an idea would need to know all the main points and details of that idea before he could persuade others that the idea was false. It is obvious to me that all the shrill anti-election people are clueless as to what election is and when, where and how the Bible speaks of the elect or election. . . . By the way, branding all election as Calvinism is a serious error. There is more than one interpretation of the Bible doctrine of election. So why label as Calvinists everyone who believes in the Bible doctrine of election? Also, to refer to Calvinists as "the elect" or to the elect as "Calvinists" is absurd. Election and people spoken of as the elect exist, according to the Bible, whether you and I believe or don't believe in Calvinism and regardless of how you define election. . . . And why use the words Calvinism and Calvinist when replying to a posting, when that posting never once mentions Calvinism or Calvinist. If one is not even familliar with the terminology of that which he is debating, he will never convince anyone of anything. I myself wrote two lengthy answers defining and defending election, yet I never once mentioned the word Calvinism. . . . To set the record straight: 1) the word "freewill" is used 22 times in the NIV Bible. In every single reference the adjective freewill is used to modify the noun "offering(s)." So how does the Bible's use of the word freewill support the idea that the doctrine of election is false? . . . 2) The dictionary defines the adjective "elect" as "chosen" or "carefully selected". So elect and chosen clearly mean the same thing. You say "only a small portion (of the Bible) can be used to justify "election". For your information, while "freewill" occurs in the Bible (NIV) only 22 times and only in connection with the word "offering(s)", the word "elect" appears 11 times; "election" 3 times; "choose" (which means the same thing as "elect") appears 66 times; "chose" 45 times; and "chosen" 125 times. This gives us a total of 250 occurences of the words "elect", "election" or their equivalents choose, chose and chosen, but only 22 occurences of the word freewill, and then only in connection with offerings. . . . You refer to "when something in the Bible doesn't fit with your interpretation." If you were familiar, not with Calvinism, but with the BIBLE DOCTRINE of election, you would know that: there isn't one verse in the Bible which -- when properly translated and understood in the context and in relation to all other verses dealing with the same subject -- not one word that contradicts the Bible's teaching on the subject of election. The only reason I brought up the idea that many of the people who cannot accept election are the same people who don't grasp the concept of it is this: it is true. Nonbelievers in election invariably are people who can neither define nor explain what it is that they are opposed to. It is apparent from the comments written by opponents of election that these people have not read the answers supporting election. They've neither read the answers, looked up the Scriptures cited, nor given the other side a fair hearing. |
||||||
126 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 961 | ||
Just for a moment, forget Calvinism. Many people have a problem accepting the Bible doctrine of election because they do not understand it -- every last little ramification and detail of it. You ask "Why? . . . Why? . . . Why?" To those who must know the WHY of a thing before they can accept or believe it, often the only answer they will get is the one Job was given. . . . Job 38:1 (NASB) Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, 2 "Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3 "Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5 Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? 6 "On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone? . . . My point? Isa 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. |
||||||
127 | Who are the seven spirits... | Rev 1:4 | Radioman | 935 | ||
Isa. 11:2 (NASB) The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. . . . “the seven Spirits. There are two possible meanings: 1) a reference to Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the 7-fold ministry of the Holy Spirit (Is 11:2); or . . . “2) more likely, it is a reference to the lampstand with 7 lamps (a menorah) in Zechariah (Zech 3:9)--also a description of the Holy Spirit." In either case, 7 is the number of completeness, so John” in Rev 1:4 “is identifying the fullness of the Holy Spirit.” (p. 1992, John MacArthur, MacArthur Study Bible, Nashville: Word, 1997) In many Bibles the center column references for Rev 1:4 will include references to Isa 11:2 and Zech 3:9. Looking up parallel or related Scriptures in a center column reference Bible will help answer many Bible questions one may have. The Bible is its own best interpreter. In other words, to look up related Scripture is to compare Scripture with Scripure, a very sound practice in interpreting the Bible. |
||||||
128 | Any consequences for the bad? | 2 Cor 5:10 | Radioman | 927 | ||
. . . Slillis20 indeed gave a good answer. As to your question, "is there any consequence for the bad that is burned up?" -- the "judgment seat" metaphorically refers to the place where the Lord will sit to evaluate believers' lives for the purpose of giving them eternal rewards. The consequences of "the bad that is burned up" would, therefore, be loss of rewards. This judgment has nothing to do with sins, since their judgment took place at the cross. (Eph 1:7). . . . "The things done in the body" are actions which happened during the believer's time of earthly ministry. "Whether good or bad." These Greek terms do not refer to moral good and moral evil. Rather, Paul was comparing worthwhile, eternlly valuable activities with useless ones. Paul here was not condemning the enjoyment of certain wholesome, earthly things. . . . (See 1 Cor 5:10, John MacArthur, MacArthur Study Bible, Nashville: Word, 1997. See also the online commentaries for further study of 1 Cor 5:10.) |
||||||
129 | NOAH"S CURSED SON | Genesis | Radioman | 898 | ||
"Moses had made it clear that children were NOT punished for the sins of their parents (Deut 24:16; see Ezek 18:19-32), but children would feel the impact of breaches of God's law by their parents' generation as a natural consequence of its disobedience, its hatred of God. Children reared in such an environment would imbibe and then practice similar idolatry, thus themselves expresing hateful disobedience. The difference in consequence served as both a warning and a motivation. The effect of a disobedient generation was to plant wickedness so deeply that it took several generations to reverse." (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 124) | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] |