Results 121 - 140 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | How faith would be if Luke were missing? | Luke | Reformer Joe | 91938 | ||
God inspired all of the biblical writers to write what they did so that we would know about Jesus in the manger, etc. The word of God is the means He uses to communicate the gospel of God's redemption to the post-apostolic church. --Joe! |
||||||
122 | Spirit of Adoption/ God as Father | Rom 8:15 | Reformer Joe | 88951 | ||
As someone who is the father of soon-to-be-adopted twin girls, I would recommend Robert A. Peterson's book _Adopted by God_. You can read about the book at http://www.prpbooks.com --Joe! |
||||||
123 | Offering? Or having offered... | Hebrews | Reformer Joe | 88269 | ||
"But since the Eucharist is a sacrament of faith, I would suspect that the faith of the Old Testament saints comes into play in any answer. What do you think?" Well, I hold to a different sacramentology than you do, of course, so I can associate the OT sacrificial system (particularly the Passover feast) with the Lord's Table in the NT. But I would agree that the faith of both OT saints and NT saints is definitely a given. --Joe! |
||||||
124 | Offering? Or having offered... | Hebrews | Reformer Joe | 88262 | ||
"Everthing is in the eternal present to God who is not subject to time." True, but the atonement itself took place inside the boundaries of time and space, no? "I am sorry if my phrasing has disturbed you, but the sacrifice of Jesus is still efficaious even today as it was efficaious for the saints of the Old Testament. It is the one sacrifice." But is the sacrifice itself eternal? That is the point of difference, in my view. Certainly the benefits are applied throughout all human history, but the propitiatory sacrifice was confined to a few hours on a hill outside Jerusalem. I understand that the Eucharist, in RCC understanding, is the means by which Christ's sacrifice is "made present" (please feel to correct imprecision on my part; I want to get this down). How was Christ's sacrifice "made present" to those who lived before the Incarnation? Interestingly enough, for those of you reading this within the time frame as I am posting it, James White details a recent debate with Robert Sungenis on this very topic at http://www.aomin.org Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
125 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 88157 | ||
"Whereas the Calvinist would say, therefore, that the sinner calls on the name of the Lord and is therefore saved BECAUSE he is of the elect, I would say (because that's what I believe the Bible teaches) that the sinner by calling on the name of the Lord is saved and thus BECOMES the elect." A very accurate assessment of the difference of viewpoint, minus the parenthetical statement, of course ;). "In one of the concluding verses of his Revelation of Jesus Christ, John issues an appeal, a beautiful and wonderful invitation." It is indeed beautiful. Whoever wills will have the water of life without cost. Just out of curiosity, what do you do with the "flip-side" of the invitation in the same chapter? "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy." --Revelation 22:11 --Joe! |
||||||
126 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 88156 | ||
"I would agree with how you summarized the creation. Of course nothing took God by surprise! I even believe that there are times when He overrides human will to accomplish His plans. For instance, some bad guy might try to kill me or my family and God zaps him! :-)" That is the clearest form of God's intervention. What amazes me about God's providence is the scenario where the bad guy holding your family at gunpoint is hit by the drunk driver coming around the corner. God provides the means for the drunk driver's sin and allows him to sin and orchestrates the events so that his sin is your salvation. "However, John seems to deny that man can make any free choices whatsoever, including Adam and Eve." I'll let him speak for himself, but most in our theological camp do not hold to the initial depravity of Adam and Eve. And, like you, I believe that we all have limited freedom. However, the boundaries and extent of that freedom and what we will actually do with that freedom is already factored in under the umbrella of God's decree. In this way, I believe that God micromanages sin (allowing only those which will ultimately result in His glory). The bondage of the will that I believe in is precisely that: centered on what an unregenerate human being can WANT to do. An atheist can always choose to say no to this sin or that one; what he can't do, in my view, is choose to do that which is good. The Heidelberg catechism gives the best summary (IMO) of what the Bible teaches is a good work: "Question 91. But what are good works? Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men." That is the limitation that I put on the unregenerate. Otherwise, the only thing standing in the sinner's way is means and opportunity and personal preferences and distastes (which themselves stem from a depraved will). And all of these are ordained and managed by God, even the "region of freedom" to carry out one's desires that both sinner and saint receives. --Joe! |
||||||
127 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 88155 | ||
'Hi, Joe! A thoughtful post. Is it your sense that today's so-called "free grace" is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer once labeled as "cheap grace"?' Yep, or what many call "easy-believism." "By the way, how are you coming along with your Greek studies?" Well, with the addition of two infants to our household, seminary is pretty much out of the question for now. I am in Nashville this summer participating in a National Endowment for the Humanities seminar at Vanderbilt. Its focus is on comparative literature (some of it Spanish), so I bet an English scholar such as yourself would enjoy it. Have a great day! --Joe! |
||||||
128 | Are we now in start of end times? | Matt 24:36 | Reformer Joe | 88145 | ||
Good points. Whenever I am asked if I think we are living in the "last days," I always respond in the affirmative because we live in the period between the two comings of Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
129 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 88144 | ||
"So, can God God not only tempt Adam and Eve, but ordain the act of sin which they commit?" This goes back to a semantic difference (addressed previously on the forum) in our understanding of the word "ordain." Correct me if I am mistaken, but you seem to hold that God ordaining something means in all cases that God is the most immediate agent in that event coming to pass. That is not our understanding of the term as used in our confessions. Taking the account of the Fall as your chosen example, we would agree that God created Satan knowing he would rebel. He created the world knowing it would become corrupted, and He created the garden knowing it would only be a temporary residence for those created in His image, whom He knew would succumb to the temptation once it was presented to them. He created all of the agents and all of the bait involved in the Fall. Christ knew in eternity past that His incarnation, earthly obedience, and crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification was not "plan B" from a divine perspective. Adam and Eve had an uncorrupted (but corruptible nature) and acted freely against God's revealed will to them, but in doing so did not take God by surprise, nor did they undermine God's eternal plan, which had to have been to redeem humanity (unless we take an open theism view). God did not immediately cause the Fall, nor did He sin. However, I think we both agree that He put everything in place knowing exactly how it would turn out. And that is why the Reformed perspective widens the definition of God's decree and ordination. God has created and governs all things, having already incorporated human and angelic obedience and disobedience into His decree. Another example from my recent Bible study: the Philistines decide to attack Israel precisely when Saul is closing in on David, causing Saul to break off the attack. So should David be thankful to God or the Philistines that he has been preserved? If God did not ordain the sinful actions of the Philistines (i.e. attacking His covenant people), then how can David thank God for sparing him and keeping His promises to him? All throughout Scripture, we see that God ordains sin (and by this I mean SPECIFIC acts of rebellion against God, not just allowing "sin in general") to occur to accomplish His purposes, without sinning Himself. From Absoloms coup d'etat as fulfillment of prophetic judgment against David's adultery, to the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions to chastize and judge his adulterous people, to the very crucifixion of His Son, God's hand was at work through the volitional acts of sinful humans: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." --Acts 2:22-23 Who delivered Jesus over to die? The Jews or God the Father? Humanly speaking, it was those who hated Christ. Divinely speaking, it was precisely according to God's PREDETERMINED plan. Did God the Father kill Jesus? No. Did he ordain that this sin occur in 1st century Judea by means of crucifixion? Absolutely. God doesn't sin, but ordains that the wickedness of men and Satan be used and directed in ways that ultimately give the Lord all the glory. --Joe! --Joe! |
||||||
130 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 88143 | ||
"1) If Calvinist doctrine, as I understand it, is applied to deathbed conversion, the new believer croaks without ever having his faith tested?" If that faith is genuine, yes. Think about the repentant thief on the cross. "Is it faith-fair that he gets a major break when the rest of us poor slobs have to persevere in effortful holinesss? When does our faith get as good as that fortunate son's?" Jesus answered your objection with a parable in Matthew 20:1-16. "2) If a Calvinist can't assure the dying guy that he's going to heaven, why is he there in the 1st place?" Calvinists believe that all who truly call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. We merely agree with the Bible that there are those who claim to believe but in truth do not. A progressively holy life is our evidence of salvation (2 Peter 1:10-11; James 2:14; Matthew 7:15-27). The best way to remember it, in my view, is that true salvation produces a holy life, not the other way around. I am sure of my salvation, not because of a prayer I prayed when I was eleven, but because of my growing love for God's laws as good and right, and my painfully slow but gradual conformity to God's law (in itself a result of the Spirit's work). I continue to have faith that results in works, and that is the only biblical basis for concluding that I personally am eternally secure. --Joe! |
||||||
131 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 88142 | ||
I would encourage you to read Dave Hunt's book as well, if only to see how he knowingly misrepresents Calvinism. I was dumbfounded upon reading the book at how he intentionally quotes snippets of Spurgeon's sermons to try to "de-Calvinize him." He even goes so far to suggest that Calvin was a Roman Catholic at heart! :) You can go to http://www.whatloveisthis.com to get a snippet of thoughtful Christian response to the book. Vance, quoted by Hunt extensively in his own book, is a KJV-only advocate whose scholarship is apparently so poor that he must self-publish (among his other books is one attacking the NASB update as a gross corruption of God's word). I would also recommend Geisler's book, followed by James White's response to it, entitled _The Potter's Freedom._ While I think that Geisler's positions are well-refuted by White, I think _Chosen but Free_ is the least "crackpot" of the crop of anti-Reformed works that have hit the shelves in recent years. --Joe! |
||||||
132 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 88140 | ||
Greetings, Hank. Perseverance of the saints is similar to what many Baptists (both Reformed and non-Reformed) call "eternal security." All Calvinists believe that true Christians are eternally secure, and Arthur Pink notwithstanding, generally do not make such sweeping statements like a reserve in your obedience making you bound for hell. I think that eternal security can be lumped into two varieties, roughly consistent with the differences between those who hold to what has come to be known as Lordship salvation and the so-called "free-grace" folks. Both believe that the Christian cannot lose their salvation. The latter group, however, contends that one only need to pray some prayer and believe for an instant that Jesus is their savior, and that no matter what apostasy and immorality one falls into, that their salvation is secure. "Once-saved-always-saved" is taken to mean that the vilest scoundrel who years before prayed a sinner's prayer in elementary school is on safe ground. This is the position of folks such as Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and Charles Stanley. Calvinists hold to the Lordship view put forth in Scripture and championed by contemporary preachers such as John MacArthur and Alistair Begg and R.C. Sproul. While one is saved by faith alone and remains justified from the moment of possessing saving faith (i.e. is "eternally secure"), that justification is evidenced by a progressive sanctification that is visible. In other words, God doesn't merely declare a person righteous because of Christ's perfect obedience and then leaves that person alone. God keeps His people from finally falling away from the faith and from continuing in such sins as are listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the practicioners of which will not inherit the kingdom of God. Those who claim to be saved-but-practicing-homosexuals, for example, are not eternally secure, not because their works make them unsaved, but rather because their works show that they never were truly justified in the first place. Holiness is not an option, as the Scriptures teach plainly: "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." --Hebrews 12:14 The good news is that this sanctification is as much a work of God's grace as justification is. We are the one's working out our salvation with fear and trembling, while at the same time it is God who works in us to (a) will and (b) work for his good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13). Paul also speaks of this striving with the strength that God provides at the end of Colossians 1. It is paradoxical, but in those of us who are eternally secure, God produces the steadfastness at the same time we work hard at it. So, I am "once-saved-always-saved" and the proof of that salvation is God making me more like Jesus Christ in practice. --Joe! |
||||||
133 | My Final Answer! :-) | 1 Tim 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 88068 | ||
"So, my contention is that Calvinists have totally misread the whole meaning of chapter 9. Paul is not arguing for God's right to limit His mercy, but for God's right to expand His mercy." But none of the hypothetic questions in Paul's discourse can lead me to that understanding. The "questioner" is not asking about why so many Gentiles have been "let in," but rather Paul is answering that: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" The unspoken challenge is that the word of God has failed (i.e. that God has rejected Israel). That is what drives the whole argument in Romans 9-11. Romans 9:14 has the question of God's injustice in choosing Jacob over Esau (and, by association, including some of Israel as children of the flesh and rejecting others). And Romans 9:19 says: 'You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"' I fail to see how this is consistent with an argument of why God is "expanding his mercy." Paul's literary debater is asking why God finds fault with the reprobate, not why God has been so merciful to the Gentiles. What is the premise of the question about God finding fault? The rhetorical question: "Who resists His will?" (Implied answer: no one). Paul never challenges that question in his answer, because it is the appropriate conclusion to draw from the preceding verses of Chapter 9. "It might surprise you, but as an Arminian, I love Romans 9-11. ;-)" It doesn't surprise me at all, brother, to know that you love your interpretation of Romans 9-11. :) "I pray that all is well with you and your family my friend." My wife and the girls are doing great. Looks like the adoption might be final by the end of September, so I would appreciate your prayers that everything will go through! --Joe! |
||||||
134 | My Final Answer! :-) | 1 Tim 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 88061 | ||
"Some have contended that all of the references which refer to 'all' men really mean only 'some' men." And some have contended that this is a less-than-honest oversimplification of the argument. "My contention is that there is not a single verse which says that Christ did not die for all men, or that He only died for some men." There is not a single verse which (in isolation) speaks of the Tri-unity of God, either. That doesn't mean that Scripture doesn't teach it. 'As my last post, I will simply list many of these verses and ask, "Do these really mean only some people?"' And, as both of us know, we agree completely on the meaning of many of the verses you put forward (e.g. John 3:15, Acts 2:21, Romans 1:16-17, Romans 10:13, etc.). Why list those as proof of Arminianism when we have identical understandings of such verses? If each and every human being has been drawn by the lifting up of Jesus Christ, then we have a real problem explaining how those who have never even heard of Christ are drawn. Paul writes in Romans 10: 'for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent?...So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Paul makes it clear that the agency of human beings proclaiming the gospel is the means by which people believe. And, to use a familiar argument, there is not one verse in Scripture which speaks of the possibility of anyone becoming a Christian without having the gospel preached to them. So how are these men drawn? A single verse in Romans 11 has been employed to support the argument that God shows mercy to each and every human being, but unless Paul has multiple personalities, he in no uncertain terms closes that door a few paragraphs previously in Romans 9:18 ff. While Romans 9 is certainly not the only place we see our sovereign Lord withholding mercy from some and extending it to others, it is by far the clearest and most straightforward exposition on God's showing mercy to some (preparing them for glory) and hardening others (preparing them for destruction). Nowhere in the discourse of God's purpose in election is man active in the process, nor is the decision made during the lifetime of the "vessels." The familiar passages of John 6, supporting a particular redemption, have been raised, and not addressed in a way that is consistent with the text and fits into an Arminian framework. If a one wants a single verse pointing to the work of Christ on behalf of a limited group of individuals, we have a whole passage in John 6. This forum has seen this argument crop up more often than even some of its regular participants have cared to see it. I tend to steer clear of it unless my position is extremely misrepresented by its claimed adherents or its proponents. The "'all'-means-'some'" abbreviation of the Calvinist viewpoint is simply misleading, and I had hoped that pointing it out before would have resulted in a little less "spin." I see that's not going to be the case, however, so I will let this be my "final word" (for now ;)). --Joe! |
||||||
135 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87900 | ||
"Do you see how your argument is going my friend? You are in essence saying, "I don't believe that 'all' the people really did come out, even though the text says they did, so 'all' must only mean 'some'!" Would you buy this kind of an argument from me? ;-)" Now, I don't think that is quite fair. Unless you go for a wooden translation of the text, I think John's conclusion is a reasonable one. When Paul says in Colossians 1 that the gospel is bearing fruit in Colossae "just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing," do you think that Paul means ALL the world? Was the gospel bearing fruit in the Western Hemisphere? If so, perhaps I need to revisit Mormonism as a viable world view. No one always uses the adjective "all" with the connotation that you seem to think it MUST have. To force the "each-and-every" understanding in every instance of the word renders some passages nonsensical, others heretical, and some in direct contradiction with their immediate and general context. Regarding "My sheep," Jesus was speaking of Christians, of course. He laid down his life for His sheep. He repeats that twice, saying that He knows who are His, and He lays his life down for them. It completely deflates the discourse to write in "and those who are not my sheep, too." He is not everyone's Shepherd, nor does the Shepherd lay down his life for those who are not His sheep. Likewise, passages like Ephesians 5 compare the way a husband should cherish his wife, self-sacrificing like Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Again, to parenthetically assume that Jesus died for those who are not His completely ruins the simile. We also saw 2 Corinthians 5:15, where Jesus' death has the purpose "so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." The purpose is limited to "those who live" (i.e. the regenerate), so Christ dying for them and everyone else leaves a lot of purposeless suffering for Him. Even Arminians (except for kooks like Pinnock) say that God foresees who will accept and who will reject Jesus. The general redemption model makes Christ suffer needlessly on behalf of those who will never receive the ultimate benefit of that sacrifice. I find it interesting that Arminians have a problem with God not giving all sinners (i.e. those who deserve judgment) redemption, but have no qualms about Jesus the sinless Son suffering more of God's wrath to no end whatsoever. --Joe! |
||||||
136 | eager to preach the gospel to believers? | Rom 1:15 | Reformer Joe | 87891 | ||
Because the gospel is what should be preached every Sunday. It is for believers, too! Law (God's requirements of us) and gospel (what God has done for us in Christ to meet the judicial requirements of that law) are the two sides of all good preaching. --Joe! |
||||||
137 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87838 | ||
"2) None of the verses you cite even use the word 'elect'! In fact, 2 Cor. 5:14-15 says that opposite, it says that He died for all! :-)" Here is the passage in question: "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." --1 Corinthians 5:14-15 On whose behalf did Christ die and rise again? For all human beings past, present, and future? Or for all "those that live"? "This has been my point my friend. A theological construction forces us to change the meaning of words so that simple declarative statements become complex theological constructs which must be interpreted differently than the normal language of the text would normally be read." This ties in to what I was saying to Ed about John 3:16 earlier. Simple declarative statements taken in isolation may be read a certain way, but understood completely differently when taken contextually. For example, stating "I love Tim Moran" would be understood very differently by different groups of people without any context. Am I homosexual? Am I stating that I love Tim's theological point of view and literary output? Do I love him like I love all human beings? Do I love him as a fellow laborer in Christ and a fellow partaker in a glorious future? That declarative statement needs more to grasp what I mean. Biblically speaking, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12) has a very different understanding when read along with the next verse, with the rest of chapter 2, with the rest of the epistle, with the rest of the New Testament, and with the rest of Scripture as a whole. Likewise, I grew up in churches where John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 were used to support an antinomian, "easy-believism," non-repentant salvation because biblical belief was presented as being roughly equivalent to believing that Mercury is the closest planet to the sun. A plain reading of those "simple, declarative statements" could legitimately lead someone to that conclusion, but books like Matthew and James and Hebrews and 1 John help us to understand more about what true, biblical belief is. 'Your a Spanish teacher Joe, if you read a sentence which translated as "Love all men", would you assume that it meant "love some men"?' No, but if I say, "Everyone turn in your homework," I am not expecting the entire student body to file in with papers for me (thanks be to God!). It is simply dishonest, in my view, to oversimplify the position of the Calvinist to "'all' means 'some'." People contextually use "all" and "everyone" regularly to refer to "all of a particular group" instead of "all of the human race." We may disagree with regard to whether the context qualifies the "all" or not, but the Reformed individual is not taking the magic marker to the instances of the word "all" and writing "some" in its place. We have biblically-supported reasons, both from the immediate context of the verses in question and from less ambiguous passages, for coming to the conclusions that we do. You may not be convinced, but it is far from the grasping at straws that the Arminian characterizes it to be. Peace in Christ to you! --Joe! |
||||||
138 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87835 | ||
"1) How would my understanding of Rom. 11 negate Rom. 9, when Romans 11 specifically states that those who were hardened can be grafted in again?" Romans 11 deals with collectives of people, and speaks of partial hardening of groups (I think the text supports the view that "branches" are not individual human beings). Romans 9 speaks much more precisely about individual destiny (where "vessels" do speak of individuals. And we have two distinct categories of individuals: a) the ones from among both Jews and Gentiles on whom God has mercy, who are molded and prepared beforehand for honorable use and for glory, to whom God will make known the riches of his glory b) the ones from among both Jews and Gentiles whom God hardens, who are molded and prepared beforehand for common use and for destruction, whom God patiently endures for the time being and on whom God will demonstrate his power and wrath Romans 9-11 answers the big question: What about God's covenant promises to the Jews? If salvation is for the Jew first and also for the Greek, why were so many more Greeks being saved and the majority of the physical descendents of Abraham rejecting their Messiah to their own destruction. Romans 9 is addressing the first part of Paul's answer: all of those physically descended from Israel are not "childen of the promise." Romans 11 concludes the argument by addressing the direct hypothetical charge that God has rejected his people wholesale. Paul uses himself as an example of the falsehood of such a statement, and then employs the example of those who had not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah's day (showing that even in the OT God preserved only a remnant of the covenant people), and then goes on to say: "In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice." --Romans 11:5 The remnant is the group of those who are Abraham's children according to the flesh and according to the promise. By their own design? No, but rather "according to God's gracious choice." The Holy Spirit then says: "What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened" Again, two groups: the chosen remnant who obtained Christ's righteousness, and the rest who were hardened, according to God's choice. Then we get to the partial hardening and the cutting off and the grafting in of the branches, which do not refer to individual Jews and Gentiles (since a single unbelieving Jew was not born attached to the root). From our human temporal standpoint, the masses among Abraham's descendants who embrace Jesus the Messiah will be grafted in again collectively. "And so all Israel will be saved." --Joe! |
||||||
139 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87816 | ||
Hey, Tim. "Rom. 9 explains God's right to work out His purpose of election, but 10-11 defines His purpose of election. In particular, Rom. 11:25-32 shows that the Potter has been sovereignly working so that He might show mercy to all men, not just some." In order to conclude that regarding Romans 11, you have to do injustice to Romans 9:19-24 and essentially makes it meaningless. If he doesn't will to harden some, but chooses to show salvific mercy (Paul's polar opposite to hardening) to each and every individual on the planet, then the introduction to the discourse which begins in Romans 9 and concludes in Romans 11 is negated completely. "That is the point at which we differ my friend. I asked someone earlier, where is the verse which says that Christ died only for some? I can show you plenty that say He died for all, or the world. I know that you will then say that 'all' only means' some, and 'world' only means certain kinds of people. But, where is the verse which specifically states that Christ died only for some?" Where is the verse which specifically states that the Holy Spirit is God? We both know that theological truths are often derived from a number of passages taken together synthetically. There are a number of passages that speak of Christ dying for the elect and the church that have little impact on the discussion if what is really meant is that "Christ died for the elect and the church (and everyone else). Examples include Romans 14:15, 1 Corinthians 8:11, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, and Ephesians 5:25-30. And then of course, we have John 6, which is being debated (again!) in another thread. --Joe! |
||||||
140 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87811 | ||
I have to start posting here more again to earn my title back. You're goin' down, Adams! :) --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [123] >> |