Results 1421 - 1440 of 1459
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: John Reformed Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1421 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35975 | ||
Hello Zacht, Please bear in mind that I am new to using this way of communicating and am probably hyper-sensitve. I too look forward to future discussions. Your Brother in Christ, John |
||||||
1422 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | John Reformed | 35974 | ||
Dear Jesusman, Perhaps this request is not proper protocal, (it is not related to the question in view) if so I apologize to the Forum. I read your bio and, based on your education and background, I hoped you would help me. I have been attempting to answer a question regarding the reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement. I have using scripture to interpret scripture, employing a respected Bible Dictionary (Easton's) to define terms, and citing various theologians and confessions when I felt they might prove useful. My main concern is that I do not take scripture out of context or force my presuppositions upon the text. In light of the fact that I am fallible and prone to stray, I feel compelled to appeal to my brethren for help. I would sincerely appreciate your looking at a few of my posts. I need some feedback. God Bless Jesusman, John Adams Tucson, AZ |
||||||
1423 | fortunetellers in the new testament?? | Bible general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35970 | ||
Dear EdB, Exellent post. Although I'm a "newbie" on the Forum, I've been greatly blessed through my involvement. To God be the Glory, John Adams |
||||||
1424 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35967 | ||
Dear Zacht, You wrote: "I will say this". "People can support anything they want through scripture, and most do. To them they find support for whatever subject they choose. I have seen individuals give Bibical support for most everything". I don't believe you intended to point a finger at me, when you made this statement, however when taken in context, that is what is implied. Have you discovered the tendency to twist scripture in any of my posts? If you have, please show me where I have strayed into this heretical practice. Your post also implies (points 1-5) that perhaps I should look to the Holy Spirit instead of being hard headed about creeds and teachings of men. Worst of all: Do you really feel that I place the teaching of fallible men above God's infallible Word? Your Brother in Christ, John |
||||||
1425 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35929 | ||
Good Morning Brother Zacht, You seem to be a early riser also. If you don't mind my asking, what part of the country do you live in? The scriptual support I provided you may not have changed your mind, but You must admit, the doctrine can be supported through Scripture. John |
||||||
1426 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35886 | ||
Dear Zacht, You wrote "Seeing how both sides find scripture to support what they believe, and scripture isn't in error, then our understanding of scripture is what has to be faulty". From your statement, I take it that you accept my position that Limeted Atonement is Biblical. That it is founded on, and can be defended through scripture. If indeed we do agree, I give God all praise and glory. If you still have doubts, thats OK by me too. I'll praise him in for all things. Atleast we will have gotten to know God's Word just a little bit better. And thats no small thing. I for one have been pleased and edified by our communication with each other. I look forward to us working together again, God willing. God Bless Zacht, Brother John |
||||||
1427 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35866 | ||
Dear Brother Zacht, We differ on the question of whether, a Christian can lose his salvation through his rejection of Christ. You say he can, because God has given him a free will and therefore he can exercise his freedom to choose any way he wants. You said: "God will never just decide to forsake any believer, ever! Yet, the believer may decide to forsake Him. Once a believer has forsaken God He then will give them up to themselves and forsake them". In support of your arguement, you offered several quotes from the Old Testament(Old Covenant). May I point out that Christians are under the New Covenant. That is the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges. Especially as it relates to the nature of our salvation. Heb 8:6 "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises". Heb 10:11-14 "Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified". Notice! "He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified". That brings up the question of, who are those who are sanctified. I'm sure you will agree that the sanctified are those who believe. There are many promises that God has made to Believers. I will put forward just three. Rom 8:29,30 "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified". Phil 1:6 "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus". John 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day". In a nutshell, I believe I have presented a convincing arguement for my position, which is based on God's promise to save me. My trust is in Christ and not in myself. Considering the fact that I am still a sinner, I would not have any peace if I believed that keeping my salvation rested in my own hands. Phil 3:3 "for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh. Your Friend and Brother in Christ, John |
||||||
1428 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35780 | ||
Dear Brother Zackt, A hearty Amen to your statement about those essentials of the faith we both love and believe. But you know me well enough to realize, if I do not agree on the validity of your scripture proofs as they apply to the question at hand, I will offer my opinion on why they do not apply. I guess I'm just a hard-headed calvinist (Ha, Ha). Let me begin by pointing out that Sherimiah's prophecy in (2Chr 12:5) is addressed to the princes of Judah. Not to the elect of Israel. Do you recall Pauls discription of who God's People are? (Rom 9:6-8) But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but:"THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. It's getting late I'll finish tommorro, God willing. Brother John |
||||||
1429 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35663 | ||
Dear Brother Zacht, Greetings from the desert (I live in Arizona). In Your last post you said: "I also believe that when regeneration comes to the individual, and that from God. We then have been given new natures, our will to do good and please God has been restored back from the original fall. I think it is absolutely necessary for us to be on the same track when we use words such as "regeneration", would'nt you agree? I have included the definition from Easton's Bible Dictionary. If you have a different definition, please tell me what it is. Easton's Bible Dictionary Regeneration [N] [B] only found in Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. This word literally means a "new birth." The Greek word so rendered (palingenesia) is used by classical writers with reference to the changes produced by the return of spring. In Matthew 19:28 the word is equivalent to the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21). In Titus 3:5 it denotes that change of heart elsewhere spoken of as a passing from death to life (1 John 3:14); becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17); being born again (John 3:5); a renewal of the mind (Romans 12:2); a resurrection from the dead (Ephesians 2:6); a being quickened (2:1,5). This change is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. It originates not with man but with God (John 1:12,13; 1 John 2:29; 5:1,4). As to the nature of the change, it consists in the implanting of a new principle or disposition in the soul; the impartation of spiritual life to those who are by nature "dead in trespasses and sins." The necessity of such a change is emphatically affirmed in Scripture (John 3:3; Romans 7:18; 8:7-9; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1; 4:21-24). Does your understanding of "regeneration" agree wih the above definition. If not, please help me to more fully understand your meaning of the word. The reason I ask is your post implies that: A person can be "born again from above" and still reject Christ and ultimately be damned to Hell. Such an opinion denys the security of our salvation. I'm sure you did not intend to say that. For God says: He 13:5 "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee". God Bless Zackt, John Adams |
||||||
1430 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35570 | ||
Dear Zacht, Your answer is well thought out and seems to be supported by Scripture. But would'nt that answer imply that some men are created with a natural inclination to the light (those that do the truth) While other men are created with a natural disinclination for the light(those who do evil)? Another difficulty that arises fom your answer is found in Romans: Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." Paul is here summarizing all he has said in the first and second chapters of Romans about the condition of mankind. Which brings us back to square one. Do you want us to continue to search together? I can tell you what I think the answer is, but I would rather we reason it out as a team. After all I am as fallible as the next guy and I am open to changing my mind if we find the truth of the matter, together in Scripture. I am leaving for church now, and will not be able to logon again till early tommoro morning. Your Brother John |
||||||
1431 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35556 | ||
Dear Zacht, Great Post! It is wonderful that 2 men who both love Christ and His Word can discuss their different interpretations of Scipture, and grow in affection for one another while doing so. Praise be to God! Let me begin by agreeing with you. John 1:9 is as clear as a bell in stating that Jesus gives light to every man who ever was born. We also agree that not all men love the light that Christ has shone forth. My question is: Why do some men hate the light but other men love the Light. I think you know where I am going with this question, but I am honestly intrerested in your thoughts on this difficult question. I have wrestled with it for many years but I believe I now have the answer. Your Brother in Christ John |
||||||
1432 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35529 | ||
Your Welcome Zacht, I read your note to Hank, refering to Calvin's commentary on John 3:16, but I wondered if you had read all of it? In case you had not, I have taken the liberty to send a passge of his that appears a bit further on in the same commentary. Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not commonto all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ. God Bless Zacht John |
||||||
1433 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35500 | ||
Hi Zacht, I thought you might enjoy this passsage from A.W. Towzer. It may serve to shed some light on our discussion. "Sound Bible exposition is an imperative must in the Church of the Living God. But exposition may be carried on in such a way as to leave the hearers devoid of any true spiritual nourishment whatever. For it is not mere words that nourish the soul, but God Himself. The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence." "Christian theology teaches that God must first work in man before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man. Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment within him. Imperfect as it may seem (to the outward eye. JCS) , it is a real and true work nevertheless, and the secret cause of all desiring and seeking and praying which may follow. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the outworking of that impulse is our following hard after Him." Brother John |
||||||
1434 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35484 | ||
Howdy Brother Zacht, I believe we are now getting real close to the heart of the matter. In answer to your first question, I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). We split from the Presbyterian Church USA 40 or so years ago over some of the very issues we are looking at today, namely, where is the supreme authority, regarding the truth of God, to be found? Is it to be found in the Church (Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms etc.) or in the written Word of God Himself? My church and every other truly reformed denomination I know of says emphatically, The Bible alone is the ultimate authority! That the Bible is the rule by which all other teaching is to be measured and judged. On our Sunday Bulletin we print a general list of what we believe as a part of the Body of Christ. one part of this list of 5 affirmations is called Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone): We affirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's consciecnce, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation. God has given us teachers. It is a calling that a number of the church have recieved. (1 Cor 12:28) "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles,second prophets, third teachers". It is an awesome resposibility and we must not approach it lightly: (James 3:1) Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. Having established that the written Word of God is supreme, Should we throw away all those old dusty teachings? I say no! Although they were written by fallible men they are as much a part of our Christian heritage as the Constitution is a part of our American heritage. They have proven to be of great value, not only to me, but to the Church thru the ages. It is true: We are to test everything we are told by the rule of Scripture and to reject all that contradicts or is not in conformity with the Word of God. That being said, the teachers whom God has provided the Church down thru the centuries, have contributed a valuable legacy that we should praise God for. Your thoughts? God Bless Zacht, Brother John but it is an awesome resposibility for the Bible says they will |
||||||
1435 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35453 | ||
Dear Hank, I am absolutely stunned! Is that the smell of burning torches I detect in the air? Acrimony is the last thing I expected to find among a fellowship of Christians. Pehaps I'm just naive enough to expect Christens to show a greater degree of tolerance and love for one another. Besides, If my memory serves, the topic of limited atonement was presented as a challenge to those who hold to it's Scriptual basis. What would you expect? I for one will not shrink from the defense of the faith as I understand it. Or does Christian Liberty apply only to the majority? I can sympathize with your apparent boredom with reformed doctrine. It must be tedious to have to deal with constant challenges to your own brand of theology. The fact is that this debate has been continuosly waged scince Augustine and Pelagious, and will probably continue til Our Lord returns in glory! Permit me to answer a few of your points. 1. This continuum of debate on election, limited atonement and other tenets of reformed theology is not only endless, but highly biased. I disagree with "endless". It will end when Christ returns and we will be perfected. The differences once so hotly debated will evaporate in the light of His Glorious person. You charge the reformed with BIAS, but make it a blanket charge without even troubling to substantiate your claim. What is that called? Let us not confuse bias with conviction. 2. The only real purpose it is serving, and not a particularly meritorious one at that, is giving the advocates of reformed theology a soap-box on which to speak their piece. Are you really saying that our interpretation of Scipture has no merit? Or have you lost faith in your arguements and wish the loud mouthed reformers would just shutup and go away. I do not think such a sentiment is worthy of you Hank. 3. Meanwhile the majority of us are supposed to sit back and watch these views aired over and over, day after day,with no apparent end in sight. Who told anyone to sit back? Jump into the fray! If God is for you who can be against you. Fight for the truth as you understand it and do not weary from doing good works. Come let us reason together saith The Lord. 4. "I would say that no one is being really edified by it..". I am. Do I count? 5. I should rather think that new believers and would-be believers are being confused, abashed, and turned away by it. On the contrary new believers will suffer no harm by hearing different views on doctrine, after all, If they are believers they have the Holy Spirit who will lead them into truth. Hbr 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith". 6.It is in poor taste at the least and flat wrong at the most to air on this forum a daily megadose of one-sided denominational bias, and air it over and over and over to the point of disgust. How can you have one-sided bias between opposing positions? One-sided bias could exist only if the reformed take your advise and skeedaddle out of town, back to Scotland or someplace. Oh Well! (sigh) Rom 8:28 "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose". Thank you Lord I almost forgot. God Bless You Hank (All of us have bad days) John |
||||||
1436 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35438 | ||
Hi Again Zacht, I just wanted to get back to you with some final thoughts on your latest post to me. I am somewhat disturbed by your experiences with a particular reformed church, which I can not help but believe must have been an abberation. I am certain you can understand my desire to defend the reformed churches in general, especially because I have never heard of that sort of false teaching occuring before. (I do not deny your experience. Therefore, I would like to assure you and anyone else who may read this post, that this type of travisty of reformed teaching is not prevalent in my, or any other reformed church I am aware of. It is in direct opposition to The Westminster Confession of Faith. I happen to be involved in a class at this time which is studying the precepts of the Confession, and this one of the Q and A's: Question: Can the Church speak infallibly? If not then how can it speak with authority or value? Answer: No. Only God can speak infallibly. The Church speaks with value and authority when it declares the Word of God. You cited a verse in your post that was meant to prove "salvation has been made universally available to all". I am in hearty agreement with both C.H. Spurgeon and yourself in regards to a universal invitation. This however in no way repudiates Limited Atonement, but actually supports it. Let me explain why I believe this is so. A general invitation from God, thru His Church, goes out to all the world. However, not everyone accepts the invitation. Those who reject God's offer, in effect, deny themselves the opportunity to have their sins atoned for thru Christ's work on the cross. Those who accept the invitation recieve atonement for their sins. This proves the point I have been trying to make: Atonement is limited to the number of those who turn to Christ. If all the world had their sins atoned for, that would mean that there would be lost souls in Hell who are already reconciled to God by virtue of Christ's atoning sacrifice! Keep in mind that atonement is an effect that results from recieving Jesus Christ's sacrifice (the cause). One more thing: I don't think 2 Cor 5:15 is a good example for making the case that "all" means all mankind. Read in context, "all" is describing all who died in Christ (See the preceeding verse where the "all" in v.15 is identified). 2 Cor 5:14 "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died". Thanks for your patience, John |
||||||
1437 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35383 | ||
Hello Brother Zacht, I sincerely appreciate tour reply. It is my hope that we all may get to know each other thru our correspondence. I did read your initial post and I have taken into account your disagreement with calvinist (Reformed) theology. If I understand you correctly, you said that you were once a part of a church that that taught doctrines that ,over time, thru your personnal study of scripture,you came to disagree with.(The same thing happened to me, but I came to agree with the calvinists). Further down in your letter you state that you now have the liberty to express your conclusions based on Scripture and are not compelled to accept the interpretations of creeds or catechisms etc. I hope I have stated your contention accurately. If that was your problem I can't blame you for leaving. In my denomination (Presbyterian Church in America) the leadership would be brought before the session and disciplined for straying from the the Westminster Confession of Faith teaching which is: IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decress of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. I did mean to say Unlimited Atonement. Thanks for catching that for me. Just one of the reasons I need my brothers. Your Brother, John |
||||||
1438 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35323 | ||
Hi Joe, I am in comlete agreement with your position. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to examine some of my posts in reply to Zacht's question regarding the Scriptual foundation on Limited Atonrment. It would be of great help to have a fellow calvinist critique my reasoning. Looking forward to hearing from you, John |
||||||
1439 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35318 | ||
Dear Hank, Thank you for taking the time to read my post! I hope you will choose to participate more fully. Hank, I too believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. I believe that God intended it for the unlearned as well as the learned. However, and I'm certain that you would agree that, not all of Scripture is easy to understand. At least not for me. But thanks be to God, He has provided for our weaknesses by sending the Holy Spirit to help in our infirmities and we can call upon Him to lead us in our search for the knowledge of God and of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. He has also, in His providence, "given some to be teachers" and I often have found occasion to praise Him for that as well. I am also of the belief, that ultimate authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. Any degree of authority that a man may possess is limited to the degree that it is in harmony with what God has said in His Word. We are all aware of the damage that can occur when a verse is taken out of context. I am sorry to say, but I have been guilty of this myself. It is a problem that all of us need to be mindful of. I believe this happens when we force a portion of Scripture to support our own desired interpretation or that of our particular tradition. I hear it all the time from unbelievers " You Christians can't even agree among yourselves what it is the Bible teaches". I usually explain that it is not the Bible that errs but that it is the fault of His imperfect servants. I have profited much thru the ministry of The Westminster Confession of Faith. One of it's precepts is: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them".(Chapt. 1) Of further assistance, from the same Chapter: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly". That is what, by God's grace, the guideline I will be following. God Bless Hank, John |
||||||
1440 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | John Reformed | 35312 | ||
Dear Brother Zacht, I am indebted to Tim in more ways than one. Tim's First post to you in response to your question, "Is Limited Atonement Biblical", has formed the basis for my reply. Tim listed a number of scriptures to support his arguement in opposition to this doctrine. I have been attempting, in my own poor way, to answer Tim's interpretation by offering questions that challenge his position and by providing Scripture that support Limited Atonement. My primary goal is to show that the doctrine is indeed Biblical (Scriptual), by setting forth those Scriptures that stand in support of This doctrine. Secondly, I hope to prove that the opposing position (Unconditional Atonement) is the one which is not supported by scripture. The primary benefit I hope to see happen is, that those who participate in this debate and those who watch from the sidelines will be inspired to look at their own beliefs and subject them to the test of the Scriptures themselves. In that way all win. God Bless Brother John |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ] Next > Last [73] >> |