Results 161 - 174 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | 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 |
||||||
162 | What is the extent of Rom. 5:18? | 1 Pet 3:20 | Morant61 | 6474 | ||
Greetings Joe! Let me begin by stating how much I enjoy reading your postings. I haven't read all of the threads on this subject, but I would like to get involved. There is so much involved in this debate, but it seems that most people are focusing on the extent of the atonement. So, that is where I will begin. Please consider Romans 5:17-20. Here we have a text that deals exlicitly with both the extent and the efficacy of the atonement. Romans 5:18 makes a direct comparison between the act of Adam (the fall) and the act of Christ (the Cross). In both cases, the extent is universal. Adam's sin bring condemnation on all. Christ's death brings life for all men. Now immediately we ask ourselves, if this is the case then everyone would be saved, right? Not according to the text. Romans 5:17 again makes a comparison between Adam and Christ. Only this time the issue is efficacy, not extent. According to Romans 5:17, death reigned through Adam's sin. However, the gift of righteousness only reigns in those who receive God's grace. Based on this passage, and many others, my understanding of the extent and efficacy of the atonement is as follows: 1) Concerning the extent of the atonement, Christ died for all men. 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." There is no way to limit the extent of this verse. He atoned for our (Christians) sins, and for the sins of the world (non-Christians). The passages you list do not rule out an unlimited atonement in terms of extent (in my opinion.) I don't want to blow them off, so if there is any particular point you want to discuss, I would be more than happy to dialogue with you. 2) Concerning the efficacy of the atonement, only those who receive God's grace are included in it's benefit. The "whosoever will's" are the only ones who receive the benefit of the atonement. Like you, I have studied this topic a lot over the years. I am conviced that in many ways, both sides of the debate are saying the same thing, only with a few different presuppsitons. The end result is the same under both scemes of thought, only some (the elect or those who respond) are saved. Have you ever read anything by Robert Shank? I would be curious to see what you think about his argument. He covers his thoughts in two full books, so I can't deal with all of it, but a good summary is that election is corporate, not individual. When someone responds to God's grace, he becomes a part of the elect body, the Church. He or she, then becomes a participant in all of the blessings are promises made to the elect. I'd better go, I don't want to post too long of a message. Keep up the good posts! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
163 | Did you have a particular source? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6405 | ||
Greetins EdB! Great point! Did you have a source in mind for Luke's word. I found one reference to it being a surgecial (spelling?) needle, but most of my references and dictionaries simply list it as a needle! Either way, I think the point of the saying is clear! Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
164 | 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 |
||||||
165 | 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 |
||||||
166 | 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 |
||||||
167 | Conflict between the two natures? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5005 | ||
Thank you for a thoughtful response! When I discuss or debate with someone, I am sincerely interested in interacting with them. Too often, those with differing views are unwilling to deal with the questions that others raise, and simply pile on more questions, without ever dealing with the issues that have been raised. We may never agree with one another, but we can share our reasons for our beliefs. The issue of prayer in an important one when it comes to understanding the differences between trinitarinism and modalism. You said, "By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray. If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God." Yet, in the incarnation, wasn't Jesus temporarily subordinate to the Father. In John 14:28, Jesus says that "...the Father is greater than I." Those who reject the Diety of Christ try to use this verse to deny that Jesus was fully God. We both agree that He was and is God. However, trinitarians believe that during the incarnation, Jesus was, as man, subordinate to the Father. Hence, it was legitimate for the Son to pray to the Father, while He was in the flesh. This fact does not deny the Deity of Christ, it only affirms both the fact of the incarnation and the reality of the prayer. Later, you wrote: "The choice is simple. Either Jesus as God prayed to the Father or Jesus as man prayed to the Father. If the former were true, then we have a form of subordinationism or Arianism in which one person in the Godhead is inferior to, not co-equal with, another person in the Godhead. This contradicts the biblical concept of one God, the full deity of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God. If the second alternative is correct, and we believe that it is, then no distinction of persons in the Godhead exists. The only distinction is between humanity and divinity, not between God and God." In your first alternative, I disagree with your definition of Arianism. Affirming that Jesus was subordinate to the Father during the incarnation is not the same as Arianism. Arianism taught that in terms of His essential essence, Christ was subordinate to the Father. Though we disagree, I appreciate a well thought out answer. My biggest problem with your response concerns the battle between the human and Divine wills of Christ. In my understanding of the nature of Christ, He was always fully aware of who He was. He was fully God and fully man. I don't see any evidence in Scripture that there ever was any kind of division or battle between these wills. Therefore, I don't accept that Jesus was praying to the Father, only as a human, not as God. Can you supply any evidence from Scripture that there was such a division between His nature's? I look forward to your reply! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
168 | Modes or Persons? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4940 | ||
Hi Sharp! Have you been arguing or debating? :-) I understand where you are coming from with your questions. The problem is that they don't prove that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes as opposed to three Persons with in a Trinity. Everything that can be said about the Father, can be said about the Son, can be said about the Holy Spirit (with the exception of the incarnation). I have no problem with Jesus being the first and the last and the Father being the first and the last, because they are both God. The only point we seem to disagree on is whether or not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only modes in which God operates, or three distinct, but equal persons within the Godhead. I have been honestly trying to deal with your questions. I would like to ask you to explain your view of John 14:23 for me. As a modalist, how can Jesus speak of 'we' when He says that the Father and the Son will come to dwell within a believer? If there is no plurality within the Godhead, there could be no we! I'm looking forward to your response. I may not be able to reply until later though, I am getting ready to go to bed. I have been up all night! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
169 | Can Modes Interact with One Another? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4932 | ||
Hi Sharp! As I've said in an earlier post, we would agree on almost everything you say about the Godhead. Is Jesus fully God? Of course He is! The only difference between the doctrines of Modalism and Trinity is on the question of whether or not Father, Son, and Spirit are three modes of God or three disinct 'persons' within the Godhead. Is there only One God and Father of all? Of course there is only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that there are three Gods. It simply accepts the reality of three distinct Persons, who are all God. It is definitely not easy to understand God's nature. However, Modalism does not seem to do just to the reality of the Three. Jesus prays to the Father. Jesus ascends to the Father. Jesus is sent by the Father. Jesus and the Father both send the Holy Spirit. How do you explain the interaction? Let me ask a question which is similar to my first question. In John 14:23, why does Jesus use a plural 'we' when He speaks of the Father and the Son coming to live within the believer? Let me be clear, I do not believe in multiple Gods! There is only one God. Yet, within that one God, there appears to be three distinct persons, not just modes. They interact with one another. They can be obedient to one another. How can a mode pray to another mode? I'm looking forward to your reply! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
170 | Time for Worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4906 | ||
Hi Steve! 1) Words. From your two posts, I'm assuming that you feel that worship should be done in a certain position. I will grant that many of the words for worship included the idea of bowing or prostrating one's self before someone or something else. However, is this an essential part of worship or a cultural part of worship? In other words, does the fact that most people then bowed to worship mean that we must as well? Are there any Scriptures that proscribe the way in which we must worship? 2) Translations. I really didn't see any problems with the tranlations that I checked. Do you have any specific examples? 3) Teachings. You lost me on this one! You saw only 2 of what 200 teachings? Who are they? I have enjoyed the study I have been doing of some of these words. However, the biggest problem I see in worship is simply that we don't allow ourselves enough time to really experience God's presence. We rush through our worship services. We rush through our devotions. We never (or at least seldom) slow down enough to worship. Tim Moran |
||||||
171 | Human and Divine? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4903 | ||
Hi Sharp! Let me start with me response, then I'll deal with your question. 1) Response If I understand your response to my question correctly, you are saying that Jesus was praying to Himself because He was operating at that moment as a man and not as God. Let me know if I have missed the boat! My problem with that interpretation is this: Yes, Jesus was fully man, but He was also fully God. What I mean is this. The fullness of the Godhead was always as much a part of His nature as was His humanity. There was never a time when Jesus was not aware of who He was (the 2nd person of the Godhead.) Jesus even says to Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:9). Clearly, Jesus is fully aware of His Divinity as well as His humanity. Therefore, when Jesus says that He will pray to the Father, I believe He is really praying to someone. Also, when He says that He will pray for another Comforter, I believe that there really is another Comforter. Therefore, I don't think that you can explain this verse away by appealing to His humanity. What do you think? 2) Answer. I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this line of questioning. Usually, this is a tact taken by those trying to disprove the Deity of Christ. Can you clarify where you are going? In the meantime, let me address this passage. There is one thing that we know about Christ, there never was a time when He did not exist. He is fully God (Col. 2:9, John 1:1) and as such has always existed. So, whatever Heb. 1:6 is refering to it is not refering to a point in time when Christ came into existence. However, the incarnation is not the normal state of Christ. This seems to be what Heb. 1:6 is refering to. On the day that Christ was born of the virgin Mary, He became the Son of God (a status change). This is a name that is superior to the angels and unique to Christ (Phil. 2:9-11). Two other passages (Acts 13:33 and Rom. 1:3-4) even go further and specify that it was the resurrection which declares the Jesus is the Son of God. So, my answer to your question is this: At His birth and resurrection, Jesus was declared the Son of God. However, there never was a time when Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
172 | Three Offices or Three Persons? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4854 | ||
Thanks for your response! Now that I understand where you are coming from, here is what I propose. The major point that we disagree on is whether or not there are three persons in the Godhead or three offices in the Godhead. We both believe there is only one God. So, the question we need to focus on is what the Bible says about the three (persons/offices). Since this is such a complex issue, I would like to narrow the focus. I propose that we exchange questions that we feel illustrate our position. In order for this to work, we both must honestly and fairly deal with the question asked. Too often, in complex debates, questions are never really dealt with, only swept away with more questions. If you are open to this, it should be a fun and challenging debate. Here is my first question: Who was Jesus praying to in John 14:16? John 14:16 - "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—" Clearly, Jesus is praying to the Father, asking that the Father will send another Counselor (The Holy Spirit) to dwell within believers. If (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are only three offices or roles in which God manifests Himself, who was Jesus praying to when He prayed to the Father? I'm looking forward to your response and question. Tim Moran |
||||||
173 | Have I misunderstood your question? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4800 | ||
Thanks for your response! I'm not sure if I understood your original question correctly. I was under the impression that you were questioning the Trinity by implying that Jesus and the Father were both one in the flesh, rather than distinct members of the Godhead. After reading your most recent response, I still get that impression, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify for me what you were getting at with your original question? For now, allow me to respond as though my assumption is correct. There is nothing in this passage that is contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the passage supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Notice how all Three Members of the Trinity are mentioned in this passage. 1) John 10:12 - Jesus says that He will go to the Father. 2) John 10:13 - Jesus will respond to our prayers that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 3) John 10:16 - Jesus prays to the Father for Another Comforter (The Holy Spirit). Clearly, we have three Members of the Godhead mentioned in this passage. One (Jesus) is incarnate on earth, praying to another (the Father), that He will send another (the Holy Spirit) to dwell in believers after Jesus ascends back to the Father. If I have misunderstood your position, please let me know! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
174 | Have I misunderstood your question? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4799 | ||
Thanks for your response! I'm not sure if I understood your original question correctly. I was under the impression that you were questioning the Trinity by implying that Jesus and the Father were both one in the flesh, rather than distinct members of the Godhead. After reading your most recent response, I still get that impression, but I'm not sure. Could you clarify for me what you were getting at with your original question? For now, allow me to respond as though my assumption is correct. There is nothing in this passage that is contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the passage supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Notice how all Three Members of the Trinity are mentioned in this passage. 1) John 10:12 - Jesus says that He will go to the Father. 2) John 10:13 - Jesus will respond to our prayers that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 3) John 10:16 - Jesus prays to the Father for Another Comforter (The Holy Spirit). Clearly, we have three Members of the Godhead mentioned in this passage. One (Jesus) is incarnate on earth, praying to the Father, that He will send Another Comforter to dwell in believers after Jesus ascends back to the Father. If I have misunderstood your position, please let me know! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] |