Results 161 - 180 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | the divinity of Christ | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 29216 | ||
The divinity of Christ being questioned? What's new about that? We are already combatting that. It's the same argument the non-christians have been saying since Christ first walked the earth, just in a different format. Jesusman |
||||||
162 | the divinity of Christ | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 29497 | ||
Actually, I'm not shocked. For that matter, why is anybody shocked? As long as the Bible remains, there will always be someone to come along who will question it, it's teachings, and it's claims. This is just another one of those times. As for my faith, I'm Christian. I believe what the Bible literally teaches and I teach what the Bible literally teaches. I believe that Jesus Christ is the One and true son of God, come to us to save us of our sins, and that he is God the Son of the Tri-une God-head. I believe that he died for our sins, was buried, and was ressurrected on the third day by his own power as according to the prophecies. I believe that the Bible is the Inerrant, Holy Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and divinely brought to us through human means. Does that answer your question? Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
163 | Same old question: man or Man? | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 30211 | ||
I didn't have my Greek NT handy when I wrote the reply. So I had to wing it, so to speak. Thanks for the correction. However, even though there isn't a definite article, and if there isn't a corrosponding noun with it, then the rules of substantival usage could still be applied. If I remember correctly, that is. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
164 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Jesusman | 112041 | ||
If this is a discussion over whether or not Jesus declared himself to be God, then you need ton debate further, because he did. Althroughout the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as God, and never once does he correct them. Also, IN John 8:58, Jesus in reference to Abraham calls himself the "I am". The holy name for God that was told to Moses on the mount at the burning bush, what "Jehovah" actually means. Why do you think the Pharisees and Sadducees blaimed Jesus for committing blasphemy? Because Jesus declared himself as God. So, Thomas' statement of declaring Jesus as God incorrect? No, because Jesus declared it of himself before. As for Angels being Gods, that is simply false. Also, Jesus is not a created being, as it seems like you are implying. "Begotten" does not always mean "birthed", but "unique". That is an accurate description of Jesus, especially given the Doctrine of the Trinity, and Jesus being the Son within the Tri-une Godhead. As for the worship of Angels, Paul clearly denounces that In Colossians chapter 2. Besides, Hebrews chapter one raises Jesus higher than the angels, and lowers angels far below humans in status. The Bible makes it very clear that Angels are not gods and are not deserving of worship. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
165 | GOD MDE SALAVATION AVAIL 4 ALL | John 3:17 | Jesusman | 88237 | ||
God made salvation available for all. That's a far cry from everyone in the world being saved. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman ps: Don't shout! |
||||||
166 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Jesusman | 35301 | ||
Hello bgg, Welcome to the forum! Before I start, I must admit that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am Christian. Paul explained it best in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17;3:1-9. Basically, Paul teaches that we are all to claim to be disciples of Christ alone, and not to any other person. Paul makes the point that all of God's servants have played a part in God's plan. So, due to these two passages, I call myself a Christian, or a man of Jesus as it were. I don't hold to titles such as Calvinist, arminian, or what have you. With that out of the way, let's continue. As far as to which group I adhere closer to, I must admit that I don't really follow either. I agree with Calvinism on a few things, yet disagree with them also. The same is true for Arminianism. Here are a few reasons why. First, when I began my education in religion, I focused in two specific areas: exegesis and hermaneutics. Exegesis is the "bringing out" of the text. Basically, it is the study of the original languages of the Bible. Hermaneutics is slightly broader than exegesis. It is the basic study of a passage. While it includes "exegesis", it goes into the history and culture of the writer and the events being written. When I began to examine Calvinism and Arminianism, the first place I looked into was the history. The argument between Arminianism and Calvinism really goes back further to Augustine and Pelageous in around 200-300 AD. Calvinism is the "updated" version of Augustine's views. There is little change between them. Augustine disagreed with Pelageous, and vise versa. Pelageous taught that Mankind basically saved himself. There was a bitter debate over the two drastically different views, and they began calling each other "heretics". To settle the debate, "Semi-pelageanism" was developed, which eventually lead to Arminianism. Now, forward to the students of Arminius. His students developed what became the foundation of Arminianism, called "The Remanstrance (sp)". When the followers of Calvin's teaching got ahold of it, they got mad, to say the least. They formed a "committee" and developed the five points of Calvinism. They, too, labled the Arminians as "Heretics". The Committee became known as "The Synod of Dort". Now, for a few things I have questions on. First off this debate has been going on for nearly 2000 years, or better. Included with that, has been some hot tempered arguments. I don't know about anyone else, but I have only called one person a "heretic". When I did, I was not concerned with what the Bible "truly" said, but what I wanted to prove. Upon speaking and researching this with other pastors and biblical circumstances, I have found that the term "heretic" has almost always been used during times of extreme emotions, namely: anger. I have yet to find a recorded time when the term was used in a calm and delicate manner. I can only imagine what the Synod of Dort was feeling when they first came across Arminianism. Secondly, I wonder about the resources availiable at the time of the forming of Calvinism and Arminianism. The Alexandrian texts weren't found until the 1800's, and the Dead Sea Scrolls until the early 1900's. The Textus Receptus was barely developed, if it was even finished at all. Even then, it would've been under scrutiny. The primary available texts would've been the Byzintine Texts or Majority text form, the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Messoritic Text, Luthor's German translation, and various english translations. The Oldest text available for New Testament studies would've been dated some 400 - 500 years after the New Testament Closed. Then you need to address the issue of how readily availiable these texts were, and especially to those who were declared "protestant" by the Catholic Church, which controlled a majority of the texts listed. My personal thinking is that Calvin's teaching may have been different if he had access to today's texts, and availiability. The Third issue concerning these two groups is focused around the points themselves. If you examine closely, the five points of Calvinism is exactly opposite of the Five points of Arminianism, almost to the extreme. This ties into what I said earlier about the term "heretic". I believe that the Five Points of Calvinism was not developed to give the church a concise outline of Biblical Doctrine. Rather, it was developed to combat Arminianism. To "show them up", so to speak. There are other points that I could make, but it would take too much time and space. I believe this starts things pretty well. Before I close, I must point out that I am not refuting Calvin's, Arminius', Augustine's, Pelageous', or any other Biblical Scholar's brilliance and knowledge. I have a high respect for these men, and use their insights on a regular basis. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
167 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Jesusman | 35925 | ||
Hello, I realize that. However, I must ask the question, "Is the Synod's Canon's in accordance completely with the Word of God?" The point I was making is that the Five points of Calvinism as we know them today were developed in order to combat that which was viewed as Heresy. Also, as I pointed out with in my post, the emotions surrounding this topic for centuries has been one of anger. The Synod did not develope these Five points out of compassion or concern to teach the Word of God, but out of anger to refute what was declared as Heresy. That leads me to question the five points of Calvinism. Jesusman |
||||||
168 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 34994 | ||
Hello Tim, You make a good point about Calvinsim. How can a sovreign God, with the power to create the universe, raise the dead, and be able to "elect" who he wills to be saved, not be able to "elect" all of mankind? This is a question I have asked to Calvinists many many times. So, for the most part, I agree with you. There is one area which I disagree, slightly. That man freely chooses to accept God's gift. Here is where I differ in belief from both Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism makes one good, strong point, that man does not seek after God, and that God goes to mankind to save them. However, I disagree with the Calvinistic thought that when God reveals his grace to the elect, then the person "automatically chooses the grace of God"; to quote a calvinist friend of mine. I also disagree with the Calvinist thought that God saves only the elect and approaches only the elect for Salvation. I have come to view Salvation as a relationship between God and Man. For a relationship to be successful, both members of the relationship must be active in forming the relationship. I believe that God approaches each sinner with the opportunity to have a relationship with him. It is then up to the Sinner and God together to choose whether or not to continue with this relationship. Why do I believe that God goes to every sinner with this opportunity and not just to the elect? Well, primarily, it would be a violation of His own Law. The Law clearly teaches that each slave is given at least one chance in his/her life to be freed, at least one chance to clear the slate, as it were. For God to approach only the elect in salvation, then the remaining people who are enslaved to sin are being ignored, and left in bondage. Also, the Bible teaches that God cannot lie, or go against his revealed will, which is taught in the Law. I also believe that Mankind is not only dead in sin, but is in slavery to sin as well. Man, as is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, is comprised of three "parts or aspects": The Body, Spirit, and Soul. These three together are supposed to form one person. However, The Spirit is dead, as Jesus teaches in John 3, and needs to be made alive through Salvation. The Soul is in slavery, as Paul speaks of in Romans 6-8. The Body, or Flesh, merely follows the will of the Soul and Spirit, and is corrupted as a result. Salvation consists of the Spirit being born, the Soul set free, and the Body being cleansed. This is the only way in which I have been able to reconcile the Omniscience and Will of God in Salvation. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
169 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 36233 | ||
Hello, So, then your point is that God is like some cosmic Nero, laughing at the torment and pain he is putting others through when he has every chance and ability to stop it? God has the ability to do as he wills to do. In fact, the Bible states that it is God's will that all men be saved. Why doesn't he just come right out and do it? Jesusman |
||||||
170 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 36724 | ||
Hello, Ok. Paul makes it clear that God does as he chooses. That still doesn't answer the next question. If it is God's spoken desire that all of mankind are to be saved, and that he has the very power and ability to do so, then Why doesn't he do it? What is stopping him from saving all of mankind? Jesusman |
||||||
171 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 37821 | ||
Hello, I apologize for taking so long to respond. I didn't realize that you had replied yet. So It is God's will that all should be saved, and it is his will that some should experience his wrath? That doesn't appear to be consistant. Believe me that I am not advocating universal salvation and the idea that all will go to heaven. Jesus clearly teaches that not all will go to Heaven and many will go to Hell. I'm questioning the thought that God alone decides who goes to Heaven and Hell. It appears as though there is another factor involved. It's as if there is something apart from God that is inhibiting him from saving all of mankind. In Romans 1:18-32, it is clear that Mankind is responsible for their own individual actions, that God has revealed himself, and that God continues to do so even today. In this passage, God punishes them for their actions, which ultimately leads to Hell. Both the Sinner and God play an intricate part together down the road to Hell. The Sinner sins, and God punishes them for it. Now, when we turn to salvation, we find that God takes over all control, Man becomes an apparent robot or puppet, and the others are left out in the cold, or heat as it were. That is confusing to me. Why would there be a union of equal actions between God and the Sinner, and a lack of such between God and the Saved? Jesusman |
||||||
172 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 37859 | ||
Hello, You said: "God was not and is not obliged to save anyone. But because He is merciful, He chose to save some and pass by the rest." My reply: The question I must reply with is: Is this in accordance to God's stated Law? You said: "God in the person of the Holy Spirit, goes to The Fathers chosen (Elect; those of the promise) and regenerates their fallen nature by the gracious gift of faith. This new creation opens his eyes and recognizes his sinfulness, repents and falls on his knees beseeching Christ for salvation." My reply: So then, it isn't Man having faith in God? It's God having faith in Man? Is this biblical? You Said: "This is hard for us to accept. Nevertheless it is what the Bible teaches, cover to cover. Would a man be so bold as to summon God Almighty before the court of human reason and try Him for being injust. "Why did you make me this way?" It would be akin to a criminal trying a judge." My reply: So, God judges who he chooses and has mercy on who he chooses? Let me set up the situaion as it appears. We have God choosing who will and who will not be saved. We have the Holy Spirit going to those who have been chosen to recieve Salvation. We also have that only those who have been touched by the Holy Spirit will be Saved. Now, at the final judgement we have two people standing before God. One who was chosen to be saved, and the other who was not chosen to be saved. The Saved can go on into Heaven. However, the one who was not CHosen has every right to stand before God and say that it is God's fault that this person will go to Hell, not his own. The requirement for entering Heaven is whether or not you have been saved. This person had no chance to be saved. The Holy Spirit never approached him, nor was he offered the chance. So, the responcibility of this person's actions does not fall upon the Person himself, but upon God. Therefore, God is not Just. Do you see my point? If you are to follow Calvinism theology to it's natural, and logical conclusion, that is what you get. That is also why I disagree with calvinism to a degree. The Bible teaches that God is completely Just. To be Just, the Holy Spirit must approach every person with the opportunity for Salvation at least once. God, being Holy and righteous, is also bound to his stated word, which includes the Law. Therefore, Salvation must also comply with the Law as well as the New Testament. As Calvinism describes Salvation, it doesn't comply. Jesusman |
||||||
173 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 37865 | ||
Hello Hank, I take it that you see my point? Simply put, The Bible is coherent, inerrant, and logical. True, there maybe areas that are hard to grasp in reality, but it makes sense overall. Our doctrine should reflect that as much as possible. I don't want to say too much more in fear that it may jeapordize the rest I have to say in relation to this. I'm going to wait until John replies. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
174 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 37959 | ||
Hello, You don't get my point, do you? Look at calvinism closely. I mean very closely, and follow it to it's logical conclusion. It begins by placing Man in the passive role within Salvation, and puts God in the active role. As it continues, Calvinism places a strong emphasis upon the power of God and his will to do whatever he chooses. Follow that same thought to it's logical conclusion. Not it's biblical or desired conclusion, but the conclusion that you reach if you follow the same thinking all the way through. You get what I previously posted. PLacing God as responcible for sending people to hell, when the Bible teaches that Man alone is responsible. Let me clarify. The area that I see as unjust is the Calvinist teaching of election. According to Calvinism, only the "elect" are offered Salvation, and the rest of Mankind is left as being "vessels of Wrath", doomed for eternal torment in hell. According to the infamous Pauline passage in Romans 9, by which almost all of Calvinism is defended by, God alone controls everyhting in the universe, and nothing happens without his approval. That belief alone begins with God being responsible for Sin because neither Man nor Satan could have rebelled in the first place if God did not "Will" it to happen in the first place. This is biblically wrong. Romans 1:18-32 teaches that the responsibilty for Sin is upon Man. Romans 5:12 supports this, as does Isaiah 43. Another factor with calvinism that places God as being responcible is if you follow it through to the conclusion. The requirement for entrance into heaven is whether or not a person has been saved. This is undeniable. According to calvinsim, only those who have been "touched" by the Holy Spirit has been saved, or "elected". Romans 8:14 seems to support this. So, it is clear in calvinism that only those who have been saved will enter heaven, and that God approaches only the "elect". Ephesians chapter 1 teaches that those who have been saved have also been "predestined". Now, we come to the kicker. The question that is often asked is "did Jesus die for the sins of the elect only or for all of mankind?" I am not going to hang around this question, but go on to a different one. "Is man dead in sin, or is he in slavery to sin?" Choose you're answer carefully. Due to space limits, I'll finish this in the following post. Jesusman |
||||||
175 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 37960 | ||
Hello, This is the continuation of the prior post. The answer to the question, "Is man dead in sin, or is he in slavery to sin?", is "Yes." Man is both dead in sin and in slavery to it. Let me support my claims. First off, I would like to go on record and say that God's stated Law goes all the way back to Genesis chapter 1 where He first said, "Let there be light." It seems like Calvinists forget that part, because they forget that our beliefs must coincide with the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. According to Leviticus 25, every 7th year was the year of Sabbath or Rest. During this year, land was returned to their proper owners, slaves were given release, and property returned to their owners. Deuteronomy 15:12-18 teaches this as well. It is clear that all hebrew slaves were to be given release at this time. The passage in Deuteronomy teaches that if the slave does not desire to leave, then the owner will put an awl through his ear, and he shall be a permanent slave. By the way, this is were earings got started. :-) Back to the subject. Ok, with that said, let's move onto the New Testament. According to Paul in Romans, the Law does not apply to the Jews alone, but through Christ, the law also applies to Gentiles as well. According to Leviticus 24, Numbers 18, Genesis 17, and Exodus 6, God's covenants are everlasting. According to Covenental tradition and culture, Both members of a covenant were bound to the covenant for as long as both were alive. Since, the covenants in the Bible involved God and the Nation of Israel, and that Both are still here today, the covenants are still in effect, and God is bound to keep them. Also, we have the before mentioned addition of the Gentiles to the Covenants. With that, and God not being able to Lie, then we have God being bound to follow his own stated Law. Now, for the reason why Man is both dead and in slavery to sin. Man is composed of three aspects, similar to that of God. God is tri-une. Man was created in the image and likeness of God. This includes the basic form of God, which is his tri-une nature. After the fall, man lost a majority of that image and likeness, but retained a part of it. Deuteronomy 6 teaches that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, and might. Jesus, in Matthew 22:37 says this as well. Therefore, we have man being composed of the Soul, Spirit, and Body. In John 3, Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about the Spirit. He says that man must be born spiritually in order to enter heaven. The Spirit, before salvation is dead. I prefer "un-alive". Paul, in Romans 5, confirms this. He comments around verse 12 that death reigned. At the begining of Romans 6, Paul says that just as Christ was raised from the Dead, so are we as The Saved. So, Paul confirms this. Now, look at Romans 6, beginning with verse 15. Notice that Paul changes terms. Before he was speaking of death and ressurrection. Now, he is talking about Slavery and being set free. I believe that he is talking about the Soul here. Jesus, in John 8:31-47, speaks of being in slavery to sin, and that the truth of God will set you free. So, here is confirmation between the two passages. Romans 8 begins by talking about slavery to sin. It also comments about the Body, or flesh. Before salvation, without the spirit's connection to God, the soul followed the desires that the Body had, ie: the Fleshly desires. After Salvation, the desires change to those of the spirit, which is connected to God's own Spirit. So, here you have both slavery and death in one unsaved person. With that, and God being bound to his own covenant, then salvation must be offered to all of mankind in order for God to be truly Just. Jesusman |
||||||
176 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 37961 | ||
Hello, In my reply to Reformer Joe, I clarified my point. There are two posts total. They clarify what I was saying before. However, there is something I would like to comment on. You said: "I hate to be blunt, but Kings do not require acquiesense from rebellious subjects before He condemns them to death. They are rebels and will keep on rebelling. It's their natural desire. Only a miracle can change their wicked hearts." My reply: Kings are, however, bound to the statutes and Laws which they have made. Jesusman |
||||||
177 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 38099 | ||
I called Romans 9 "infamous" because I have yet to meet a Calvinist who didn't turn to that passage for proof. I am well aware of what it teaches. Jesusman |
||||||
178 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 38105 | ||
Hello, What I stated before maybe "gobbledygook" to you, but it is a real concern to me. Now, at first, I was in a position to accept the differences in Roman slavery views and Hebrew Slavery views if it weren't for one thing. Jesus also talks about being enslaved to Sin, and the need to be freed from it in John 8. Now, we could stop there and say that what applies to the Jews is different from what applies to Gentiles. However, my mind keeps turning to the first few chapters of Romans where it clearly teaches that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the eyes of God. I have studied Calvinism. I have read many of the books you listed. However, there are some serious questions I have concerning Calvinist Doctrine. I am not anti-calvinist. This is one thing I would like to make known. I have a lot of respect for John Calvin and his knowledge. I also agree with a majority of what Calvinism teaches. However, the views on Election and God's soverignty verses man's free will has lead me to examine Calvinism closely. I would also like to make it clear that I am NOT an arminian, Pelagianist, Semi-pelagianist, or anything else for that Matter. I am a Christian. That's all I claim to be. I have been trying very hard not to take passages out of context and misinterpret them. My point concerning the Law and Slavery is that it provided the opportunity for every slave in Israel to be freed. I do admit that the restriction of it being every 7 years would not apply, then again, I never said it did. Bringing in the Law may seem to be a stretch in thinking to you, but it has direct bearing on the New Testament in my eyes. You might not have realized this, but the Law has never been recanted, done away with, or nullified. It is still very much in effect, not just to the Jews, but to gentiles as well. True, there have been changes, but the main thrust of the Law is still a factor. Jesusman |
||||||
179 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 38109 | ||
Hello, My point in talking about God's will, responsibility, and soverignty is that when viewed to it's logical beginning and conclusion, it places God as being responsible for Man's fall into sin to begin with. As we already know, the responsibility for man's sin is placed upon man. After all, nothing can happen outside of God's will, and Man did sin. So, as you have pointed out, either God didn't have control over the situation or He willed it to happen. As for my comments about Romans 9, I have never met a Calvinist who did not use that chapter as a main proof text. That is why I called it "infamous" and the passages "by which almost all of Calvinism is defended by". As for the statement saying "The requirement for entrance into heaven is whether or not a person has been saved.". My question is this: Is it wrong? Jesusman |
||||||
180 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 38119 | ||
Hello, My conclusions are based upon the assumptions that there is more to salvation than what is told to us in the Book of Romans. I know that sinners deserve Hell. I am not doubting that, nor am I trying to say anything different. I am saying that since God has decided extended his mercy to humanity, that he did so to all of mankind and not to the "elect" alone. I am saying that Salvation is a relationship between God and Man. I am saying that the offering of Salvation is where both God and Man exercise their free-wills together. I am not trying to promote "man-centered" theology, nor am I trying to promote "God-centered" Theology. I am trying to present a theological view that is both God and Man centered. Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |