Results 1761 - 1780 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1761 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14108 | ||
Tim: Semi-Pelagianism is not Pelagianism, nor is it Arminianism, as I clearly distinguished between the two in my post. Semi-Pelagianism suggests that our wills are not TOTALLY depraved, but rather just weakened, and therefore is required to cooperate with God in salvation. John Cassian, a contemporary of Augustine, was the primary proponent of this view. Some semi-Pelagians even insist that it is man who initiates salvation, and that God provides the grace to compensate for what power the human lacks in placing full saving faith in Christ. In other words, the human is not so fallen that he cannot initiate his own salvation, inviting an "assist" from the Holy Spirit. Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Synod of Orange in 529, even though it is pretty much the idea behind the salvation we find in modern Roman Catholicism. Arminius avoided the extremes of semi-Pelagianism by saying that God must initiate salvation (since we are indeed spiritually dead, not weakened), but that His grace is not necessarily effectual, nor is it irresistible. This is the idea of "prevenient grace" (grace that "comes before" salvation) which frees the will and enables the person to accept Christ. Of course, as you will agree, once that prevenient grace is present, it is up to the individual sinner to accept or reject that grace and "seal the deal," so to speak. Calvinists, in contrast, go further than just saying God's grace is only savingly given to some. They say that God's grace is effectual, that it accomplishes God's purpose, and that it inevitably changes the disposition of the sinner's heart so that he will willingly embrace Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
1762 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14089 | ||
I am not saying that the wor dis not being used in the same way. My agrgument is that one cannot conclude that the diect object is necessarily the same in every instance. Ofr example, the fact that the Greek word for "stoned" is used by Luke in Acts several times does not mean that the same person is being stoned in each situation. We see Stephen stoned. We see Paul stoned. The word is the same; the meaning is the same; the direct object is different. You write: "I believe that 'whom He foreknew' is a technicule term for Israel. " It may be a technical term, but what does it MEAN to foreknow? And are you talking about the Hebrew race when you say it refers to Israel, or the spiritual Israel which includes Gentile believers? On Ephesians, the fact that the exact word is not being used has nothing to do with the fact that Paul is obviously speaking about the same idea. The Greek word for predestined is used in both places, so obviously there is a connection. Incidentally, Peter uses the term "proginosko" twice himself, when speaking of foreknowing Christ's death in Acts 2:23. The word is linked to God's "predetermined plan." He also uses it in 1 Peter 1, when he speaks of being chosen according to the foreknowledge of God. Nothing about our role in God's choice. I am glad you believe in election. The problem is in whom you think does the electing. Calvinists believe that justification takes place through faith as well, just that regeneration occurs logically prior to that faith. Arminians have to invent the notion of "prevenient grace" in order to not fall into either the Calvinist position or the semi-Pelagian one. As far as Psalm 44, we need to be cautious in making a sweeping statement that a New Testament quote of an OT passage must refer to the specific group that it does in the original passage. For example, many Messianic prophecies come from the Psalms, where the apparent referance is to the Psalmist (e.g. David) rather than to the coming Christ. This is an interesting avenue to explore, however, as I have been keenly interested in how the Jewish peoples viewed such Psalms as messianic in nature. Later, --Joe! |
||||||
1763 | Are those He called always chosen? | Rom 8:30 | Reformer Joe | 14066 | ||
Tim: You wrote: "The word "proginosko" is only used by Paul twice in the entire New Testament, in Rom. 8:29 and 11:2. In Rom. 11:2, the word is clearly a reference to Israel. So, why does almost every commentator consider the word in 8:29 to be a reference to individual Christians?" Maybe because most commentators understand that just becuase a word is used in one instance in one way, that doesn't mean it is bound to the same direct object in all situations. How do you reconcile Romans 8:30 with Ephesians 1:4-5,11, which definitely is NOT talking about Israel? "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will" --Joe! |
||||||
1764 | earth 6-10000 years old | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14032 | ||
Just impish spite, I guess! --Joe! |
||||||
1765 | Hello!Martin Luther KING???Really?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13987 | ||
You are mistaken in several ways. Martin Luther is the 16th-century German Reformer. Martin Luther King, Jr., is the 20th-century American civil-rights activist. Martin Luther stood on justification by faith, and never removed books from the Bible. --Joe! |
||||||
1766 | Who created god? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13985 | ||
God didn't come from anywhere! If you believe the Bible, there is no denying that God has always existed. This is one of the most basic characteristics of God! "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, From everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen." --Psalm 41:13 "Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." --Psalm 90:2 "Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting." --Psalm 93:2 "But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children," --Psalm 103:17 "Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct." --Habakkuk 1:12 With all due respect, this is not a forum for speculating the nature of things apart from the Bible. The Bible specifically states that God has eternally existed. If we want to know God's character and what he is like, the last place I would look for an example is at fallen humanity (Romans 3). Rather, I would look at the Bible, which is not only a book ABOUT God, but also a book FROM God, telling us everything that we need to know about what He is like. It is his autobiography, and anything that contradicts what is revealed there is simply false. Pick up the Bible. Read it. Learn about God from His self-revelation rather than trying to figure Him out by using your imagination. Anything else simply is idolatry, and will continue to lead you astray from the truth of Christianity. --Joe! |
||||||
1767 | book of barabus | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13983 | ||
There was an epistle written to Barnabas that circulated during the early couple of centuries, but it was never universally recognized as being part of the biblical canon. In other words, while many thought it was an insightful work, it was never considered by a large number of people to be inerrant and divinely inspired. Darrell L. Bock, research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, puts it this way in his book, "Can I Trust the Bible?": "Works like the Epistle to Barnabas and the Didache were cited by some in the early period as if they were Scripture...these later works, though they continued to be read and studied as valuable, were not ultimately ranked in the exclusive category of canon. Rather they became associated with a collection that came to be known as the Apostolic Fathers." Therefore, your Muslim friend is misinformed about books being taken out of the Bible. While the epistle was held in high regard (as a book by a Christian author would be today), it was not Scripture that someone decided to remove from the Bible. Hope this helps! --Joe! |
||||||
1768 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13977 | ||
Norrie: One other thing reagrding your first paragraph. Was your drug-induced kill spree part of God's moral will? Absolutely not! I agree. Was the opportunity to sin and the sin itself part of God's sovereign will? If it was not, then it would not have occurred. That does not mean that God made you sin. And, of course, if you were slipped some drugs and acted out of a lack of control, I don't know if that would be classified as sin in the first place, anyway. --Joe! |
||||||
1769 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13975 | ||
Norrie: It is a leap in logic to say that because God ordains everything that happens, that he allows evil to exist just to punish individuals. Hopw do you explain Job? Was it not God's plan for all of that to happen to him (notice, who points Satan in Job's direction in chapter 1?)? Did Job do something to deserve the evil that befell him? Nope, the text makes that perfectly clear as well. Therefore, we have God pointing out Job, knowing exactly how Satan would react (since God is omniscient), and using the entire incident to glorify Himself. This is the God who is. As far as Hitler: when did God know that Hitler would commit the atrocities that he did? Who brought Hitler into existence? Who allowed him to gain the power that he did, knowing all along the evil in Hitler's heart? Who allowed Hitler to build the concentration camps? Who allowed him to kill as many as he did before being stopped? And the most important question: did any of the Holocaust take God by surprise in the slightest? And, lastly, what do you make of verses like these? Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. --Isaiah 46:9-11 Again, the question isn't whether you SEE God doing it. The question is whether that is the God as revealed in the whole counsel of the Bible. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1770 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13970 | ||
Norrie: I do disagree with some of your statements; but it is not important who agrees with whom, but rather which view is most closely aligned with the revealed Word. Personally, I do not see a lot of support, for example, for the idea that God has ONE person in mind for you to marry and that you must "seek out God's perfect will" in that area. One sees general guidelines for whom you should select as a mate (e.g. not being "unequally yoked") and one should exercise wisdom in the choice of a mate (e.g. don't marry a homebody if you plan on being a missionary in Burma), but there is not a Scripture which suggests that if I marry Jane the Christian instead of Denise the Christian that somehow I have messed up God's perfect plan. Same is true for other life decisions as well. There is God's moral will which is revealed, and God's sovereign will which is inescapable. I see no biblical support for a particular kind of "individual will" in which God plays hide-and-seek for what He wants us to do. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1771 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13928 | ||
Ed: Actually, what you said was that "only God knows" whether the Reformation was good or evil and resulted in a weak, ineffective church. Do you really think that God leaves it all up to some cosmic "guessing game" like that? This all sprang out of Brian overreacting when I asked for a simple shred of evidence for a claim he was making. I did not declare him to be wrong (despite the fact I think he is). I simply wanted him to support his assertion, since the burden of proof lies on him. I did so in a polite marrer, and still I have not received an answer to my question, only a cry of being attacked which served to distract some individuals (*ahem*) from the issue of whether any such support exists. And then someone jumped in way too deep and moved the conversation in this direction. Wonder who that could have been, Ed? No one thinks that Luther and Calvin were saints (least of all, luther and Calvin themselves). Isn't it great, though, that sometimes when we sinful humans construct our soapboaxes with human hands, there is a clearly biblical, divine impetus behind it? :) --Joe! |
||||||
1772 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13927 | ||
Norrie: No, I don't believe in "plans A, B, C" etc. Briefly, here is my take on what the Bible says about God's will: SOVEREIGN WILL: What WILL happen 1. Includes what God actively does Himself 2. Includes what God allows to occur by voltitional members of His creation 3. Partially revealed in Scripture (e.g. the Second Coming is not a "maybe"; the fact a specific set of human beings are chosen to eternal life is something that WILL occur) 4. How do we know God's sovereign will? First, look at what HAS happened. Nothing in history has happened that was not an element of God's sovereign will. Also, look to Scripture regarding what God has revealed regarding His plans for the future. Both of these comprise His revealed sovereign will. 5. There is no getting around God's sovereign will. It was established in eternity past and was decreed by God as what will happen. It is plan A. There is no plan B. God's MORAL WILL: 1. Includes what God COMMANDS and FORBIDS his creatures to do. 2. Completely revealed in Scripture. 3. Refelects perfectly God's character and standard of moral perfection. 4. Can and is violated by human beings, acting according to their sinfulness. 5. Such violations are not only foreseen by God, but the extent and manner in which humans are permitted to "step out of bounds" is sovereignly governed by God. Also the effects of such sinful acts are part of God's sovereign will and will be ultimately used for His glory, just like the acts we humans do that please Him as well. --Joe! |
||||||
1773 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13838 | ||
Nolan: Wow...you do realize your view of eternal security is contrary to Wesley, don't you? He held that a person could be truly saved and then lose it. And I do consider you my brother (and therefore one of the elect)! :) --Joe! |
||||||
1774 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13837 | ||
Tim: One thing that we have to remember regarding God is that He operates from a perspective outside of time. Jeremiah 18:10 is a very good description from a human perspective how Israel's sin results in judgment. However, if we suggest that God truly changes His mind based on "changes in circumstances," we become Open Theists, saying that God does not know what man will do and will base His plan on what his creation does or doesn't do. Surely you do not think that God really has Plans A, B, C, etc. for the human race. If we are to take Jeremiah 18 as "God will wait and see what we will do," how do you reconcile that with 2 Kings where God has had enough during the reign of Manasseh, and decalres that Israel will be taken into captivity? His grandson Josiah implemented the greatest reforms in the history of Judah, but the biblical text specifically shows that God does not relent and decide not to judge Israel after all. I put to you three questions: 1. Did God know whether Israel whether Israel would repent? 2. If so, when did He know it? 3. What would be the point of Him telling Israel that he would relent if they repented and reject them if they did not? In other words, since he knew that Israel would not repent, why does he give an "if...then" to them? I would assume that you would conlude, as I do, that God was announcing His holy standard, so that they would be without excuse. However, to suggest that God was prepared to re-write his sovereign plan if they would do something would imply that he was not sure how things would turn out for Israel. If Paul writing that the vessels of wrath are "prepared for destruction" does NOT mean that they indeed will be destroyed, as you claim, what does it mean? And one final question comes to mind. How do you fit your Arminian interpretation of Romans 9 with verses 19 and 20? If we are simply asking, "Who is Israel?", why would the hypothetical challenger ask "Who resists his will?" That question one an individual would ask in reference to himself, not an ethnic people. The vessels of mercy are indeed "spiritual Israel." Hoever, notice that the word "vessels" is plural, indicating that a vessel is indeed an individual unit of spitirual Israel. In other words, individual people. The vessels of destruction are not being destroyed NOW, for a very specific purpose. Romans 1 and 2 shows that God is restraining his wrath now. However, there is the "wrath to come," when all those vessels prepared for destruction will indeed be destroyed. ALL of them. --Joe! |
||||||
1775 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13830 | ||
That makes twice we agree in as many days! Kinda spooky... --Joe! |
||||||
1776 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13754 | ||
Tim: Calvinists hold that Adam and Eve had free choice in the garden. Also, he did not set them up to fail. He did know from eternity past what their choice, would be, and He decreed that the sin would take place (i.e. he would allow it and use the sin for the purpose of His glory); it did, however, originate in the hearts of our first parents (with an assist from a snake, of course). --Joe! |
||||||
1777 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13752 | ||
Nolan: Actually, I hold that Romans 9:15-24 makes an ironclad case for unconditional election (rather than just examining (9:10-15 in isolation), since the "vessels of wrath" and "vessels of mercy" CANNOT be talking about favored and unfavored nations. Paul undeniably states that the vessels of mercy are those from the Jews and the Gentiles who have been prpared for glory. Unless there is a third type of vessel that Paul forgot to mention, those vessels of destruction also must be from the Jews AND the Gentiles (i.e. those who do not fall in the category of 9:24). This is what Tim does not address in his repetition of the "vessels of mercy" interpretation. No offense, but he seems eager to emphasize the "mercy" group and gloss over the "wrath" group almost completely. One has to do some serious mental gymnastics (far more so than occasionally qualifying the word "all" in its biblical context) to come up with a conclusion other than the one Paul is directly stating. --Joe! |
||||||
1778 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13727 | ||
How melodramatic, Ed. I am so glad we live in a society where "tolerance" means that we can't even ask for evidence to support a claim made on a public forum without getting mealy-mouthed ecumenism from all sides. The forum is for debate. In no way have I acted in a mean-spirited fashion toward Brian nor anyone else with whom I disagree. O, for some discernment in the American church! (Curtain falls.) --Joe! P.S. Brian has demonstrated that he rejects completely justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Does that still make him a Christian? |
||||||
1779 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13725 | ||
All I asked was a simple question. You asserted that there was early church support for a papacy starting with Peter. Since you made that assertion, I asked you to provide evidence of that from the early church fathers or other historical sources of the time period. How is that insulting? Ad hominem attacks have very little effect on me, so I politely ask you again to provide concrete evidence that would point to a papacy beginning with Peter. That will be a more than adequate answer for me. Furthermore, if I were Roman Catholic and wanted to defend such a notion, I would try my hardest to prove all those "hateful" Protestants wrong. If the evidence is there, surely someone has made it more than public to refute what you consider to be mockery. And if the evidenc edoesn't exist, you need to be intellectually honest enough to wonder whether we are right... --Joe! |
||||||
1780 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Reformer Joe | 13677 | ||
While it is not necessary to pin a doctrine down to a single verse to show that Scripture teaches it (find me one that directly states that God eternally exists as a Trinity, for example), Romans 9:22-23 definitely indicates that some are vessels of wrath who are prepared by God for destruction. Who are these people, in light of the fact that the whole passage deals with who is shown mercy? I would hardly called "being prepared for destruction" an example of being a recipient of mercy! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ] Next > Last [97] >> |