Results 1841 - 1860 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1841 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6468 | ||
Well, if we use Rextar's muddled thinking as an example of proper treatment of the issues, we as the body of Christ are in a lot of trouble! Name me two people that Calvin burned at the stake. --Joe! |
||||||
1842 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6465 | ||
Where is your scriptural support for saying that ALL names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world? Divine election is not "fate." That is quite insulting to a holy God who acted purposefully "according to the kind intention of his will" and "after the the counsel of His will." (Ephesians 1:4,9,11). It is not some "dice roll," and without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit the only things we will say or do will be in rejection and rebellion against God. Therefore, the biblical view is not that some WANT to be saved and God refuses them; rather, no one wants to be saved until God changes the hearts of the elect. It is at that point that they choose Christ (Romans 3:10-18; 5:10; 8:7-8) "Predestination fact," as you call it (most actually call this the prescient view) does not jibe with Romans 9:15-24. If I am mistaken, please do an exegesis of that passage and clearly show me where I am mistaken in saying that our predestination is not based on our choices, but solely on God's divine choice and his mercy toward SOME. One thing I will agree with is that only God knows who the elect are who have not trusted Christ yet. Therefore, God's divine election of individuals has not been revealed to us. Again, it not a PATH that is predestined, but rather individuals. The object of verbs like "chose" and "predestined" are Christians, not the gospel nor any plan of salvation. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1843 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6451 | ||
Such florid language, and yet what does it say? And is this individual who accused me of "name calling" now referring to me as a "bigot"? :) It is hard to see where you are coming from due to your vague, tongue-in-cheek post. Do you seriously consider Luther a heretic? Are you yourself a disciple of Rome? I wouldn't call rightly discerning the nature of God "extremism." You may prefer ignorance, but God did not reveal Himself in his word so that we may remain blissfully unaware of what He is like. And, for the record, my righteousness is completely found in Christ (Galatians 2:20, Philippians 3:8-9, Titus 3:5), which is indeed a properly understood Calvinist view, no matter how "extreme" that may seem. And I am wide awake! (1 Peter 1:13) --Joe! |
||||||
1844 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6450 | ||
Oh, I disagree, Percival. My response was not mean-spirited in motive, but I hope effective in pointing out the truth. Paul refers to the Galatians as foolish (Galatians 3:1), and goes on to suggest that the Judaizers mutilate themselves (5:12). Paul also opens up both barrels on the Corinthians when they need it. Old Testament prophets are even less tactful at times, and Jesus Himself did not walk on eggshells with His own disciples. Being loving does not mean being meek or not being direct when correction is necessary. I am not frustrated, because I believe I possess the truth here. And in reality, no name-calling went on, but rather an indication of an error in his epistemology. His expressionwas precisely what I do see in cultists who praise me for "strengthening their faith" when I have pointed out the inconsistency in their world view. Thanks for your input! --Joe! |
||||||
1845 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Reformer Joe | 6449 | ||
Okay...I have already debated Oneness extensively on this forum. If you want to look up my old posts and respond to them, fine. The fact is that without someone doing some serious intellectual somersaults around the entire New Testament, it is impossible to claim that Jesus is the Father or the Holy Spirit. All three are one God. The Father is not the Son, however. The Son is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father. The three persons interact with each other, One sends another, One obeys another, One reveals another, the Three belong to one another, etc. etc. etc. I stand by my assertion that God is either running some kind of "con game" by appearing to be three in person, or else the Trinity stands as a revealed doctrine of the Bible. Take your pick. I prefer an honest God. :) --Joe! |
||||||
1846 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Reformer Joe | 6417 | ||
That is exactly what God did...John 3:16 is a pretty common verse, you know. --Joe! |
||||||
1847 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Reformer Joe | 6381 | ||
Jim denies the Trinity, saying that the idea of God eternally existing in three distinct persons is not biblical. He holds to what is alternately termed modalism or "Oneness," which holds that Jesus Christ is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, how he explains the subject-object distinction between the persons of the Trinity as they act on each other in the NT is beyond me, as is how he explains all three being manifested at Jesus' baptism and the Father speaking from Heaven with Jesus standing on the Mount of Transfiguration. Either God is deliberately deceiving us into thinking He exists in three distinct persons, or that is really His nature. --Joe! |
||||||
1848 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Reformer Joe | 6380 | ||
We must not "make" him anything, but rather recognize God as He is clearly revealed to be. Your comment about "refusing to let God become a man" shows your lack of understanding of biblical Trinitarianism. We have both been down that thread before, though, haven't we? In the Second Person of the Trinity, --Joe! |
||||||
1849 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6364 | ||
*Sigh.* Well, I can see from your mean-spritedness just how wrong I was! Thanks for showing me the light of Arminian truth! :) Where is the verse saying that God OBLIGATED himself to "try and save everyone"? Not the verses saying that all those who believe are saved, since that is not a point of contention between the two camps. Where does it say that God has bound Himself to making a go at saving all? Acts 10:34-43 does not contradict the Calvinist perspective. Christ didn't die just to save Jews, which is what the crux of the argument between Peter and the Jerusalem church will be. By the way, it seems from the account of Cornelius that God pretty much had him elected for salvation. There are elect among Gentiles, as God clearly corrects Peter to understand. I use the word "kindness" because it is the word Paul used to describe God's motivation to save some of our wretched species. (Ephesians 1:4-6). His kindness and mercy toward some (not all -- Romans 9:15-16,18) leads to saving grace and regeneration on their part. What does the address label of Romans have to do with Paul's arguments regarding the univarsal sinfulness of all mankind and the showing of mercy to some and not to others? You seem to be contending that we "elected" ourselves here. Is that what 1 Peter 1 tells us? Is that what Ephesians 1 tells us? Nolan, this entire debate between us boils down to one thing: FREE WILL. You contend that we have the moral capability to choose God at some point. You refuse to even consider the possibility that your axiom here might not be so axiomatic. I contend (as does the Word of God) that we are not in any way ever inclined to follow God, and to place any part of the decision upon us gives us reason to boast. Since this debate has now degenerated to a point where you are mocking me, I feel it is best that we give it a rest for a while. There are more than enough posts here back and forth that our cases have been made, and I will be more than happy to let you have the last word. The truth, thankfully, does not depend on you or me, and I believe in a God who is sovereign enough not to need us repeating ourselves ad nauseam to reveal His truth. --Joe! |
||||||
1850 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6361 | ||
You sound like Mormons I talk to that thank me for "strengthening their faith" when I have totally shot down everything having to do with the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith and their cultic views. And so your view holds that God unjustly caused Christ to pay a penalty that someone else will pay. You answered perfectly, Nolan. --Joe! |
||||||
1851 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6359 | ||
I get the feeling that you are trying to bait me here, Nolan... I think we both realize that we are in disagreement here. Repeating your charge every time I post does not lend to the credibility of your viewpoint. If Arminianism is true, then it will become obvious to those reading the debate in the thread. You don't need to "help it along" by blanketing the entire forum with your point of view. --Joe! |
||||||
1852 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6358 | ||
Actually, I was not speaking of Saul of the New Testament, but rather of the Old, when in 1 Samuel the Holy Spirit basically "takes him over" for lack of a better term and begins to prophesy, despite the fact that he is on a mission to kill God's annointed (David). The New Testament Saul is an excellent example as well, however. Please show me from Acts 9 or any of Paul's writings where he stresses or even MENTIONS his involvement in his own salvation. What is Ananias told about Saul in Acts 9 even BEFORE he sees Saul? The fact is that Paul is one of the clearest examples of NOT having a say-so in one's regeneration. In addition, I am somewhat confused by the rest of your post. You write: "But in each case, Jeremiah, Saul and Jonah did not choose God to begin with, and this is a point that Calvinists continue to dodge." That is nothing Calvinists dodge. In fact, that is our entire point! God chooses individuals. That IS unconditional election! It is the Arminian who suggests that somehow man plays an active role in his own regeneration. Again, Nolan, you are the one who is confused about the Calvinist view of salvation and election. Maybe I am not explaining it well enough. Calvinists do NOT say that individuals are born saved (i.e. regenerated, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and equipped for Christian service). Here is the order of events: 1. Election of individuals (God chose those whom he would save before the foundation of the world -- 1 Peter 1:1-6, Ephesians 1:4,11) 2. The birth of the elect (scattered throughout human history, including our future, they have a destiny already established by God, but they have not been "born again" at this point) 3. Upon hearing the gospel (and this is a necessary element that God decrees WILL happen in the life of the elect), the sinner's heart (previously rebellious toward God) is completely and totally changed by the Holy Spirit, making the sinner DESIRE to follow Christ when before there was no such inclination. 4. As soon as this happens, the sinner (without exception) places their faith in the substitutionary death of Christ, a faith that is a gift from God (Philippians 1:29, Ephesians 2:8-9). The Calvinist never suggests that the unbeliever does not choose to believe. The Calvinist argument is that all those who are predestined will believe, and all those who are not predestined will not, due to the fact that God withholds saving grace from some and extends it to others. It is God who initiates AND completes the regeneration of the elect. Faith is our natural response to having been regenerated. Placing our faith in Christ and being "born again" take place at the same time. The big difference between Arminian and Calvinist points of view is which one logically precedes the other. Calvinists say that the Holy Spirit's regeneration precedes and causes faith. Arminians argure that while there is some form of prevenient grace freeing the human will, faith precedes and causes complete regeneration. Please take the time to understand the Calvinist viewpoint and realize that I do not hold that we were born only once, but twice as Jesus said we must be. --Joe! |
||||||
1853 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | Reformer Joe | 6273 | ||
An interesteing side note on this: In my missionary position, I will train teenagers this summer to use evangelistic materials aimed at children to put on backyard Bible clubs. The problematic part is that one of the days has to do with Noah, and the materials add to Scripture by suggesting that God wanted to save everyone. Noah "must have" tried to convince people to get on the ark with them, but they just wouldn't listen and be saved like God so desperately "wanted"! Needless to say, that error will be addressed during the training sessions...good thing these materials are developed by another Christian organization and not mine! --Joe! |
||||||
1854 | The Temptation of Christ | Matt 4:1 | Reformer Joe | 6188 | ||
I disagree with the last sentence, Hank. In his earthly incarnation, he made himself completely obedient to the will of the Father, which is exactly what a perfect human being would do. He did not exercise the POWER of His deity, but that is something far different than saying that His CHARACTER was corruptible. As you correctly stated, he completely surrendered himself to God the Father. But being God the Son, he embodied the complete holiness and moral perfection of the Godhead. Saying that evil is possible for Christ because he took on a human body is flirting with gnosticism, too. It is not the material nature of flesh that makes man so prone to sin. It is the spiritually inherited sin nature (Romans 5:12) which Christ does not have, being the eternal Son of God. So what was the purpose of The Spirit leading him to Satan to be tempted (which is something I am sure that Satan immensely enjoyed, even though he knew it would end in failure)? Well, in order for Christ's righteousness to be credited to our account, he had to himself live out the completely sinless life in our place, so that he could die in our place. Christ was exposed to that opportunity to sin, not to test his resolve (remember, this is GOD we are talking about), but rather so that he would glorify His Father by not succumbing and in a very poignant way walking always the path of righteousness. This righteousness that Christ lived out in the wilderness was imputed to us when we became believers, so we should praise God for sending his Son to accomplish for us what it is impossible for us to do! "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15 Thanks, as always, Hank, for the stimulating discussion! --Joe! |
||||||
1855 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | Reformer Joe | 6141 | ||
Are you suggesting that Noah changed God's mind on ending "all flesh"? I don't think we should assume that God ever intended on wiping the entire human race off the face of the earth for several reasons: 1. Satan wins in that scenario (Genesis 3:15). 2. The plan for salvation through Christ Jesus was established before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). If no more people were left, no Jesus to come. That means everyone is without a Redeemer, so all humanity dies in its sins. 4. Romans 8:28-30 tells us we were all foreknown, so God planned on us being here. 3. More evidence that Noah is not included in "all flesh" is found later in Chapter 6, when God tells him he has decided to end "all flesh," and then instructs him to build the ark. Evidently Noah was not part of the plan. God intended on wiping out the human race except for Noah's family. Thanks for your input! --Joe! |
||||||
1856 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6106 | ||
And what we Calvinists need to remember is not to let our knowledge of the truth be used as a reason to boast as well...it is very easy for pride to creep into the minds of the Reformed when dealing with those who hold to other views. As we believe God is sovereign, we do not need to use the truth as a sledgehammer, but rather speak the truth always in love. Thanks for your response! --Joe! |
||||||
1857 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6016 | ||
I myself am a 5-point Calvinist with regard to my soteriology. However, I must admit my biggest "hang-up" with the traditional Reformed position is what we are discussing here: paedobaptism. The question is not whether the Reformation and the Roman Catholics banded together against the Anabaptists or not. It is theoretically possible that both are wrong. I do not argue that the salvation of the elect is monergistic on the part of our Lord. What I need to resolve this question in my mind is more evidence that (a) the church did indeed practice infant baptism from its EARLIEST days (which is not erribly apparent from Scripture; and, tied into that, (b) the Scriptural evidence of the covenental nature of baptism. I pretty much have the answer to (b) in the fact that household baptisms were common. The question in my mind is whether that included infants or whether everyone who was baptized first believed as well. In any case, this thread is worth the in-house discussion, and your view is definitely within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. --Joe! |
||||||
1858 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5959 | ||
God has freedom of choice, but he is perfect by his very nature, so he will never desire anything but what ultimately brings Him the most glory. What we have to understand is that there is not even the slightest shadow of unholiness or imperfection in God, so the impossibility of him doing evil springs not from any lack of omnipotence, but the very fact that sin and God don't even belong in the same sentence. Praise be to God that one day all believers will share in this luxury of freedom from sin! Of course, being of the Reformed persuasion, I hold that the unregenerate man's free will is in bondage to sin, so that he will not desire to choose good until liberated by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to Romans, we are bondslaves to sin and death or liberated by Christ. Sin is bondage, not freedom. Paul expounds on sin as slavery in Romans 6. Give it a read! Sin is not an act of freedom. --Joe! |
||||||
1859 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5958 | ||
Yes, I understand. I don't think it is a question of tying His own hands, however. God's nature being immutably perfect, he will never desire to act any other way than according to that perfect nature. That's why we say "God can do anything" when we really mean that "God can and will accomplish His purposes." You are correct in that when God makes an unconditional covenant with his people, he is bound to it because it would violate his nature to do otherwise. I contend additionally that God WILL NOT desire to do otherwise, since that too would violate his nature. Of course, being omnipotent and omniscient, God already sees the end from the beginning. Therefore, when He makes His covenants, there are no conditions or extenuating circumstances in the future which take him by surprise. I believe that when God makes His covenants with humanity, it is not so much a case of "Let's make a deal" as much as it is "here is what I am going to do for you." Therefore, God is not putting Himself into a box that He will ever want to get Himself out of later. The only two things God cannot do are "not be God" and do what is impossible in logical sense. For example, God cannot make a square circle if by definition a circle is round. --Joe! |
||||||
1860 | Is the United States in the Bible? | Dan 7:4 | Reformer Joe | 5956 | ||
I find it interesting that you are certain that the "wings" refer to the U.S. and U.K., and then exhort others not to make the Bible fit to their view... Maybe we should spend a lot less time majoring on eschatology and work more on theology. That is definitely letting the Bible speak for itself. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ] Next > Last [97] >> |