Results 201 - 220 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | Sir Pent | 61259 | ||
You Did Not Answer The Question ................................... Dear JRdoc, I realize that you believe the second premise to be wrong. The second option is the way that the universe is perceived by an Arminian, which you are not. I am not asking you to believe that it is correct. Please don’t just keep on throwing out Bible verses that you think prove that position wrong. I am fully aware that there are many verses that would seem to support the Calvinist perspective while refuting the Arminian perspective. I know where you are coming from on that front. ................................... Now try to see where I am coming from. There are also a lot of scriptures that support the Arminian perspective while refuting the Calvinist one. I am not going to throw them out here becuase that has been done ad nausium here on the forum. Besides which, I am not at this time trying to convince anyone to believe either perspective. ................................... I am strictly interested in determining, if ASSUMING either perspective was correct, would it be possible for God to be sovereign. ................................... P.S. This doesn’t relate to the question we are discussing, but since you asked, I find (1) to be the most accurate statement in your question, but please don’t go trying to prove me wrong. Let’s stay on the sovereign topic :) |
||||||
202 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61251 | ||
A Different View ................................... Dear John, First I want to thank you for sharing your answer to my question. Hopefully, we can examine it together and come to some sort of consensus. You begin by pointing out that being sovereign is an all or nothing state, and not one that can be qualified. Point well taken. I looked it up in the dictionary, and it said “supreme in power”. Therefore, I agree with you that one either is supreme (the most powerful, in control, etc.) or one is not. ................................... Therefore, let me rephrase my question (your rephrasing of it was a little confusing to me). So my new question is, “Would it negate God’s sovereignity to build a universe that included a means of salvation (Christ’s sacrifice on the cross) that was available to everyone, and then populated it with human beings, who God created with the CAPABILITY to choose to accept or reject that salvation?” If God created the universe this way would He cease to be the most powerful? If a person chooses to not excersize their ability to control others does that mean that their ability to control ceases to exist? ................................... Once again, let’s not get into other issues like foreknowledge, etc. I am strictly interested in determining, if either perspective was correct, would it be possible for God to be sovereign. |
||||||
203 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61209 | ||
Why don't you answer my question ................................ Dear John, I understand that you are overwhelmed right now, you do seem to have a lot on your plate forum wise. If you don’t have time to answer my question right now, that’s OK; I can wait. However, please don’t just keep asking me more questions without ever answering mine. ................................... It is not relevant to my question whether God does 100 percent of salvation, or if God does 99 percent and man does 1 percent. God could have set up salvation to work however He wanted. After all, He’s God. My question is simply, “Is God less sovereign (powerful, in control, etc.) if He chooses to set up a universe in such a way that all people can choose to accept God’s love and return it or not?” ................................... I hope that when you get the chance you will have the opportunity to explain how this possibility (even if you don’t believe in it) diminishes God’s sovereign nature. |
||||||
204 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61202 | ||
A Different Analogy ................................ My friends EdB and John, I believe that I know what EdB is trying to communicate, and why John might be confused, and therefore suggest an alternate analogy to get the idea across. ................................... Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry. The parent, through genetic engineering, caused both of their children to be born without any legs. Then when they were both 10 years old, the parent got a set of artificial legs for Tom so that he could walk, but they did not get any legs for Jerry. Then one day the parent decides to go for a walk to the ice cream store. The parent invites both children to walk with them, but says it is their choice. Tom can’t pass up the opportunity for ice cream, and gladly accepts. Jerry however doesn’t have any legs, and so he doesn’t have the ability to go. The question is, “Does Jerry really have a choice to walk to the store if he has been born without any legs?” For that matter, “If the ice cream is truly irresistable, then does Tom have a real choice either?” ................................... I hope that this helps to clarify the discussion between you, and that something good actually comes out of it. |
||||||
205 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61186 | ||
Does Part 2 Answer The Question? ................... Dear John, OK so you quoted a lot of verses that talk about how the sinful nature of man is stinky. I agree, but that doesn't answer my question about God's sovereignity. ......................................................... I assume that since you headed this post with "part 1" that there must be a "part 2". Are you going to share that? ......................................................... I am a bit surprised that although I posted this question many days ago, I have gotten so little response. I would appreciate it if the resident Calvinists on the forum could either explain why the Arminian perspective decreases the sovereignity of God, or admit that the Arminian perspective of God's sovereignity is not neccessarily less than that of the Calvinists. Once again, I am not asking anyone to believe either Calvinism or Arminianism, only to believe that both can have equally high views of God's sovereignity. |
||||||
206 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60979 | ||
Please Answer My Question .................................................... Dear John, Instead of answering why God’s sovereignity is diminished by letting humans all have the ability to choose whether to lover him or not, you switched the discussion to whether that would be loving or not. I agree that at first glance it would seem that any loving parent would not let their child go down a slide into hell. That is a seperate issue though, and one that we could talk about in a different thread, because I think that I disagree with you. .................................................... However, the question that I want you to answer is not whether God would be less loving to allow that kind of choice, but whether He would be less sovereign. Would He be less powerful, or have less control of the universe. I am proposing that He would not. Calvinists would usually say yes. I am simply asking why do they think that? .................................................... P.S. Don’t worry about being a pest, I’ve got a younger sister (married and moved away now), and have a life of experience learning patience from dealing with pestiness :) |
||||||
207 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60978 | ||
Please Answer My Question ......................................................... Dear John, At this point I don’t think that we need further clarification. I think that you understand what I am asking. I would therefore appreciate an answer to that question. However, just in case I will clarify a little more. ......................................................... You implied that I said there was an exception to the rule that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This is not what I said or believe. The expression, “the exception to the rule” simply means that one thing is the standard outcome, and another thing (which occurs less often) is a different outcome. I was simply saying that within the Calvinist system the standard outcome is that all people deserve to go to die for their sins and go to hell. The other outcome, which occurs less often is that some people accept that Jesus died for thier sins, and they go to heaven. ......................................................... You also didn't like the word system. The word system is simply defined: plan, method, orderly arrangement. I think that it is an accurate word. You yourself called it “God’s Eternal Plan”, and it is definately the orderly arrangement of theology and biblical interpretation used by those who believe in it. I believe that I have accurately portrayed the Calvinist perspective, and said that it is possible for God to have created the universe in this way. ......................................................... Then you respond to the Arminian perspective by saying that it is impossible for God to create the universe in the way that is believed by those who agree with that tradition. I know your high view of God’s sovereignity, and am confused that you find Him incapable of doing this. Once again, I am not asking you to believe that He did, only that He could. ......................................................... I hope that this makes things clear for you, and I sincerely look forward to hearing your (and others such as Reformer Joe, Lionstrong, etc.) thoughts about my big question. Why does God’s soveriegnity have to be dimished by believing that He allows His creation to all be capable of choosing to love Him? Once again, a parent is not any less strong or big because they choose not to use their strength to keep their child from picking which slide to go down in the park. |
||||||
208 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60975 | ||
Personal Note ......................................................... Dear John, I would appreciate a little more grace here :) I apologize if I missed an earlier post of yours that dealt with the exact same interpretation of this verse that I proposed. I admit that I haven’t read every post in this thread (of course, it is pretty long). Please let me know the post number and I will try to respond to it. ......................................................... I actually was not following this thread really closely for a while when it started, because it seemed to be just another thread in a long list of threads endlessly debating the Calvinist / Arminianist perspectives on this forum. For the most part, I have decided to just ignore those at this point. However, in this case, I thought there was a unique opportunity to try to bring some consensus between the two viewpoints. ......................................................... Thus my answer to your question that focused on the similarities rather than the differences. Then the response that I get from you is that my post doesn’t even qualify as an answer. Up to this point, I have found our discussion to be rational and gentle. As this is the first thread that we have had significant interaction with each other, and I have thus far appreciated your method of communicating ideas. I hope that this doesn’t indicate that you wish to start insulting my posts. |
||||||
209 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60969 | ||
Answer To Original Question ............................. So how can any man be saved. I think that there is actually very little disagreement on the answer to that question. Those who agree with Calvin or Wesley would both say that salvation is only possible through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. They would also both say that the only reason why anyone would accept that forgiveness is that God draws us to himself. ......................................... Therefore, the scriptures that both sides would use, would be much the same. I did a quick search on the web and found the following two websites that cover the Wesleyan perspective on this including several scriptures: http://www.imarc.cc/harted4ap.html and: http://www.revneal.org/Writings/on.htm ......................................... The only difference is that Calvin calls this drawing "predestination", and says, that it is irresistable and limited to a select group of people. Wesley calls it "prevenient grace", and says that it can be resisted, but is poured out on all people. |
||||||
210 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60957 | ||
Return To The Question ...................... Thanks for the clarification about Calvinist perspective. I don't think that I actually misunderstand it, but rather that I didn't explain my thought completely enough. I will try again. ................................... We both believe that God is sovereign and all powerful. Therefore, He could have created beings (humans) such as you have just described. They were all completely corrupted after the fall of Adam, and completely incapable of desiring relationship with God. Therefore, they would not choose God and would deserve Hell. Then God could, within that system, choose some of those beings as exceptions to that rule, and change them in such a way that they had to desire a relationship with God. Therefore, they would choose God and would deserve heaven (only by God's grace of changing them, and providing a way to salvation through Jesus). Thus everyone gets what they deserve (at least in one sense) ................................... However, it is also possible that God being sovereign and all powerful could have created beings (humans) that were actually capable of either desiring a relationship with God or not desiring it. Their nature could be partially corrupted so that they have a tendancy to choose to reject God, but still have the ability to overcome that first instinct. Then some of them would choose to love God and would deserve heaven (only by God’s grace of providing a way to salvation through Jesus). But others would choose to reject God and His salvation and would deserve Hell. Thus everyone gets what they deserve (in a greater sense). ................................... So now to the original question. How does believing the second option to be true limit the sovereignity of God? Since God could have set it up either way, He is in complete control either way. For that matter, assuming the Arminian perspective is correct, God could still change His mind at any point and remove the freedom to choose again. Although we don’t believe that God would ever do that, He could. I am not asking you to believe Arminianism is correct, I am simply trying to explain that it is a possible explanation that keeps God’s soveriegnity intact. ................................... It seems to me that it is like a parent watching their child on a playground, but letting them choose whether to go down the little slide or the big slide. The parent is bigger and stronger, and could easily bar the child from one slide or the other. But it doesn’t make the parent any less big or less strong for them to allow the child pick either one. |
||||||
211 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60952 | ||
A Different View ..................................... I agree with John that Scripture is and should be a higher authority than our ability to reason. However, I would suggest that the Bible is not completely clear on some subjects such as predestination and free will. In these cases, it makes the most sense to interpret the scripture with the meaning that is most logical, fits with church tradition, and our own personal experience (in that order). ..................................... I understand that my colleagues Joe, John, and Lionstrong have a way of seeing scripture that supports Calvinism. At the same time, my colleagues Mekarios, Tim Moran, and EdB have a way of seeing scripture that supports Arminanism. I don't think that any of them would say that the others are blatantly ignoring or contradicting an obvious teaching from the Bible. If it was obvious, it would not have been an issue for centuries in the church, for people smarter and closer to God than us. ..................................... So since both sides have extensive Scriptural support, it does not benefit anyone for either side to simply claim that their view is in the Bible and it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. |
||||||
212 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60951 | ||
Personal Note .......................................... Lionstrong my friend, It is good to be in a thread together after so long. I'm really glad that you wrote this post, not that I agree with much of it, but after all these months I finally understand why you started that whole discussion we once had on the "rationality of animals" :) |
||||||
213 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60877 | ||
A Different View ....................................... Dear John, I know that your question was not addressed to me, but when I read it, I had a thought that I really wanted to share with you. The Calvinist perspective often gets hung up on the idea that if a human has to “accept” God’s free gift of salvation, then it takes away from the sovreignity of God or the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice. I do not believe that this hang up is neccessary. ....................................... Rather than seeing Christ’s sacrifice to be insufficient, and perceiving that as a bad thing, why not look at it as a grace of God instead. Here’s what I mean. God is almighty, and He COULD have made Christ’s death on the cross completely sufficient for salvation regardless of how any particular human responded to it. God could have said that because Christ died for the sins of the world then Tom over here is going to believe in Me and be saved no matter what Tom’s personal choice would have been. Meanwhile I will leave Jerry over there unable to believe in Me, and Jerry will go to hell, regardless of what his personal choice would have been. In my understanding this is the Calvinist perspective. My point is that God had the ability and COULD have set things up that way. ....................................... However, I believe that instead God chose to have Christ’s death on the cross be sufficient to take away the sins of anyone who accepted that forgiveness. This does not take away from God’s sovereignity at all. It is not that God was unable to save people without their “help” (even using the Calvinist perspective that simply accepting a gift is “help” or “work”). Instead it is that God chose to have salvation work that way. He could have set it up either way; He is in total control. Arminians just believe that He set things up to allow His creation to truly choose whether to love God and have a relationship with Him or not. |
||||||
214 | Is it wrong to preach against sin? | Matt 7:2 | Sir Pent | 60655 | ||
A different view ......................................... Dear Norrie, In your post you mentioned that the Bible was translated using incorrect words (like kill instead of murder, and judge instead of condemn). I know that you mean well here, but, I think that your idea is incorrect and very dangerous to some whose faith is not strong. It could lead them to question everyting in the Bible, and cease to believe that it was authoritative in their lives. ......................................... I believe that the Bible was translated correctly, and that God has protected its accuracy and truth throughout the centuries (I would recommend reading the thread #15780). I believe that the problem is not with the words at all, but rather with how some people choose to interpret what they mean. The Bible is always right, but the same can not be said of us :) |
||||||
215 | Feel so lonely and down over this burden | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 60266 | ||
Personal Note ...................................... Dear Mae64, I also praise God with you for this happy reunion. This is the beginning of an answer to yours, mine, and probably many other people's prayers. Your son is blessed to have a mother who cares so much for him, and I hope that he comes to realize that God cares for him even more. I hope that he does decide to turn his life around. After all, the easiest place to turn around is at a dead end in the road, because there's no traffic comming the other way. |
||||||
216 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 60246 | ||
Suggestion to switch threads .................... Dear John and EdB, In your last post John you asked for scriptural support for EdB's belief that it is possible for a human to reject God's truth. I would suggest that Matthew 23:37 is a good example. God sent His truth through prophets, and desired for the people to be saved, but they rejected and killed them instead. ............................................................ I would also llke to suggest that since this branch of this thread is not really on the topic of the Left Behind books, and since there is a relatively empty thread on the verse Matthew 23:37, that you both continue this discussion there instead. Just an idea :) |
||||||
217 | How Judas Iscariot died? | Acts 1:18 | Sir Pent | 60227 | ||
A Different View ................................. Hello again my good friend Mekarios. It has been a long time since I have had the pleasure of talking with you. However, not as long as the topic of Judas’ death has lingered on this forum :) I see that you answered this question over a year ago, and yet had to answer it again today. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people refuse to use the search tool to check their question before adding redundant threads. ................................. Oh well, after looking at the posts from the several times that this question has been asked and answered, I see the there seems to be complete agreement (rare on any forum) that Judas hung himself, then the rope (or branch) broke, he fell on rocks, and his guts came out. This is possible, and is what I believed for years about this issue. However, I have recently heard another explanation which is also possible. ................................. The basic idea is that the accounts in Matthew and Acts are not sequential events, but the same event. How can this be, you might ask. Well the explanation that I heard was the the use of a rope for hanging was actually a relatively recent custom, and was not used back in Jesus’ day and culture. Hanging meant something very different to the people back then. For instance, Jesus HUNG on the cross, yet He was nailed to wood, no rope involved. Another type of HANGING that was common in that time was to impale someone on a long sharp pole, and then stick it in the ground so that they are high in the air. ................................. Therefore, Judas could have set up a sharp pole, and then climbed a tree, (or a hill, etc.), and then flung himself headlong onto the pole, impaling himself. This would have been viewed in the culture of his day as HANGING himself, and would at the same time of course lead to some spilling of guts. |
||||||
218 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Sir Pent | 59558 | ||
A Different View ............................................. Dear Romans4:5, The Word of God is my guide, and I am not a Baptist, yet I agree with Hank. Your teaching that Baptism is forbidden is definately not an orthodox belief. It goes against the totality of scripture. It doesn’t make sense logically. It goes against thousands of years of church tradition, and it doesn’t fit my personal experience either. Basically, it’s just way out there, and anyone reading this thread should take it with a whole shaker of salt. |
||||||
219 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | Sir Pent | 59518 | ||
A Similar View........................................ Dear Roark89, I pretty much agree with EdB here. You do have a point that God gives some people gifts that they could use to make money, and that money could help to enable them to do ministry. I just don’t think that they should do them at the same time. ........................................ For instance, the apostle Paul had the ability to make tents. However, I sincerely doubt that he ever tried to auction them off during a service where he was preaching the Gospel of Christ. I imagine that he made the tents and sold them during the week, and left them at home when he went to go “minister”. ........................................ I think that musicians, authors, etc. should do the same. It’s good for them to write books (so people who will never hear them in person can read their ideas), or make tapes (so people who enjoy thier music can listen to them more often). However, I believe that they should only sell these things through bookstores, or the internet, or whatever during the week, and not inside the church. |
||||||
220 | is selling in a church building fine? | John 2:13 | Sir Pent | 59516 | ||
A Different View........................................ Dear Justme, I agree with EdB that the Bible is the most important book for all Christians to read, and that too few of them spend enough time studying it. However, I would also like to say that I think your idea of a “suggested reading list” is terriffic. You are entirely correct that it would be easy for a person to be led far astray by reading some books in Christian Bookstores. Therefore, I think that it is a great idea for a church or a pastor to put together a list of good books to read for their congregation. This just seems to me to be another way of “shepherding the flock”. There is definately value in many books beside the Bible, and infact, I have mentioned a couple in my personal profile on this site. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [24] >> |