Results 21 - 40 of 46
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: RWC Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Part 2 of 2: How can both be true? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13776 | ||
continued from part 1: Later you write: "So while God did not MAKE Satan rebel or Adam sin (Chapter III of WCF states "nor was violence offered to the will of the creatures")...." I know that is what the Westminster Confession of Faith says (and, again, I think that even those in the Arminian camp would agree with that phrase). What I don't understand is how the authors of that document (and nearly 400 years worth of their adherants... and those who came before them and held the same view) can put those two statements together and not see them as self-contradictory. How can God unchangeably predetermine (predestinate) every detail of history (including sin) before any of it began, and still not be the author (source, cause, designer) of sin? I must say, I am quite confused by one thing that you wrote: "Every move that we make by our own free will..." Was this reference to free will a deliberate choice of words on your part or was it not meant in a literal way (ie. with a technical, theological meaning)? I had understood, and maybe wrongly so, that the strongly Reformed view says that we do not have any such thing, and that the closest thing that humans have had to a free will was in Adam and Eve prior to the Fall (although, as is already clear, I am quite unsure how the idea of free will even before the Fall fits side by side with the strongly Reformed view of predestination). In closing, you wrote: "I see nothing in your comments that presents a more particular problem for Calvinists than it does for Arminians who must also explain that God created sinners, and is not the author of sin." There is no doubt that this issue does need to be explained. If God is who He says He is (namely, in the context of our discussion, that He is Holy), then there must be some explanation for the fact that there is sin in the world. I do not pretend to have all the answers to this (or even most of them... maybe not even a few of them!). And certainly I have some questions that I would like to ask of those holding to a strongly Arminian point of view as well. But those will undoubtedly come up in another thread. What I am hoping to determine, at least tentatively, by starting this particular discussion is whether or not this really is a contradiction within the strongly Reformed view, or if I perceive it that way because of some lack of understanding on my part. If it is the latter, I am afraid that the lack of understanding is still there. I am *thoroughly* enjoying our discussion! Please don't give up on me because I keep bringing our discussion back to what seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
22 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13862 | ||
Good day Joe, I'm sorry; I thought that we had achieved a common understanding of just what the words "decree" (as used by Spurgeon) and "ordain" (as used in the Westminster Confession of Faith) were actually intending. But it seems I have not understood you clearly. Initially, you wrote (Mon 08/20/01, 6:30am): "I guess the hardest part about the Reformed view to accept from our finite perspective is the idea that God pre-determined that sin would (temporarily) be a part of His grand design. It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth...." I had taken that to mean that you agreed that the concept of decreeing something and allowing something were, in fact, substantially different things; that the words really speak of different things. I need to sort out some of these terms here that seem to a some what technical meaning for you from the way you have used them. Maybe this will help me to understand your view better. Certainly it will help us to communicate better! In this post, you use the phrase "God's sovereign will" a couple of times. By this, do you mean "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan which includes everything that comes to pass in time?" I ask that question because that is what I think you are meaning by the use of that phrase, and yet you explain it by saying that it (and I quote): "includes everything that He either actively engages in or actively permits to occur. Both fall under the category of 'decree,' and both were ordained from eternity past" How does the concept of God "actively permitting" something fit into the concept of God "absolutely predetermining" every detail of history before any of it began? As I understand it, the concept of God "actively permitting" something must mean that there was *real* choice available (ie. that there really was both the *ability* to choose and the *opportunity* to choose), and that, although God would certainly have known what the choice(s) would be, He did not pre-destinate what those choices would be. I hope I am making this clear. What I don't understand is how you can speak of God's action of predestination to include God allowing or permitting. As I understand those two things, they are mutually exclusive; that is, they cannot both be true regarding a particular decision made by one of His creatures. It must be one *or* the other. If God predestinates that a certain creature will make a particular decision (or choice) at particular point in history, then there is no permitting or allowing involved; there is not *really* the ability or the opportunity for that creature to choose anthing other than what God predestined them to choose. For who can resist the will of God? (There is Rom. 9:19 again.) The answer can only be "no one!" What am I missing here? How is it that you seem to be able to put those two things together (that one is even actually a part or subset of the other!) and not find that difficult (or even impossible!)? Help me understand this! I am fully convinced that God has the ability to predestinate anything and everything He wants to. It is within His power to have predestinated every detail of history. But if He did, and if there is sin in the world, then God is also the author (source, cause, designer, the predestinator) of every sin that has ever been committed or ever will be. I must say that I find that to be a *most* disturbing thought! As I have for each of the last several days, I am eagerly looking forward to your reply. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
23 | All of God's decree is not predestined? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13966 | ||
Good day Joe, As always, its good to hear from you again. You're making me have to work at this, and that is a good thing. One thing though... you wrote, "we are heading into some pretty deep philosophical waters..." Man! If we are only heading into deep waters now, then I am in *serious* trouble because I have been treading water for a long time now!! In fact, I have been treading water since I jumped into this with the initial question. ;) More seriously, you wrote: "I don't consider "decree" and "predestination" to be synonymous." OK... I guess we need to talk a little more here about the use and meaning of what seem to be very technical terms for you because I have certainly understood them to have essentially the same meaning. You wrote: "Biblically, the term [predestination] is used to describe the eternal destiny of those whom He regenerates..." I think you are correct. The primary use of this word *is* in connection with the eternal destiny of believers. But, by pointing that out in this context, are you suggesting that the *only* thing God has predestined is the glorification of believers? Surely not. What real difference(s) is(are) there between the concept of "God's sovereign will" which He has decreed and the concept of predestination? Or, using the definition that we accepted, what real difference(s) is(are) there between the concept of "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan" which He decreed and the concept of predestination? In essence, they are the same thing. At most, or so it seems to me, the biggest difference between the action of God decreeing and the action of God predestinating is that decreeing is God actually *stating* or *declaring* that which He has predestined (predetermined, decided ahead of time). Am I missing something here? One other point: you spent a fair bit of time and effort in your post "examine[ing] the notion that God limits our freedom without excusing us from the blame for our sin..." I have no problem the notion of "limited freedom" as long as there is still at least some measure of *real* freedom (meaning both the ability and the opportunity to make a choice or exercise will). Humans have never had *complete* freedom, and, in fact, not even God has truly *complete* freedom in His choices as He is limited by His character. For example, God's freedom is limited in that He does not have the choice to lie about something, or do anything else that would contravene His character. Those choices are not available to Him. The point that I was trying to make in my previous post, though, is that if every detail of history (ie. everything that comes to pass in time) is predetermined (decreed, ordained, predestined, decided) by God before any of them actually happened, then 1) that doesn't leave *any* room for freedom to choose on the part of the creatures (as the ability and/or opportunity to choose have not only been limited, but removed) and that 2) this makes God the author (cause, source, originator, predestinator) of every sin that ever has or ever will be committed. Hmmm...I guess that is *2* points, isn't it? And I didn't state the first one very clearly in my previous post. Sorry about that. Thank you again for the time and effort that you are putting into discussing this with me. Again, I am eagerly looking forward to your reply. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
24 | What does "emptied Himself" really mean | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 4905 | ||
What does "emptied Himself" really mean? (This question comes from a discussion on Heb. 4.15) I tend to think that when Jesus was incarnated (became a human being) that He set aside the _use_ of most (if not all) of His divine power. That does not mean that He was any less divine, but simply that He chose not to use the power and ability that was His. I think that when He became a human being, He made Himself completely dependant upon the Holy Spirit and that the works that He did were, for the most part at least and perhaps even totally, done in the power of the Holy Spirit. He is, after all, our example. I am convinced that Jesus was and is the Living God wrapped in humanity. At no time did He cease to be God. But it seems to me that in order for Him to truely experience life as a human being requires that He must have set aside (not used) most if not all of His own powers and abilities. That is how He could experience real hunger. That is how He could experience real fatigue. That is how He could experience real pain. That is why we can find Jesus not knowing certain things. And that is why we can find Jesus being truely tempted (and thus the discussion on Heb. 4.15). I am not so convinced that this view is correct that I would say that it was a definite doctrine (teaching) of the Scripture. But I _tend_ toward thinking that this might well be the truth. Your comments and or subsequent questions would be very much appreciated. |
||||||
25 | Have I plagiarized someone? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173840 | ||
I'm sorry, I don't understand why you have replied to my message with this post. Have I plagiarized someone? If so, please explain. | ||||||
26 | Glory not an attribute of divine nature? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173850 | ||
Is His divine and eternal glory not an attribute of His nature? I have not given it careful thought and study, but upon first reflection it seems to me that it is. And if it is, how is it that it is ok to say that He can "surrender" His glory without it affecting His full and complete diety, but not any of His other attributes of divine nature? (BTW, I think the word "surrender" would convey something different than "set aside" [the phrase I used in my post from several years ago] or "veiled" or "laid aside" [both used elsewhere in the article you quoted].) I hope I made it very clear in my original post and in the follow-up discussion that I am firmly convinced of the diety of Jesus: that He was, is, and always will be fully divine. The thought that I was trying to put forward for discussion was that He had "set aside (not used) most if not all of His" attributes of divine 'nature' (to be distinguished from 'character'). In making that suggestion, I would not for one second wish to imply that such action would somehow diminish our view of who Jesus really is. I am suggesting that Jesus set aside the use of the attributes of His divine nature (not character!) and made Himself wholly dependant upon the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception until the resurrection. I am further suggesting that His action of setting aside the use of those attributes does not mean that He was anything less than fully divine. So, to sum up, I suppose I am struggling most with this statement from the article you quoted: "To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity." If 'surrendered' and 'deprived' mean that these attributes were no longer in His possession, then I would agree with that statement. However, if that is what those words mean, this statement would not be fairly representing (or responding to) what I am suggesting. My suggestion is that Jesus *set aside* the use or function of those attributes (and this is what this verse is talking about by saying that He emptied Himself), not that these attributes were not His to be used had He at any moment chosen to do so. |
||||||
27 | Does 'veiled' mean 'not used'? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173852 | ||
You quote Barret as writing: "The danger comes when it is concluded that in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity took on human nature AND gave up or lost some of the divine attributes -- such that Jesus was not fully divine." I would absolutely agree with that statement. But is it not possible for Jesus to have set aside *the use* of His attributes of divine nature? Is that not what Barret means when he writes (as you quoted him): "Christianity maintains that Jesus did not 'empty' himself of any of his divinity in the incarnation, although it is true that his divine attributes were veiled"? I would agree that these attributes were at all times in His possession, but that they were veiled (hidden) and that Jesus willing chose not to make use of them (with perhaps a very few purposeful exceptions) from the point of His conception until His resurrection. I am further suggesting that this is what this verse is talking about when it speaks of His humility in emptying Himself. |
||||||
28 | Absent in body, present in spirit? | Col 2:5 | RWC | 243176 | ||
It is hard to imagine that, even after all of the years that this forum has operating, no one has asked the following question! What exactly does Paul mean when he says, "though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit"? | ||||||
29 | credence for your understanding? | Col 2:5 | RWC | 243181 | ||
Thank you for your reply, Ed. While I am not opposed to the understanding that this is intended by Paul as a figure of speech, Paul's language here seems to suggest something more. He is using language that is decidedly different (I am with you, and I see your works) than what he used at the beginning of the letter that speaks of him having heard about them (1:4,8,9). Is there something specific, in the context here or elsewhere, that lends credence to the understanding that Paul does not intend this to taken literally? Or is it actually intended to suggest that he had maybe been given some kind of a vision of them or something more supernatural? | ||||||
30 | But what does it mean? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13438 | ||
Please explain. You wrote: "The false teaching seems to have had something to do with the relationship between husbands and wives." How does their misunderstanding of this relationship (however misguided that may have been) culminate into women being saved or healed (NASB: preserved?) (Gk: from the word sozo) through or by (Gk: dia) bearing children? What is Paul meaning here? Surely he is not saying that the bearing of children plays any part in spiritual salvation for women, is he??!! Certainly I don't think that many believers (if any) would suggest that. But what is this verse talking about?? |
||||||
31 | What is your understanding of this? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13440 | ||
I would certainly like to know your thoughts on this. Please see my question "But what does it mean?" in response to the same message that you were replying to here. | ||||||
32 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13444 | ||
This question could start a totally different subject that has nothing to do with this verse, and that is not really my intent. But I need to ask you just the same. When you wrote, "Additionally, God judged in Christ all the sins of his elect people," are you really intending to imply that Jesus died _only_ for the elect? I understand that's not quite what you said, but it sounds as though that may be what you are thinking. If so, I would have some further questions for you. |
||||||
33 | Thank you - and where should I look | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13488 | ||
Thank you sir! As I said in my original post, I wondered if my question my start a subject that did not fit with the verse to which it was attached, and that really was not my intent. But I did not expect such a flurry of respenses as it has generated either. Being rather unfamiliar with the vast majority of threads of discussion in this forum and the tools for finding my way around in here, and no doubt there are (and will be!) many more people in my position, perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to some of those discussions. Are there perhaps a couple of general questions that have discussed this or are they mostly linked to particular verses? Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Bob |
||||||
34 | Why is Moses being *compared* to Jesus? | Heb 3:2 | RWC | 233532 | ||
Re Heb. 3:2-6: Undoubtedly Moses was, although certainly not perfect, one of the best examples of faithfulness from a sinful human being. But this verse and verse 5 almost seem to lift Moses to the same level of faithfulness as displayed by Jesus. In V. 6, the point of *contrast* (the distinction between them) becomes about the fact of *who Jesus is* (The Son) as opposed to His greater faithfulness. Certainly Jesus' faithfulness *is* much greater than that of Moses. Why is this comparison (as opposed to a contrast) being made between the faithfulness of Moses and the faithfulness of Jesus? | ||||||
35 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 817 | ||
If Jesus is God, and God cannot be tempted, how could Jesus really be tempted? I think I have an answer, but I would like to hear from others. Ref. Mt. 4.1; Heb. 4.15; Jms. 1.13 |
||||||
36 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 823 | ||
That is one of the common answers to this question, but it seems to me to fall short of really answering the question. If Jesus' divine nature prevents His human nature from being "tempted to the point of sin," then would it not also prevent Him from being truly tempted at all? | ||||||
37 | Can we be truely sinless and not perfect | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4758 | ||
Do I understand correctly from your comment that you believe that you are now in fact sinless but not yet perfect? If so, I am afraid that I would have to disagree with you. Anyone who is a member of God's family (and still in this world) will one day be made perfectly sinless. For now though, we are only "declared" perfectly sinless because of the blood of Jesus. The full reality of that declaration is a future event. I am struggling with your comment that the "flesh is imperfect." Certainly that is true, but it sounds as though you may be implying that the root of our sinfulness is found in our physical body (flesh) and that this is what Jesus had to overcome. Again, if that is what you mean, then I must disagree. Sin (sinfulness) is primarily a spiritual matter, not a physical problem. Death does mean separation. But that is a Biblical concept, not a Greek one or one based on the Greek language. As I understand it, there are two kinds of death: physical and spiritual. Physical death is the separation of the body (flesh) from the spirit (soul). Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit (soul) from God. The little girl that Jesus raised from the dead was very dead at least physically, and perhaps spiritually as well. Jesus made the same comment about Lazarus, and then proceeded to say that he (Lazarus) was actually dead. Did Jesus mean that the little girl was not separated from God but that Lazarus was? And regarding your comment about Jesus dying separated from the Father, I would have agreed with you up until a couple of weeks ago. But I recently read a very thought provoking article on a website. And now I have to re-think this. The link to this article is below. http://answers.org/Theology/forsaken.html |
||||||
38 | "desirable though wrong" and Jesus? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5244 | ||
I just wanted to follow up this posting with you here under the discussion on temptation. You defined temptation as being "exposed to that which you find desirable though wrong." James describes our temptation as being "dragged away and enticed by our own evil desire." But I do not think that this could be said for Jesus. He had no evil desires whatsoever. Now, I don't think that this is what you meant, but I thought I should just ask you to clarify what you think about how Jesus was tempted. | ||||||
39 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5755 | ||
I first read this message several days ago and I started to write a response offline. Now I see that someone has already responded to you and said basically what I wanted to say, and in FAR fewer words! But please consider my comments below. The repeated stand of the trintarian point of view, if I understand it all, is that there is one (and only one!) God who exists in three persons, and who has done so for all of eternity. Without question, the emphatic point of Is. 44.6-8 (and many other verses like it) is that there is only one living and true God, maker of Heaven and Earth, and that there is none (absolutely none!) besides Him. You have two statements in your posting that seem to somehow miss that. The first is your statement, "If language means anything then by Myself" and alone mean that there was no other person present." You are making a jump from the statement "there is one God" (which is what that verse and the others like it actually says) to "therefore there can only be one Person." Secondly, your last question, ("If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would... he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead?") makes the same mistake of jumping from "one God" to "one person." These statements imply (or at least it seems to me that they imply) that the trinitarian view point must believe in a multiplicity of gods because it holds to a multiplicity of persons within the one true and living God. And that of course, does not represent the trinitarian point of view at all. Trinitarians hold to Is. 44.6-8 (and all of the other verses that claim monotheism!) just as strongly as you do. And trinitarians are just as strongly opposed to theologies and ideologies that teach polytheism as you are. In defending or explaining your "oneness" point of view, don't allow yourself to "set up a straw man" or otherwise miss the real issue. We agree, I think, that there is only one God. We agree, I think, that Jesus was and is both fully God and fully human at the same time. The crux of the issue, if I understand it, is the question: are there three separate individual persons or only one person who takes on three forms or roles? It occurs to me that this discussion is headed down a significantly different path than the current subject. If you would be kind enough to cross-post your note to which this message is responding (and then let me know), I will do the same. Perhaps post it as a note or a question attached to Is. 44.6 or some other verse of your choosing. Just put a line at the top of the new message explaining that it is a cross-posted message and where it had originally come from. If you will do that, save your response to my message until we have these both cross-posted, and then we can keep the discussion on the subject and attached to the verse (or principle) that we are actually discussing. |
||||||
40 | Can God really be tempted? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131672 | ||
Can God in fact be tempted? If translated correctly by modern English Bibles, this verse would say that it is impossible for God to be tempted. But then we have passages like Mt 4.1 ff. (temptations in wilderness) and Heb. 4.15 that tell us that Jesus was in fact tempted. If Jesus is God in the flesh (and yes, I am convinced of the deity of Jesus), how are we to understand this verse? Do the modern English versions (which all seem to basically agree on the reading of the text) translate this verse well? I have had someone recently suggest that the verse would be better translated as "God ought not to be tempted." I do not know Greek well enough to deal with the translation issues, so if anyone can shed some light on that, I would appreciate it. Also, I think I have an answer for how these verses can all be reconciled using the modern English readings, but I would very much like to hear from others on how they understand this verse first. So if anyone would be willing to share how you interpret (understand) this verse, especially in comparison to Mt 4.1 and Heb. 4.15, I would greatly appreciate it! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |