Results 21 - 40 of 45
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Chris Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5857 | ||
20 Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this? 21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor? Please give me the answers to these questions, can the thing formed speak back to the one forming it? NO! Is Paul accusing the Jewish readers of questioning GOD? YES! Therefore, if the clay cannot question the potter, but the Jew can question GOD, I would say that the Jew (or anyone else) can resist GOD's will! You say, but the rest of verse 21 clearly shows that His will is to honor some and dishonor others! I disagree, I believe Paul is suggesting to the reader (Jews) to submit themselves to the authority of GOD (Salvation through Jesus Christ), because He does have the right over them! Why do I believe this? Why does v. 21 start with ‘Or'? When we use the word ‘or' we are offering an alternative to the previous statement. So, I believe he is saying, since GOD does have the right to honor (salvation) or dishonor (judgment) put yourself under His will and accept Jesus Christ! Does GOD will that all Christians, who are given opportunity, mature? YES! Do they all mature? NO! Did GOD want Job to question Him for Job's suffering? NO! Did Job question GOD? YES! Forgive me these are weak examples, but there are many such examples, and even circumstantial evidence can convict when is it is abundant enough. 22 But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, 23 and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory, Why doesn't Paul use the same Greek word for ‘fitted out' verses v. 23 ‘prepared'? The word prepared has a definition, "to prepare before, to make ready beforehand"(Online Bible Greek Lexicon), whereas, ‘fitted out' has the definition, 1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete 1a) to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair 1a1) to complete 1b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust 1b1) to fit or frame for one's self, prepare 1c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be Also notice that the word ‘prepare' is done by GOD, whereas there is no such suggestion for ‘fitted out', why do you suppose that is? As to self-preparation, I assume you have more training that the writer of the above mention Lexicon, Online Bible Greek Lexicon. Also, I assume you have more expertise that the note writers in the Nelson Study Bible, "The grammatical structure of the first ‘prepared' (in our discussion, ‘fitted out'), referring to the vessels of wrath, is different from the second ‘prepared', referring to the vessels of mercy. The first literally means "prepared themselves," while the second is "which He prepared." 24 whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also out of nations.(LITV) Who is us? Vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, who submit themselves to the will of the potter! Whom He also called? Though this is not my view, one could make the argument that He called those who did not prepare themselves for destruction, or those who continue to ‘answer back to GOD!' GOD bless!! |
||||||
22 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5856 | ||
10 And not only so, but also Rebekah conceiving of one, our father Isaac, 11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling, 12 it was said to her, "The greater shall serve the lesser;" 13 even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau." Paul goes further, just because you are the son of Isaac GOD still has the right to choose who the promise will pass to. Offering the promise was GOD's choice, therefore He is not bound to offer it to anyone he does not want to. The point is, that GOD is not bound to save all Jews, just because they are Jews!(By the by, this belief is still held by those in the Jewish faith.) 14 ¶ What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be! Paul is again speaking to Jews by considering that they probably think that this is not just! 15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity." 16 So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God. Paul gives Jews proof from their own Law that GOD is not breaking His promises in not saving all Jews. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth." 18 So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens. GOD can do anything he wants! I do believe that, I don't know if Calvinist understand that this is true of those who hold a different view of election, and Arminians. We disagree on WHAT GOD wants to do. You say He wants to save some and damn others, I say He wants to offer all people an opportunity to receive salvation, and all who accept His offer will receive salvation. Also, if you read these examples in the O.T. you will find that GOD is abundantly merciful, and that Egypt's fate was sealed in Genesis, when GOD says that the nation Abraham's decendents would go to will be punished for their treatment of the Jews. GOD could punish people for no reason, but the O.T. suggests that He chooses not to. 19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? Notice this is not a rhetorical question by Paul! He is anticipating the question by the Jews. My reading of Romans suggest to me that Paul either answers his teaching question, "GOD forbid," or he asks them with a negative Greek punctuation, this is shown in the NASB with a 'will he?' at the end of these questions, or He asks them himself. I don't remember many examples where he asks them for other people and doesn't clearly say 'GOD forbid' or the Greek punctuation. I may be wrong! |
||||||
23 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5855 | ||
I don't think I've behaved in such a way for you to question my motives. You seem to want to put more words in my mouth than I do yours, so my asking about replacement theology should have been responded to with the same respect our other correspondences have had. The reason I want to know is, as I stated, my interpretation of Rm 9 hinges on an unsaved Jacob. The people of GOD in the O.T. would naturally question GOD saving Gentiles and forfeiting Jews, I think Paul makes it quite clear that this is what he is writing about. I assume from your response you do accept replacement theology, so please try to be open-minded with my interpretation. 1 ¶ I tell the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that my grief is great, and a never ceasing pain is in my heart, 3 for I myself was wishing to be a curse from Christ on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose are the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the Lawgiving, and the service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen. I believe this clearly shows that the following passage is about the unsaved Jews, not Christians. 6 ¶ Not, however, that God's word has failed. For not all those of Israel are Israel, Paul says that GOD's word has not failed, and he is going to justify that comment. 7 nor because they are Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac a Seed shall be called to you." Gen. 21:12 8 That is: Not the children of flesh are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for a seed. 9 For the word of promise is this, According to this time I will come, and a son will be to Sarah. Gen. 18:10 So, being the son of Abraham does not guarantee the promise, so GOD does not have to save the Jews. The promise went to only Isaac not to Ishmael. |
||||||
24 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5800 | ||
Paul addresses irresistible grace in Romans 9:19-23. He addresses unconditional election in Ephesians 1:4-11 and the mercy issue in Romans 9:5-18. Total depravity is Romans 3:10-18,23. Perseverence of the saints is John 6:35-65 and Romans 8:1-2,37-39 and Ephesians 1:13-14. Contrary to your statement, it is not up to man to decide which God is "greater," but rather we need to look to Scripture to see who God truly is. Well that grace sounds pretty resistible, vs 20 suggests that someone is questioning GOD, and then says the thing molded cannot question the molder. But he just did!! Paul asks the question, "For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to GOD? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,' will it? Lets see, the thing molded will NOT say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this.' Yet, the man IS answering back to GOD. For who resists His will? Apparently, the man that answers back to GOD, do people answer back to GOD in the world today? YES!! Therefore, it would seem to me, that His grace IS resistable. Ephesians 1:4-11, see Robertson's Word in Pictures, "(Having foreordained us) To be taken with ‘chose' either SIMULTANEOUS OR ANTECEDENT (CAUSAL). (The words in caps mean that predestination happened at the same time as or was the cause of His choice. In other words, election did not come before predestination, and predestination comes after foreknowledge (Rm. 8:28), so GOD must have known something else. This is my understanding of this information, please study it and consider it, if I am wrong please correct and censure as necessary. In addition, Dallas The. Sem. has slightly different info, but this work has been more scrutinized.) GOD bless!! I again ask you to refute the apparently blatant declaration of election in Romans 9:5-23. If there is some alternate explanation that Paul makes room for, I would be more than happy to hear it. So far it has not been forthcoming. Is the Reformed theology an ideology that ‘replaces' Israel with the Church? Because as I read the Bible Rm CH. 9-11 are specifically Jewish chapters, so I want to make sure my explanation does not completely contradict your interpretation. |
||||||
25 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5799 | ||
Yes, He is an active GOD, but you make my view seem dense. If GOD is actively involved everyday in every person's life convicting them and giving them signs and witnesses before they're saved, and then of course after they're saved the activity only increases. Is that sitting back and taking steps when necessary? Not in my thinking! As far as Rom 3, I am fine with that but we have a difference of opinion on what the Holy Spirit is doing! I believe Jn 16:8-11 shows that the Holy Spirit convicts the world (all who do not have Christ) of their sin(Rm.3), because they do not believe in Him. I don't remember using the words "kicking and screaming" I think you assume I have no understanding of the terms 5-pointers use, but I do. I'm no expert, but I've heard this speech before and it blows my mind that believing is a Biblical requirement for salvation so many more times than any ‘choice' but to cover that 5-pointers say, well, GOD made me do it. The Bible sure doesn't make it sound that way! Does God only have mercy for some? You think that God is required to show mercy to all or none. What does Romans 9:15-18 tell us? Which reflects God's true character? I believe that GOD has CHOSEN to offer Grace to all. The fact that He doesn't have to, just shows what a Merciful GOD He is! Rm 9:15-18 states what GOD can do, but you have to look at the examples to see what He did do! Egypt was promised punishment in Genesis, Pharaoh was the tyrant in control at the time of Egypt's judgement. And, GOD was merciful and compassionate to Moses. So, in both cases, if you look at the history, GOD was too merciful to be just, but He never hardened anyone without just cause! Paul was an expert in the O.T. his references do not, in my opinion, simply stand on their own. You have to know the background. A God "that allows some to be saved and some to be lost" is more of a description of the image of God YOU hold to. First of all, do you disagree that God allows some to be lost? If God did not allow it, it would not happen. People will spend an eternity in Hell, so God does allow some to be lost. Calvinists hold that God does not merely ALLOW men to be saved, but rather that God is the sole and efficient CAUSE of salvation, from start to finish (Romans 8:28-30). Poor choice of words on my part, but we both got the point. GOD, I believe, would allow someone to reject Him, but He would never simply reject someone without offering them redemption. Check out Rm 9:22, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath PREPARED for destruction?" (The word in all caps, in the original language suggest self-preparation. In other words, the vessels of wrath prepared themselves for destruction, GOD did not.) Why do you quote Rm 8:28-30, we both know there is no Biblical proof of what ‘foreknowledge' is, so to suggest that those verses prove something is ridiculous. Calvinists and Armenians use these verses to prove their points depending on what foreknowledge means, citing that text proves nothing. |
||||||
26 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5796 | ||
My belief about election/freewill is that both are true(better stated election/responsibility, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that non-believers will be to blame for not choosing Christ, and that one I can show you in Rom. 9.), and we will never understand how! (Unless GOD decides to reveal it to us in heaven.) Limited atonement is refuted all over the Bible by John, Paul, and Peter, but these verses are 'interpreted' in an unusal way to make the 5-points work. I've made this comment before, but I know there are alot of gifts and lots of wisdom I do not have but what I do have is a sound mind and the ability to reason, and for me to rearrange verses to believe any doctrine, is wrong and my conscience cannot bear it. My understanding of 'world' does include everyone but the apostles in John 16; because, they have already realized their need for Christ through His divine choice. John uses the same word for world in John 3:16 and I believe in that usage it included everyone, including the disciples because He was speaking in general rather than specific terms, as to who has been saved and who has not. Also, in Jn. 16 Jesus uses judgment and conviction in vs 8-11. Are these the same word and if not what is the significance? Lastly, I have always gone to 'dispensational' churches and they have always been 'election' folks. Are most dispensationalist not this way? Dallas Theological Seminary is VERY much pro-Election doctrine; although, they are willing to say that they cannot understand it all. (Not 5-point Calvin, but 4, Limited Atonement.) About Rom. 9, I believe if I was so inclined I could work around these verses as easily as 5-pointers work around, say I Tim 2:4. But, I admit it is a strech. My point with Mr. Wesley is that he probably studied the Bible as much as anyone and the Spirit was strong in his life, and he, unlike some great saints, was quite careful about doctrine (specifically, election, I mean he studied it!) and yet the Spirit chose not to move him in Calvin's direction. So, if its that important the Spirit would not leave Spirit-filled saints on the side-lines. |
||||||
27 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5777 | ||
This debate may be old and tired to you, but it does speak fundamentally to how we view God and how we conduct evangelism. It is highly important, even though it is not a salvific issue, that we get it right. How has God revealed his intentions with regard to salvation? What does the Bible have to say on man's supposed freedom? Take away the assumption that all men are equally aided by the Holy Spirit to receive Christ and see if the entirety of the New Testament supports such a thesis. I am always interested in how Calvinists think I view GOD. Which GOD is greater, a God who must control everything, so nothing will go wrong, or a God that knows everything possible, so He can let his creation have freewill because nothing can go wrong? A God who forces some to Him by His irresistible will, or a God that welcomes all to Him in His unfathomable love? A God who has enough mercy for some, or a God who has abundant mercy for all? A God that allows some to be saved and some to be lost, or a God that desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved? You decide. As far as evangelism, I have recently seen some prominent preachers, who believe in election, say that it is hard work to go to hell because you have to walk over the knowledge of Jesus. That doesn't sound like election! Thank you for your views and GOD bless!! |
||||||
28 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5776 | ||
Again in verse 16:13 we see that the Spirit will be the active guide to truth. If the Spirit is here to "try and convert everyone," why does our holy, sovereign God fail in his mission? Perhaps that isn't his mission after all... A guide to truth for believers, yes. I do not believe that this verse is suggesting that the HS will be active in bringing only some to salvation, by guiding them to the undeniable acceptance of Christ because they were chosen for salvation and others were not. Verse 17:6 reinforces this: "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word." Again, God GAVE them to Him out of the world. Who is consistently the active agent in bringing people out of the world? ALl througout the Bible, we see it is God who (unaided by our "free will") chooses individuals out of the world and gives them to Christ. This is, of course, the High Priestly Prayer and you will remember that I said the disciples were indeed chosen, please take special note of this chapter. Who is Jesus talking about in vs 6? I believe the disciples, notice verse 7, "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;" No one knew this information at that time but the disciples (the twelve). Chapter 17 focuses on GOD giving the disciples (the twelve) to Christ, or in other words choosing them. However notice vs. 20, "I do not ask on behalf of these(the twelve) alone, but for those also who BELIEVE in Me through their word;" So the chapter clearly indicates that the twelve were chosen by Christ, but when Christ prays to the Father, He says, "those also who believe in Me." Now, if there was ever a time when Christ could have said, You Father decide who believes in Me, He would have while talking to the Father! But He did not, who does the action? Those who believe in Me, non-believers do the action! Therefore, contrary to your post, the world does NOT include "everyone." Conviction of sin does not lead to ability to repent and choose Christ. It is merely a declaration of guilt and judgment, which is reinforced by passages such as Philippians 1:27-28. Our presence here on earth is not to "win all the lost." It is to proclaim God's truth, to be the Holy Spirit's visible instruments through which He calls the elect, and to be the embodiment of the "sign of destruction" to those who will die and face just punishment. You have given me no convincing arguments that the world does not include everyone. And, what does Phil. 1:27,28 have to do with conviction of sin? As I read it, Paul is saying that the fact that your opponents are fighting against you shows that they have not received Christ; therefore, they will pay the price in eternity. Did you truly determine the doctrine of election solely from Scripture? You didn't read about it in the notes of a Study Bible or Commentary on the Bible? I take you at your word, but I have found that most people initially reject the doctrine of election until they are shown the verses that suggest it. (By the by, I do believe in some form of the doctrine of election; however, a ridged adherence to 5-point Calvinism is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of Scripture! So, I agree with you, but only somewhat.) Yes, I do have the Holy Spirit in me as you do, but a better question is, did John Wesley? How about Calvin? I believe the answer to both is yes, and yet they disagreed on this subject, so if you want to compare your resume to Wesley, and then tell him he doesn't know how to read the Bible, please do! If the HS doesn't lead all Christians to the same conclusion, the HS may think we should leave well enough alone! Romans 3 was written after Pentecost, but aren't all those statements quotes from the Old Testament? I see ch. 3 as Paul proving to the Jews that they are under sin just like the Gentiles. If the Law said that ‘None is Righteous' then they must need salvation just as much as the dirty Gentiles. (I'm speaking in terms of what the Jews thought of the Gentiles.) Besides that, ‘conviction of sin' is to make one realize their need for Christ, so these words help the HS convict of sin. |
||||||
29 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5775 | ||
Does the fact that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin mean that everyone will be enabled to accept Christ? Well, in John 14:17 says that "the world cannot receive [Him], because it does not see Him or know Him., but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." Therefore, the world is unable to receive the Spirit, so that classifies the "world" in a different category than the disciples, whom Jesus is addressing. It says that the world does not see Him, doesn't even know Him! No the world cannot ‘receive the Holy Spirit' if they do not know Jesus Christ. Receiving the Holy Spirit is the regeneration or the rebirth of the Christian, it is not, in my opinion, the ability of the HS to convict a sinner of their need for Christ. At this time the HS had not come to the world; therefore, NO ONE but the disciples could have received Him because only His disciples had accepted Him as their personal Savior, so yes, our Lord would consider the world different than the disciples. I personally consider the world different than the Church, but not because GOD decided to take me and not another; because I have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In John 15:18, the "world" will hate the disciples, just as it hates Christ. In the next verse, we see that the disciples are "not of the world," that Christ CHOSE them, and as a result, the world hates them. Therefore, we see reinforced a clear division between the world and the ones who are called by God. In verse 26 we see that the Spirit will testify about Christ with the disciples, but there is no indication that everyone will be free to accept the Spirit's testimony. In fact, Christ has just promised them the opposite from the world. Yes, the ‘world' will hate the disciples, but I consider this to be because Jn 3:19-20, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil HATES the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (Emphasis mine) The ‘world' is not regenerated the disciples are, yes they're different. The twelve certainly were chosen, we will discuss this shortly. In verse 15:26 who will the Spirit testify to? "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning." It does not sound like the Spirit is testifying to the disciples, because the disciples are to do the same type of testifying! Could it be that the HS and the disciples would be testifying to non-believers? |
||||||
30 | Money root of all evil? | 1 Tim 6:10 | Chris | 3371 | ||
Sorry Hank, that was my lame sense of humor! The idea had to do with your mistake(typo in first question), and the joke came from the idea of where have all our heros gone. And finally, the ultimate American hero is Joe D (please excuse the spelling). But, it was a shot at humor! SORRY. GOD bless!! | ||||||
31 | RE: "immenint return" in first answer | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3241 | ||
Lifer1J511 I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your (and everyone else's who may read this debate) forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. In response to your comment, I copied this message from a previous corrospondence; I have added an explanation or two of the comments, so if you have already read it, look for (**) before and after the new comments. I realize that in 2 Tim. and 2 Peter, Paul and Peter realized they were going to die and, at least in Paul's case he was already in prison probably with a death sentence so for him to foresee this is no huge surprise; Peter knew he was going to die from the Lords very mouth, so that does not mean he didn't believe in immanent return for all other believers. (John is the only other apostle that knew about Peter's destiny and John, I believe, taught immanent return.) I do not believe that Paul thought that he would die before the return of the Lord until the time of 2 Timothy! I believe there are several verses to suggest this is true the strongest examples are, Phil. 3:20, I Cor 15:51-52, and Thes. 4:15. Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Paul using "we" suggests that he is also waiting and expecting the Savior!) I Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (Paul, in the last section of verse 52 is comparing the dead being ‘raised' to the living being ‘changed' and he uses "we shall be changed." to include himself in the living.) Thes 4:15, " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." (Paul includes himself with those that will be alive when the Lord returns to rapture believers!) Other support by Paul includes: I Thes. 1:10, "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (Paul taught all his converts to be ‘waiting' for the Lord, this suggests expectation.) Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (The Grace of GOD instructs us to ‘look for' the return of the Lord! Again, implying expectation.) I also believe that immanent return is taught by most of the apostles, not Paul exclusively. Heb 10:37, "For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." (tarry or delay) Jas 5:8, "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (hand or near) 1 John 2:28, "And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (Using "we" John believes the manifestation will happen while he is alive to have boldness! **My interpretation of this verse has been questioned, so I will try to defend it, I believe that when we die, WE GO to be with the Lord, I believe Paul teaches this clearly in Philippians 1:23, ‘But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better:' It seems to me, that Paul is strongly implying that if he would have died in prison, he would immediately GO and be with Christ. Why is that important? If John were not talking about the return of Christ when he used ‘we' in include himself, then Christ would not be manifested, but John would GO and be with the Lord, rather than the other way around. So, the fact that John includes himself being present and having boldness before Him he must be talking about if he were alive when Christ came, not when he died and went to be with the Lord. And, some might also suggest that John may have thought that he would live for an extended period of time because the Lord said that he might, but again, if that were the case he would use ‘I' not ‘we' to include people other than himself.**) **This comment made by our Lord** Rev 22:7, 12, 20; "And behold, I come quickly." ( Our Lord repeats this phrase in all three verses.) |
||||||
32 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3237 | ||
Sam, I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. I want to preface my comment, with a realization of the debate between Mike and myself. I truly have been blind to an important fact during our debate! As you probably noticed, Mike made it very clear that GOD's time schedule does not allow for immanent return, and for some reason I was blind to the fact that this was a major sticking point, that needed to be rectified. I agree with Mike fully, there is no such thing as immanent return for GOD! He knows everything! And, if you like Charles Stanley, you've probably heard that GOD cannot have expectations; because, He already knows the outcome. Immanent return is only relevant in Man's realm of time and space. Man does not know when the Lord will return, so he must always be looking for the Lord. This problem was clearly stated by Mike, but unfortunately, I was oblivious to this important point of contention. And, to note the difference is crucial! Immanent return is an idea that only exists in the limited time and limited knowledge in the realm of man. The reason I write is because I don't think I understand your comment. You say that all christians, in the past, who have believed in immanent return were wrong, but they were only wrong if it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have returned at that time. I assume that GOD is and was free to choose ANYTIME to send our Lord back to earth. Therefore, if GOD can choose anytime to send Jesus back or could have chose anytime in the past to send Him back, they were, in fact, correct in thinking that Christ COULD have come back during their lifetimes. Immanent return does not mean Christ WILL come back immediately, only that He COULD come back at anytime (which COULD be soon or even today). And, since I believe we would agree that NOTHING IS (or ever has been) IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD; He could have sent Jesus back in the past if He would have chosen to do so. So, for the sake of not 'being caught unprepared' our christian forefathers were, in my opinion, correct in keeping their heads up looking for Jesus. Notice, that immanent return is not to blame for any of the faulty predictions made in days past. The idea does not espouse a date for the return and in fact, suggests the opposite, since we CANNOT know the date we should always be on the look out; because, our Lord said, 'I am coming quickly!' |
||||||
33 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3181 | ||
Sorry, last comment: You said; "If John had interpreted that as teaching the "imminent return" as meaning that Lord could come back any day now, John's interpretation would be incorrect." To say someone 'could' do something is not the same as saying, someone 'will' do something. If our Lord wanted to take all of the sea out of the Sea of Galilee 'could' he have done it? OF COURSE HE COULD HAVE!! Just because He did not, does not mean He could not! You said, "We have 2000 years plus or minus of proof that Jesus' coming could not have occurred to date, because He did not come." If I would have wanted to, could I have stuffed myself full of choclate yesterday? Yes, I could have, but I didn't! This does not imply that I was unable at that time, it only implies that I, in fact, did not. And, I quoted several scriptures, not just one. I apologize again! GOD bless! |
||||||
34 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3172 | ||
You speak of TRUTH; however, you hide your eyes as not to see! If our interpretation of these scriptures are wrong, please correct us. I've given you 5 to 10 verses in the BIBLE (i.e. TRUTH), so if the interpretation I use is incorrect then you must know the correct one! Your view of Inspiration is difficult to understand. So, when Jesus said, "And what I say to you I say to all; Watch!" (Mk. 13:37) He must have, according to your interpretation, made a mistake; because, he told the apostles to WATCH for His return and it didn't take place! What is your procedure for eliminating verses from the Bible? Do you mark them out in red or white them out? What do you do? I apologize, but I truly don't understand your way of interpreting scripture! If it is true that Christ could come back at anytime would it still be an error to expect or, at least, hope for His return? And, if Paul knew, when he was alive, that it was indeed possible for Christ to come back during his life would it be wrong to expect or hope that Christ would come back in his(Paul's) lifetime? (Notice, in no verse in the BIBLE does Paul say, "I WILL be alive when he comes." But only when giving a demonstration of what will happen at the Lord's return, and since, I believe, he thought it could happen at anytime, he of course included himself in with the living; because, he was, at that time, alive! The fact that he demonstrates a TRUTH through an example that happened at that time shows he thought it could happen at that time, but giving an example of something in the year 60 AD, when the event could take place at anytime is not an error! It is simply giving the example under current conditions. If I were to say to you, if I were standing here when a nuclear bomb hit, I would be burned up! If a nuclear bomb hit when I wasn't there, would that make my statement untrue? No, what I said was still accurate, I just wouldn't be burned up; because, I was not in that spot.) I don't see this as an error, only proof of expectation! That expectation is the TRUTH! Paul, James, John, and the writer of Hebrews, in my opinion, suggest by their writings that they expected Christ to return during their lifetimes! Please notice John 21:20-23, would John be incorrect in thinking he MIGHT live to see the return of our Lord? If that EXPECTATION would have made him wrong then our Lord MISLED him. And, I think we both would agree that our Lord could not do that; because, as you said, GOD is Truth! I must say that this debate is interesting and your points are note worthy, but I think it profits us little. I love you in Christ, whatever you believe, but if it be the will of GOD for us to disagree on this subject, so be His will! Please let me know if I've misrepresented anything in this message, and I would love to hear your continued opinions on this subject, but I do surrender for the sake of dissapation. GOD bless! |
||||||
35 | Can man refuse God's invitation? | Luke 14:16 | Chris | 3117 | ||
(Continued) 14 For many are called, but few chosen. If you have a NASB with references, check out the reference for ‘called' (Or invited). The word ‘chosen' is the word Peter uses to describe the ‘elect' in 1 Pt. 1:1-2 and 2:4,9. This word's (1588 Strong's) definition is, 1) picked out, chosen 1a) chosen by God, 1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ 1a1a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God 1a2) the Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted office conceivable 1a3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians (Strongs). Paul uses a slight variation of this word (see 1586 Strong's), 1) to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one's self 1a) choosing one out of many, i.e. Jesus choosing his disciples 1b) choosing one for an office 1c) of God choosing whom he judged fit to receive his favors and separated from the rest of mankind to be peculiarly his own and to be attended continually by his gracious oversight 1c1) i.e. the Israelites 1d) of God the Father choosing Christians, as those whom he set apart from the irreligious multitude as dear unto himself, and whom he has rendered, through faith in Christ, citizens in the Messianic kingdom: (#Jas 2:5) so that the ground of the choice lies in Christ and his merits only. (Strong's) You can see that they are both considered words that could mean ‘the elect' but 1588 seems to convey the message a bit better. Jesus says, ‘Many are called (invited), few are chosen.' Dare I interpret that to mean, many (all, see vs 9 and 10, ‘and as many as ye shall find, invite to the marriage feast' and ‘servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found') are invited but only those who accept the cleansing that comes from the blood of Jesus Christ (wedding garments) are chosen? By the way, these are Strong's definitions not my own, so if he seems to agree with you on the definition of these words that should fuel your argument. I'm not saying I disagree, but I am saying there is more here than any one doctrine can understand or explain. And to ignore that, in my opinion, is a great misinterpretation of scripture. By the by, I could accuse you of the same charge with which you have accused me on 1 Pt. 1:17-21. When people hear the word ‘believe' they assume the person believing is choosing to do so. If you chose to believe something, that means you must have an option to, or in our case hope if you believe it. The only way we as ‘believers' can have saving faith is that Christ Jesus died on the cross, thereby giving us a pathway to redemption and eternal life. This is the only thing that gives us hope, the sacrifice of Christ, so that sacrifice could be interpreted, honestly, to represent an invitation; however, with the presumption of election, ‘believe' means, "what a person does because GOD made them want to do it" now I suggest that this truly is reading things into the text. I certainly do not want to offend you or insult you with this response, and if it is too forward, I apologize. I am hoping to show you that there is more to this issue than meets the eye. I have three ‘Pro-election' Bibles in my home; Scofield, Ryrie, and Believer's (Baptist) and none of them have any defense against this text. The reason I refuse to take sides on this issue (although, I find myself falling on one side or the other often) is because it forces you to interpret certain passages in an illogical manner! Now, GOD may not have given me the wisdom to discern this truth, but He did give me reason, common sense, and the Holy Spirit to interpret His word, and I refuse to ignore the talents He has given me to make up for wisdom I can not discern. I will be happy to verify anything you may have questions about, dealing with this answer, and if I have misrepresented anything, please let me know and I will do my best to rectify the situation. But, I am not going to continue this argument because it truly is never-ending, and I believe it's one of those ‘genealogies' that Paul talks about that do not profit us. I do not think you're wrong! I just don't know that you're completely right. GOD bless! |
||||||
36 | Can man refuse God's invitation? | Luke 14:16 | Chris | 3115 | ||
Yes Sam, but the problem with jumping off a fence is that you often can only see things from one side! As for a verse with invitation and election, how about Mat. 22:14? Now, I know you will ‘elect' to interpret this verse in another way; because, Mat. 22:14 CAN'T be talking about election or else election wouldn't work. But, in an effort to defend my position why don't we go over the entire passage. Mat. 22:1-14: 1 And Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying, 2 The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son, Jesus compares this parable to the kingdom of heaven, so that would suggest that the king represents GOD and/or Heaven or Eternal Blessing. 3 and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come. Bidden is translated in NASB, "invited." Those that ‘were invited' would have been the Jews. Notice that those invited, ‘would not come" implies that those invited made the choice. ‘Servants could be the apostles or perhaps the Holy Spirit (HS is a servant, or a worker for, the kingdom of heaven, so this doesn't necessarily suggest inferiority to GOD; because, He is not specifically mentioned, and all three members of the Trinity are mutually subjected to one another.) either way it doesn't effect the interpretation of the passage. 4 Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold, I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast. Bidden is translated in NASB, "invited." The symbolism suggest reality with the marriage feast represent the marriage supper of the Lamb(debatable, not essential to the meaning). 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise; 6 and the rest laid hold on his servants, and treated them shamefully, and killed them. Notice that ‘they' made light of it; the passage says nothing about them being made to make light of it by another source. 7 But the king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Possible judgement Jesus spoke about coming upon Jerusalem? A.D. 70, no stone will be left upon another. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy. Bidden is translated in NASB, "invited." 9 Go ye therefore unto the partings of the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage feast. Bid is translated in NASB, "invite." 10 And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests. 11 But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment: 12 and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless. Notice, this could not signify election, because, GOD's election must be perfect; no one extra could be invited in, so the most likely interpretation is that the feast includes everyone who was invited, but those who chose (themselves) not to put on wedding clothes were not welcome. 13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. The same description Jesus gives the ‘lake of fire' were those who are not in Christ go for eternal damnation. (Please continue to the next note!) |
||||||
37 | Should women be teaching in churches? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Chris | 3073 | ||
I don't doubt that some women can preach better than some men, but the question is, whether it is Biblical or not. This is certainly a controversial topic, and I can only give you my understanding of the Scriptures. Gal. 3:28, in my opinion, is talking about all believers being in the body of Christ. No member of the body is less important than another, but that does not mean that any member of the body can assume any position in the body. See I Cor. 12:20 Paul says there are many members but one body, but a foot cannot be a nose, ect. So, I do not believe Paul wrote Gal. 3:28 with positions of authority in the church in mind. To further add to this conclusion, I Tim. 2:9-15 seems quite adament about women not being in the highest position of authority, Paul being the author of both these letters. Anytime women are forbid something in scripture, I look to see if the reasoning is because of the social climate at the time of writing, or if it is a command from GOD; the reasoning for this one seems to be a command based upon the rights of first born and the punishment of Eve in the garden. I know some say that these verses could be translated as talking about husband and wife, but if that were the case, Paul must have no interest in what single folks do in church, he being single, because the greek words for man and woman remain the same from 2:8 thru to v15. And, there is no further discussion of what should be done in the church by single folks; Paul immediately moves to the leadership positions in the church. I should say that I would only forbid women from assuming the highest role in the church, pastor or elder. I believe that women should be deaconnesses. I also am one to simply trust the scriptures as I read them if the debate is too complicated for my miniscule mind; that may be the case here! Hope this helps! GOD bless! | ||||||
38 | RE: "immenint return" in first answer | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3072 | ||
I realize that in 2 Tim. and 2 Peter, Paul and Peter realized they were going to die and, at least in Paul's case he was already in prison probably with a death sentence so for him to foresee this is no huge surprise; Peter knew he was going to die from the Lords very mouth, so that does not mean he didn't believe in immanent return for all other believers. (John is the only other apostle that knew about Peter's destiny and John, I believe, taught immanent return.) I do not believe that Paul thought that he would die before the return of the Lord until the time of 2 Timothy! I believe there are several verses to suggest this is true the strongest examples are, Phil. 3:20, I Cor 15:51-52, and Thes. 4:15. Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Paul using "we" suggests that he is also waiting and expecting the Savior!) I Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (Paul, in the last section of verse 52 is comparing the dead being ‘raised' to the living being ‘changed' and he uses "we shall be changed." to include himself in the living.) Thes 4:15, " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." (Paul includes himself with those that will be alive when the Lord returns to rapture believers!) Other support by Paul includes: I Thes. 1:10, "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (Paul taught all his converts to be ‘waiting' for the Lord, this suggests expectation.) Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (The Grace of GOD instructs us to ‘look for' the return of the Lord! Again, implying expectation.) I also believe that immanent return is taught by most of the apostles, not Paul exclusively. Heb 10:37, "For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." (tarry or delay) Jas 5:8, "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (hand or near) 1 John 2:28, "And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (Using "we" John believes the manifestation will happen while he is alive to have boldness!) Rev 22:7, 12, 20; "And behold, I come quickly." ( Our Lord repeats this phrase in all three verses.) |
||||||
39 | Can man refuse God's invitation? | Luke 14:16 | Chris | 2863 | ||
As I see it, Sam, He did both! You obviously know that the Bible says, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) 'chose' being the same word for 'election.' But the Word also says, "For He(Jesus) was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him(Jesus) are believers in GOD" (I Peter 1:20,21) This tells us that the invitation through the blood of Jesus was foreknown before the foundation of the world and we are believers through this invitation. And, lets remember that GOD has never made a decision without knowing EVERYTHING! Election is great and freewill is great, because there is nothing that could happen that GOD does not know, and if He knows it He uses it to make His decisions! Obviously, I ride the fence on this one!! GOD bless!! | ||||||
40 | Can man refuse God's invitation? | Luke 14:16 | Chris | 2860 | ||
As I see it, Sam, He did both! You obviously know that the Bible says, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) 'chose' being the same word for 'election.' But the Word also says, "For He(Jesus) was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him(Jesus) are believers in GOD" (I Peter 1:20,21) This tells us that the invitation through the blood of Jesus was foreknown before the foundation of the world and we are believers through this invitaion. And, lets remember that GOD has never made a decision without knowing EVERYTHING! Election is great and freewill is great, because there is nothing that could happen that GOD does not know, and if He knows it He uses it to make His decisions! Obviously, I ride the fence on this one!! GOD bless!! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |