Results 21 - 40 of 126
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: atdcross Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167069 | ||
Repentance involves not only the acknowledgement that we are sinners, but a complete reversal of lifestyle from disobedience to God to obedience. To "believe with your heart" is to repent; obedience to God is the "bringing of fruit worthy of repentance." Confessing with one's mouth without this repentance has no saving value (as also repentance without the public confession has none either). |
||||||
22 | Understanding by cross referencing. | 2 Cor 6:14 | atdcross | 167046 | ||
Allow me to point out: 1. Regardless of which would cause the "greater hurt" the "hypcritical lifestyle", assuming one is to interpret "cold" as an unbeliever or a believer that has turned away from God, they have both driven the nail and slashed Jesus equally as deep. 2. However, who does the "greater damage" is irrelevant. It is not even speaking of what some term as "lukewarm Christian"; as far as the verse is concerned, there is no such thing. One is either "cold" or "hot", both terms used with reference medicinal waters. To be neither, that is, "lukewarm," is to cease being a believer and forfeit salvation since God will spit him out. God forgives sins; he neither tolerates or countenances sin in any form or degree. God not only desires that all "be righteous through His Son", He desires that all act righteous in the Son "even as he is righteous." Righteousness is not only a position before God, it is the conduct to be lived out and experienced by every believer. |
||||||
23 | How was the sin nature really created? | Matt 12:31 | atdcross | 167043 | ||
Hi Kay. To continue... 2. Where did the sin nature come from? The sin nature, as far as Satan is concerned, resulted as the consequence of his own choice to rebel against God. The purity of heaven does not guarantee the moral purity of created beings with free will. Again, we are not told in the Bible specifically how Lucifer was able to turn against God, only the fact that he did; the metaphysical aspects are not hinted at. I thought I saw three questions, but actually where did the sin nature come from and how it could happen in heaven is apparently one question answered in point #2 above. The answers are brief. If you have any further questions that may not be clear or find my answers unsatisfactory, don't hesitate to letme know (although, again, my answers are "uneducated"). |
||||||
24 | Understanding by cross referencing. | 2 Cor 6:14 | atdcross | 167019 | ||
Hi Fervent, I do not believe that God desires we be either "wholly righteous or wholly unrighteous"; his desire is for us to be "wholly unrighteous". What you suggest I am aware is the standard understanding of the texts but it is seems to me to be wrong because everywhere in the Bible God commands and desires us to be holy. Nowhere, except and only here as it has been erroneously interpreted, does the Bible suggest that God wants us one way or the other. God wants us to be one way: holy. You might want to check out the Expositor's Bible Commentary on that verse. |
||||||
25 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167000 | ||
"As you wish", from Princess Bride and it really translates to "I love you." Well, thank you, Doc, I love you too in Christ. |
||||||
26 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166980 | ||
-----------------------------------------------------Doc, I have found that me first response was filled with grammatical mistakes and not as clear on certain points as I would like it to be so, since I am unable to edit it, I am reposting it. -------------------------------------------------- Yes, Doc, the Bible says God is sovereign and I agree with it (but I do wonder if you are getting me mixed up with someone else because I cannot find where I specifically discussed God’s sovereignty with you on this thread). I do not agree with your notion of the kind of sovereign He is since it is contrary to Biblical revelation (notice, I did not qualify my statement with, "In my opinion"). I do not need to read the LBCF since (1) as you stated, we are dealing with the Bible, and (2) since truth is found in the Bible, the LBCF is unnecessary as well as patently false leading to heretical conclusions about God and salvation (notice, again, I purposely refrained from stating "It seems" or "In my opinion"). What is important is that I do agree with the Bible (note, again for the third time, I do not qualify it with "It seems" or "In my opinion"). Agreeing with you is inconsequential (as far as my conscience is concerned) and I give no importance or value (in comparison to Biblical revelation) whatsoever to the LBCF. It has also been an unpleasant experience to read your responses and respond to them. Do not misconstrue that it is because your arguments are so impressive and weighty as to devastate any objections I may conjure up. With all due respect, discussions with you are not about the Bible since (1) you do not use the Bible but fancies of a certain theological position; (2) you argue your point by attacking the person; and (3) you use sarcasm as a "technique that caricatures an opponents argument in order to make it easier to attack". As it is not my purpose to prove my position is correct, please be advised, I am ignoring your comments from now on. -------------------------------------------------- Doc, amy further cummunication between us is ended. -------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
27 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166979 | ||
Yes, Doc, the Bible says God is sovereign and I agree with it. I do not agree that with your fanciful notion of the kind of sovereign He is since it is contrary to Biblical revelation (notice, I did not qualify my statement with, "In my opinion"). I do not need to read the LBCF since (1) as you stated, we are dealing with the Bible, and (2) since truth is found in the Bible, the LBCF is unnecessary as well as patently false leading to heretical conclusions about God and salvation notice, again, I purposely refrained from stating either "It seems" or "In my opinion"). What is important is that I do agree with the Bible (note the courage with which I make my assertion for, again, the third time, I do not qualify it with "It seems" or "In my opinion"). Agreeing with you is inconsequential and I give no importance or value whatsoever to the LBCF. It has also been an unpleasant experience reading your responses and responding. Do not miscontrue that it is because your arguments are so impressive and weighty as to devastate any objections I may conjure up. With all due respect, discussions with you are not about the Bible since (1) you do not use the Bible but fancies of a certain theological position; (2) you argue your point by attacking the person, and (3) you use sarcasm as a "technique that caricatures an opponents argument in order to make it easier to attack". I am ignoring your comments from now on. |
||||||
28 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166975 | ||
If “we are here to study the Bible”, why bring up 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? Besides, I don’t agree with it; it is not Biblical. Furthermore, since it is not what we are here to study, I’ll have to ignore if (that is, if I am to follow your advice; same goes for Gill). You stated, “That's pretty frightening to think that there is something out there that can force God's hand!” What technique you used here “in order to make it easier to attack” does that fall under? My remark was only to express what I think is a frightening thought. It was not intended to make attacking your point easier. I’m not that deft in the art of logic. Regarding your comment that I ignored your explanation, unfortunately, it seems to me that you missed my brief remark regarding the other passages mentioned. Would you rather I assert, “The Bible says so-and-so, therefore, you must be wrong”? |
||||||
29 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166932 | ||
I agree. Evil is not created; it is a state of being. However, I am not sure that Satan is unable to, in some sense, create (a God-given ability he may possess as created). |
||||||
30 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166899 | ||
Good day, Doc. Amos 3:6. The evil in Amos is with reference to God executing judgment on those who have committed moral evil; it does not mean God created moral evil. “Evil” would, it seems, be better translated as “disaster” or “calamity”. I am of the impression that the story of Job is not solely or predominately to teach us that God is sovereign; that God is sovereign is never questioned in Job. In any case, the book of Job reveals to the reader that it was not God who gave Job the boils and sickness; neither did God execute the calamities against Job that caused the loss of all that he had. Eph 1:11. Are you saying my position “would be in keeping with the rest of Scripture”? Also, I’m not sure I understand what point you are trying to make with quoting Gill. Are you saying that God created/authored moral evil or sin? Matt 10:29. It’s pretty frightening to picture the hand of God just smashing a helpless, innocent bird to the ground for no reason. God does have the power to do it and if that is what he feels like doing, so be it. However, I don’t think the Bible, at least for me, give that kind of picture of God. My comment does not suggest in any way God’s hand being forced. In brief, God set in motion certain laws in nature and, it seems to me, those laws, unless God through nature intervenes to overrule the normal course nature normally takes, determine the occurrence of certain events. Ps 104:21-30 does not seem to contradict this notion. 1 Kings 17:4-6 is a good example of God overruling the natural order. Prov 16:33. Are you suggesting God doesn’t work in the lives of men submitted to His rule over them? I am merely suggesting that it is not necessary to assume by the verse cited that God’s “control over the affairs of men are as exhaustive and minute”. As for God working in the lives of those who are submitted to him, I do not think it can be denied He works on their behalf. |
||||||
31 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166843 | ||
Although I am not sure I understand what your point is, I do want to respond to some verses in particular. Amos 3:6. The calamity is with reference to judgment and not moral evil. Job 1:21; 2:10. As seen "behind the scenes" of Job's story, it is Satan and not God who has "taken away" and "covered [him] with boils." Eph 1:11. Note, it does not say God "causes all things" especially moral evil and every tragedy and sickness that occurs. Matt 10:29. It does not say God caused the sparrow to fall. Prov 16:33. As I see it, God may intervene in the roll of dice, however, there is no indication that his control over the affairs of men are as exhaustive and minute. As the TEV suggests, the men throwing the dice are doing so "to learn God's will" (that is, they are in a posture of submission to God) and, therefore, "God himself determines the answer." |
||||||
32 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166840 | ||
It seems we agree, especially your when you state, "God can be the creator of a being, without being the 'creator' of evil." If the scholars are correct and Lucifer is Satan, then God created Lucifer but not Satan, as I suggested that the name denotes his character and conduct. As such, my objection would be against using the phrase, "God created Satan." I think it is misleading and can be misunderstood as God having created evil or an evil being. |
||||||
33 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166817 | ||
Again, I do not find in the Bible that God created Satan and neither do the verses you cite affirm it. They may read that God created Lucifer. That he became evil and, changed in name and character, turned into Satan is not by virtue of his being created. If the scholars are correct that Ezek 28:11ff (along with Isa 11) refers to Satan, then notice what is written: "You ["Lucifer"] were once an example of perfection...your conduct was perfect from the day you were created" (cf.1-15a TEV). This is the description of the angel who is "Bright Morning Star" (i.e. Lucifer; cf. Isa 14:12) as created. God created him for good and not for evil; he was endowed with free will to choose what is good. At this point there is no evil. This angel maintained right conduct before God but only for an unknown amount of time; he maintained the very purpose for which he was created "until [he] began to do evil" (Ezk 28:15b). Satan created evil. There was no evil until "Lucifer" acted in rebellion against God (Isa 14:13-14 TEV). It seems to me that evil is not so much a thing that is created; it is an act that a free will being commits. Without the existence of evil beings there is no evil. As such, evil began with this rebellious angel; if one wants to say evil was created, then it was "created," not by God, but by "Lucifer". Therefore, to say, "God created Satan," is to say God created an evil being. God does not create evil beings; he may have allowed them to exist but he has not created them. Therefore, one may say, God created "Lucifer" but "Lucifer" created evil. |
||||||
34 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166804 | ||
It is not in the Bible that God created Satan so I am unmable to show it. However, God did not create an evil being. If he did, then he would be the Creator and author of evil. Scholars seem to acknowledge that there is a hint in the Bible that God created an angel who was perfect and beautiful. This particular angel, in turn, rebelled against God and was thereafter given the name "Satan". It can be said that God created an angel who, it seems, was innocent and morally good by his obedience to God for a time until he turned against God. However, to say that God created Satan would be misconstrued to suggest that God created and is thereby the author of evil; the term "Satan" suggests his evil nature. God did not create a being with an evil nature, at least, I do not see the chapter and verse where it states he did. From my perspective, I think its more correct to say that God created an angel(s) who later rebelled against God. |
||||||
35 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166683 | ||
Hi Searcher, Love and hate are emotive and decisive. Ever been angry without deciding to be like when someone steps on your foot? Ever make the decision to remain in that angry posture? |
||||||
36 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166682 | ||
John 5:1-8. If no one else was there and not all were healed when he was on the earth, even so, it is irrelevant; it proves absolutely nothing concerning God’s will to heal. It is God’s will to heal; whether or not one or all are healed is another thing. The fact that God wills certain things does not necessarily mean it will occur. 1 Corinthians 11:28-30. It is God’s will to judge the unrighteous, especially of the "household of faith". Those in the Corinthian church were sick because they sinned and God executed judgment against them. Regarding Job: (1) although God allowed it, it was Satan who made him sick, and (2) in any case, Job’s experience is unique and should not be applied to every believer who becomes sick (that is, not unless they can claim to be blameless and avoids evil over and above every other believer, cf. Job 1:8; 2:3). God did promise disease if Israel was unfaithful. However, what does the Bible say if Israel, as a nation, was obedient? Would they still experience diseases or would God heal them? Timothy’s ailment did not require a miracle of healing to remove it. The Bible doesn’t read that Trophimus was not healed but only that when Paul left, he was still sick. Could he not have been healed sometime afterwards? Let it be clear that I am not arguing Christians do not get sick. I am asserting that (1) it is God’s will that His people be healthy, therefore, (2) it is God’s desire to heal all who are sick. If someone close to you were racked with pain from cancer, would you tell him or her they are being blessed with cancer? Would you pray, “Lord, I thank you that they have cancer and it is painful for them. Their pain is a blessing and shows how good you are to them. Jesus, don’t heal them. Don’t take away such a wonderful blessing. Thank you, Good Lord, for cancer”? Or, with respect to suffering, why don’t we thank God for all the children being raped, mutilated, and murdered? Maybe we should pray God would put it into the hearts of evil men to rape more children since suffering is such a blessing. (My statements above are not meant to reflect any disrespect). Job did not thank God that he lost everything, especially his children. What we have in 1:21 and 2:10 (cf. TEV) is Job’s affirmation of God’s goodness despite the tragedies he experienced. Ps. 103:3. Then the first portion of this verse should be interpreted in the same way, that is, all that is said is that God is the one who forgives, as well as other things; it does not necessarily mean that it is God’s will to forgive all believers (those following Him). 3 Jn 2. So you are, in essence, saying John’s prayer and desire here does not reflect God’s will. If that is the case, then verses 4,11, and 15a seem not to reflect God’s will either. Actually, it can be said, if you are correct, that this epistle was not written under divine inspiration but was merely John's view of things. Mal 4:2. If you are correct and this verse has no reference for us now, then verse 5-6 is with reference to a future fulfillment also and has no reference to anytime before or at present. Matt 7:11. No mention is made of forgiveness either, or eternal life. Besides, when is someone healing another not a “good gift” (or, “good thing”, TEV)? Please search the Bible and let me know where it says or demonstrates that God’s will is to make those who are faithful (i.e. believing and following) to Him sick. To date, I have not found any. |
||||||
37 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166681 | ||
You’re correct I would be accusing God of wrongdoing but only if “hate” is used by Luke according to it’s usual and primary definition as defined by such scholars as Robertson. In any case, have you read the rest of Vine’s as I cited it? Also, see my citation of Evans and Liefeld. In Luke, Jesus did not mean that one is to literally hate their parents; he is saying something other than how the definition of the word is normally understood. Maybe I’m not making myself clear. In some respects, it seems to me that we are not really disagreeing with each other. I think the misunderstanding lies in my saying that the Greek word for “hate” is defined in a very strong way, whereas you’re saying, as defined, it can also mean something less strong. If my understanding is correct, in the former, I consider it the normal usage, it’s literal meaning; while, for the latter, I see it not as the definition of the word itself, but a “playing” with the word to emphasize a point. Maybe this is something akin to what Kalos refres to when he cites, “the culture gap gives you…idioms”. It any case, it may not be that we disagree but more rather that I am unable to properly explain myself having not been educated in a college or seminary. If you read “Israel’s Divine Healer” by Dr. Michael L. Brown, I’ll certainly read the book you have suggested. Let me know if it's a deal. |
||||||
38 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166460 | ||
Thanks for the encouraging word. Job 2:10: (1) We know from the prologue that it is Satan who is buffeting Job, not God (although God allowed it). (2) Job’s experience is unique. It does not reflect the answer as to why believers, in general, suffer. With respect to your comment, God “can and does heal all whom he desires” and all whom he desires to heal are his people through their faith and obedience. This is clearly demonstrated in Jesus’ ministry. As far as examples outside of the Bible, Jim Elliot was martyred, as is the way of every believer who follows Jesus; it is also a promised experience for all who seriously take up their Cross. As someone said, the call of the Gospel is the call to die. However, Elliot is not an example of the idea that God wants his children to be sick. Joni Erickson’s condition does not necessarily support any scriptural truth; the fact that she (or anyone else) is a paraplegic does not necessarily warrant the idea that such is God’s will. Please find in the Bible where it says or clear instances that show God (a) blesses by making his chosen people sick, (b) desires believers to be sick, (c) promises or, at least, warns he will not heal those who believe and are obedient to him. Timothy’s sickness or weakness was healed by proper diet; divine intervention was not necessary. The idea that the apostle Paul had a sickness that was not healed is conjecture. Throughout Church history it is recorded that God has been healing. Eusebius asserts that idolaters “were now liberated by the power of Christ through the teaching and miracles of his messengers.” Origen (c.200) stated that Christians practiced casting out demons. Tertullian claimed, “the noblest Christian life is ‘to exorcise evil spirits – to perform cures – to live to God’.” “2000 years of scholarship and exegesis” apparently missed a lot! I agree it is not God’s desire that His people be sick. Sickness is permitted primarily as the consequence of sin and the judgment of God against it. As far as “numerous examples” of God not healing: Job 2:10 is covered above. It is mere conjecture to interpret 2 Cor 12:8-9 as referring to sickness. I agree he was sick, but where in 2 Timothy does it say Erastus was not healed? Heb 11:36 speak of persecution, not sickness. Deut. 28:22: I am not arguing sickness as judgment for disobedience. That is a given. I am arguing sickness as something God desires for His people. Note also God’s promises to heal should Israel obey (v.1-14). If Israel disobeys, they become sick; if they obey, they will be healthy. Pretty straightforward. In any case, God did not desire or want the people of Israel to be sick. |
||||||
39 | What it means to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ | John 3:16 | atdcross | 166455 | ||
Hi Kalos, I was not disagreeing with the Biblical concept of salvation by faith. I was only adding to your description of what "faith" is. The subject was "What it means to believe in Jesus." To believe in Jesus means to walk faithfully in God's will. I did not say that works save, although, I will say - in accordance with the scriptures I already cited (cf. ID#166398) - it is the faith that works (not "faith and works"; there is a difference), which saves. |
||||||
40 | What it means to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ | John 3:16 | atdcross | 166398 | ||
To believe in Jesus also means living a life that is faithful to God's will (cf. John 14:12; James 2:26; 1 John 5:1-5). | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |