Results 21 - 40 of 47
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 2852 | ||
Not only is the term "accept Christ" not in the Bible, but on what basis would the unregenerate decide to "accept Christ"? Would they judge His holiness, righteousness, divinity or Lordship to be worthy of their acceptance? Strange things we "Bible-Believing" Christians believe that are not even Biblical. But, you are correct, we don't like to be confused with all that doctrinal "stuff". Sam Hughey |
||||||
22 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 2861 | ||
Thanks JVH0212, I have often thought of doing this for my website, but it seems to be an overwhelming task. Perhaps I will give it more serious consideration for a newsletter or ezine, etc. Sam Hughey |
||||||
23 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 3190 | ||
Thanks JVH0212, I would have said precisely the same thing. It is when Christians, for whatever reason, cease thinking, reasoning, speaking, etc. biblically, then we are no less guilty than the Pharisees who distorted the Word of God to suit their own minds. While we say we intend no harm, I'm sure the Pharisees said the same. Sam Hughey |
||||||
24 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6345 | ||
Part 1 to Nolan, If I may be allowed to step into this discussion I would like to ask you a few questions in regards to your statements concerning your view of an age old Calvinistic opinion. Your statement, “…a person who is not 'elected' to salvation has no hope to repent and conversely the person who's election is predestined has no need to repent” is fraught with error and a lack of understanding of both the Bible and Calvinism. The doctrine of election is not a Calvinistic opinion, it is God’s holy word. Ephesians 1:3-6; "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Election and Predestination are not inventions of men and they are not left to the notions or opinions of man’s will to determine or alter what God has stated to be true. If one rejects and denies these to Biblical doctrines then that person rejects and denies the truth of God’s holy word. To say that God is obligated to save anyone is false and greatly dishonors God and exalts one’s opinion above the holy word of God. If you are attempting to force your opinion of God being obligated to save anyone by Acts 10:34-43 then you have both failed to do so and have accomplished the reverse. These verse do not say anything at all about God’s obligation to man, it only states that all who believe receive the forgiveness of sins. To say that God is obligated in any way whatsoever to do anything at all for man, is to deny the sovereignty of God and to exalt the will of man above the throne of God. Perhaps you can produce a verse that actually states God has obligated Himself to save anyone and without forcing an opinion onto the text? To your statement; “Due to God's pure nature He cannot go back on His Word” I agree and so does Isa. 55:11; “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (NASB). “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereunto I sent it” (KJV). If God’s will, which is His Word, goes forth from His mouth to save all humans without exception, then God cannot go back on His Word and all humans must be saved since God’s Word will successfully accomplish the purpose for which God sent it, which is salvation. Notice Nolan that it is God who said He saves on the basis of pleasing Himself and not because He is obligated to sinful man. Do you agree or disagree that Isa. 55:11 is true and that God’s Word will always be successful in the matter in which God sent it? You are correct in that God is not a respector of persons, however, how you are attempting to use this term has nothing to do with what you call “free-will”, in fact, it states quite the opposite. Nolan, the very words you are using refute your own claim that God is obligated. If God is obligated, then He is a respector of persons for he owes something to us. However, John 1:13 clearly states in regard to salvation that man’s will has absolutely nothing to do with whom God saves. To your statement, “Is God just being "nice" by offering salvation or is that his plan for mankind?. First of all, God does not offer salvation as a choice to be made by the unbeliever who is still dead in his sins and I challenge you to produce any verses of holy scripture that actually make that claim. In addition, God states in Eph. 1:5; “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (KJV) and He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will (NASB). Again, God predestined us to salvation according to the pleasure (kindness) of His own will and not ours. Sam Hughey Part 2 to follow: |
||||||
25 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6346 | ||
Part 2 to Nolan, To your statements; “Grace refers to salvation, kindness is a different thing” and “…you have to maintain that grace is universally available”, well, it is but that does not mean that all grace is universally salvific in nature. God’s grace bestows mercy on the godless as well as the godly just as He bestows wrath on the godly just as He does on the godless. You have erred in forcing the word “grace” to have reference only to salvation. John 1:14 states that Jesus was full of grace but that hardly refers to Jesus needing salvation, does it Nolan? Don’t force words to have only the meaning you want them to have. This is wrongly dividing the Word of God. Nolan, perhaps you need to heed your own adivce by your following statements to Reformer Joe; “Another missed point, you really must get back to context on Romans! Paul wrote Romans to those that were already saved. His references to 'elect' are to those who have FOLLOWED the 'Roman's road' to salvation”. Actually Nolan, what you call “Romans road” did not exist when Paul wrote this epistle. Don’t you think both God and Paul knew what they were writing? Since when do you think God needs 20th century slogans to save those whom He calls? In fact, the actual contextual recipients of Romans are those to whom God has called to receive salvation (v. 6,7). And, if Isa. 55:11 can escape your inclusionary opinions, then God means what He says and not what you want Him to be saying. If God calls an individual to receive salvation (which, by the way, no person can come to Christ unless they are called by the Father, John 6:44), then according to Isa. 55:11 God’s intent to save that person by calling him to receive salvation will be successfully accomplished. So, your statement, “God intends to save everyone but the failure is not His but belongs to the individual” is also false. If God’s intention is to save everyone, then everyone must be called by the Father for the purpose of receiving salvation according to Isa. 55:11 and John 6:44. John also states that whomever the Fathers calls, the Son will raise him up on the last day which refers to the eternal resurrection of those who are found in the Lamb’s book of life. There is absolutey nothing at all in either Isaiah or John that says anything at all about man choosing or the fault is man’s for not being saved. This is clearly an Arminian inclusion or insertion onto the text in order to self-justify a man-centered doctrine of a false gospel. If anyone preaches a gospel other than what John clearly and unambiguously states in verses 44, then one is preaching a false gospel. To your statement to Reformer Joe; “I hope that you can answer some of these flaws that I have shown about your Calvinistic beliefs”, perhaps Nolan, you would spend your time gaining a more correct understanding of Holy Scripture and Calvinistic theology. Reformer Joe has not consulted with me and he doesn’t need to. He merely relies on what God states without embellishing God’s word. Sam Hughey |
||||||
26 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6362 | ||
Nolan, I'm sorry to see you no longer desire to defend your beliefs or to refute Calvinism. I realize you won't respond to this but I would be less than honorable if I fail to respond to more of your false claims. Perhaps you did not understand anything I wrote or you just simply chose to ignore everything I wrote, but nowhere did I ever misquote you and after having believed what you believe for 9 years prior to my conversion to Reformed theology, I know quite well both how and why you view salvation as you do. I advise you to look again at both the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) and Eph. 4:25,29. Making light of your accusations and God's holy word will have consequences that will follow you in all that you say and do on this forum and elsewhere. It is a sin to falsley accuse someone and dishonorable to ridicule someone's biblical belief while refusing to acknowledge the plain and simple truth in God's holy word. I pray you at least reconsider your actions even if you no longer desire to discuss this issue. Sam Hughey |
||||||
27 | God's gospel or Man's gospel? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 7865 | ||
JVH0212, Thanks. Sometimes the silence speaks more than words. Sam Hughey |
||||||
28 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3460 | ||
Elijah, You have twice not answered my question about the source of the alleged changes you claim to have been made in the Bible. So, I will suppose you do not have an answer and the accusation is false. Do you understand the seriousness of such an accusation? Also, I never said anything at all about God not using women in ministry and you should discover much more about Aimee Semple McPherson before you associate the name Christian with her. Sam Hughey |
||||||
29 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3509 | ||
JVH0212, I agree and I realize some might think of this as trivial, but if one is a Christian then one must take seriously the accusations they make (Ex. 20:16;Eph. 4:25). It seems to me that many Christians today want to be "Bible-Believers" but not "Bible-Doers". I would be more than willing to discuss this at length with Elijah, but only on the grounds of true statements or at least statements he would be willing to say he truly doesn't understand, as with any believer. Sam Hughey |
||||||
30 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3617 | ||
Hank, It would greatly depend upon what the difference actually is and, like you said, opinion or heavily skewed sectarian bias might cause one to see a particular translation as suspect when it really isn't. Sam Hughey |
||||||
31 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3625 | ||
Thanks Hank, I will agree that the lone translation, standing in stark contradiction to a widely trusted and accepted orthodox translation by reputable and unquestionable translators would be considered suspect of error. I would also say that vague and ambiguous dialogue concerning non-specific error can be equally suspect. So, could you be a little more specific as to what you are talking about? By the way, George Washington was not the first President the US had. He was the first President of the US under the Constitution. There were several other Presidents over the colonies which would become the US and were considered the US by many even prior to the Constitution. Is this the type of "suspect" error to which you were referring? Sam Hughey |
||||||
32 | Can a deacon drink wine with dinner? | 1 Tim 3:3 | reformedreader | 2979 | ||
rwash, Thanks for responding but I think somehting has been missed in our communication. I merely presented what 1 Timothy 3:3 correctly states about the qualification for a Deacon and the consumption of wine. I also stated that churches have no authority from God to create standards not already created in Holy Scripture. I don't understand your response about a contradiction between what Jesus taught and what God wanted for His people. Perhaps you could explain that and also what you meant by "Grace supplanted(?) work as the answer to finding favor with God." Thanks, Sam Hughey |
||||||
33 | do churches need to be founded by an apo | 2 Timothy | reformedreader | 3023 | ||
bro bob, In reference to "what fellowhsip does light have with darkness", I would ask if you believe light refers to those who are the redeemed of the Lord and dark refers to those who are not. If you believe this (and I certainly hope you do), then the comparison is intimate fellowship believers have with unbelievers to the point believers are influenced by unbelievers into thinking and acting like unbelievers. Scripture nowhere forbids Christians from having fellowship with other Christians except in the case Paul mentions in the Corinthian church. If one thinks they should be exhibiting the actions of the Apostles, then I would also demand them to raise the dead since the Apostle did that also. Have you done this? JohnnyRay49423 is correct in placing our emphases on Jesus instead of ourselves. Signs and Wonders we do (or fake doing) are not the gospel and nowhere did the Apostles teach such. Sam Hughey |
||||||
34 | A Universal Answer to Bible questions. | 2 Tim 3:16 | reformedreader | 5118 | ||
JVH0212, Excellent suggestions and I would add only one additional thought to the following: 7) Remember that: We must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And SINCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ITSELF, ANY INTERPRETATION OF A SPECIFIC PASSAGE THAT CONTRADICTS THE GENERAL TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS TO BE REJECTED. We must always remember to interpret the unclear verses with the clearer verses. Verses that neither implicitly nor explicitly state something to be a fact cannot be used to determine one's theological belief on any given subject. They might indeed "add" support to other verses to conclude a theological belief on any given subject, but in and of themselves, they cannot create that belief based on their vagueness and ambiguity. We must rely on verses that are clear, distinct and which speak directly to the point we are attempting to make. Sam Hughey |
||||||
35 | Halting short of faith in Christ. | Heb 6:4 | reformedreader | 6272 | ||
JVH0212, A very good explanation and understanding of verses that seem to give Christians trouble interpreting. Many believe "having been enlightened" and "tasted the heavenly gift" must refer to the (alleged) offer of salvation but this is not at all what the writer is referencing. Sam Hughey |
||||||
36 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7667 | ||
Nolan Keck, I must respectfully disagree with your statement, "God's prior knowledge of all things, based on His relation to them, is the basis of our election." 1 Peter 1:20 refers to the foreknowledge of Jesus Christ, not our election to salvation. Romans 8:29 does not say anything about election being based on foreknowledge. It only says that those whom God foreknew were predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. It does not say on what basis God foreknew anyone or the relationship between foreknowing and electing. Romans 11:2 also does not say on what basis God foreknew anyone, only that He foreknew His people. The idea of electing to salvation those whom God foresaw would accept Him is not in Scripture. Actually, the basis for God electing anyone to salvation is clear from the following verses: Ephesians 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will" 1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" Scripture clearly states that God elected to salvation, His people, whom He would call, based solely and entirely on God's own will and mercy that pleases Himself. It pleases God (or God pleases Himself) to elect a people He would call to receive salvation. If God elects on the basis of foreknowing who would accept Him, then election is based on man’s choosing and not foreknowledge. It would be man’s choosing that caused God to foreknow. Election would be a senseless act on the part of God since one’s salvation will be determined (not predetermined) on the basis of a willful action of the unbeliever at some time in the future. This view would place man’s choosing as the cause and basis for election to salvation and not what God says in both Eph. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:3. God would only predestine (elect) as an after thought as a result of a human's choosing. The word predetermine must refer to an act prior to any action on the part of any other or it is not “pre”determined. Predestination refers to one's destiny (destination) and is foreknown by God simply because God is the one who predetermines one's destination. Sam Hughey |
||||||
37 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7832 | ||
Nolan, I appreciate your response Nolan, but I think some of your statements seem a bit confusing or even contradictory. Your summation seems to contradict everything you previously stated. Your statement, "God elected people to salvation who He foreknew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith" contradicts your previous statement, "I agree with you that man's choosing is not the cause and basis for election to salvation". Which is it? God elected us to salvation based either on His own pleasure or our choosing but it cannot be both. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly and unambiguously states that God foresaw anyone's alleged "free-will" decision and then on that basis elected (chose) to save us. This clearly contradicts Eph. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:3. Neither of these verses say, imply, infer or even remotely suggests the will of the unbeliever is either free or has any determining factor in their salvation. Could you perhaps explain why you would insist on the unbeliever "causing" God to elect him on the basis of his willful decision? Thanks, Sam Hughey |
||||||
38 | Election, Summary. | 1 Pet 1:2 | reformedreader | 7930 | ||
Nolan, Thank you for your response and explanation. May we continue with a need for more clarification and explanation? Who is it that is making this conscious choice? Is it the unbeliever or the believer? If it is the unbeliever, then his will is not free to make a conscious choice. And if his salvation is dependent upon his choice, then election cannot be separated from his choice and his ability to make that choice. This is where I see a contradiction. If God elects to salvation based only upon His own good pleasure, then the unbeliever’s choice both doesn’t exist and would be irrelevant if it did. Now, I do believe the believer makes a conscious “response” to God’s calling but his response is not a decision to receive or reject God’s calling but, rather, as a result of God’s calling. As stated before, Christ said whomever the Father calls, He (Christ) will raise that person to eternal life on the last day. If the Father calls all humans, then all humans will be raised to eternal life on the last day. And we both know that is not true that all humans will be raised to eternal life on the last day and we both know that choosing to be saved is not a condition our Lord placed in John 6:44. God’s foreknowledge of our actions (mental or physical) has no bearing on His electing us to salvation prior to our actions. That would be the contradiction. God elects solely on the basis of His own desire to please Himself. That is the doctrine of election. Salvation is the result of election. The two cannot be separated. We cannot have a doctrine for election and a different doctrine for salvation. They are as inseparable as the Trinity itself. God does not elect anyone on the basis of a foreseeable action on the part of man. If that were true, then God’s election is based on the actions of man and not on God’s own pleasure. Nolan, you are saying (even if unintentionally) that God acts upon the unbeliever’s action by your statement, “God elected people (before the beginning of the world) to salvation who He foreknew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith”. First, there is nothing in Eph. 1:4 that says anything at all about choosing to be saved as part of having been elected since before the foundation of the world. Second, there is nothing in the entire New Testament that says anything about salvation being the result of the unbeliever choosing to be saved. It were so, that action contradicts God electing to salvation on the basis of His own pleasure. You are saying that God elects to save because He knows who will use their free will to choose to be saved. So, if it is on the basis of the unbeliever’s free will choosing that God saves and since salvation is the result of election, it is only the natural course of this view to say that God elects to salvation on the basis of what He foresees the unbeliever doing. Can you show me where any scripture says anything at all about the unbeliever making choices in order to be saved. Again, you cannot separate election from salvation. My view of election to salvation is no different than my view on salvation by election. We simply cannot create antithetical views of election and salvation and I do agree that the doctrine of election is firmly entrenched in nothing but the personal pleasure of God. Since we both agree on that, I fail to see why you do not view salvation as the natural result of election instead of the result of the unbeliever’s actions. Sam Hughey |
||||||
39 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6050 | ||
prayon, With all due respect sir, I think we know this to be true because God stated it to be a fact, not because we (allegedly) found the ark on the top of Mt. Arafat. (Arafat is the name of a Palestinian leader, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat) Although this did happen in the flesh, it is also a "type" of spiritual salvation. The ark represents Christ, Noah and his family representing the human race (literally), the waters have a unilateral meaning. Water was used to destroy and to cleanse, representing the washing of regeneration when the old man dies and the new man becomes alive. This is the Spirit's baptism, not a water baptism. The waters both destroyed and cleansed the earth and the waters never touched Noah and his family but by faith they were saved by the same waters that destroyed all other life. Sam Hughey |
||||||
40 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6270 | ||
prayon, I wasn't attempting to be critical of your spelling, I just wanted to point it out in case you hadn't noticed. My spelling is not always what it should be either. Assumptions can be dangerous, especially when assuming biblical theology on any given issue. This has permeated the church today to such an extent that learning scripture has been left to the theology of assumption and the doctrine of emotions. One may "assume" whatever "feels" right and therefore it becomes "biblical". No personal criticism is intended with this statement, only an observation of what is going on in the body of Christ today where a theological education is all but erased from many churches. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |