Results 21 - 40 of 109
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Chris Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Mark, more info please! | Mark 9:23 | Chris | 8777 | ||
Mark, You cant leave me hanging! What is so undeniably important? |
||||||
22 | Steve, more insight please! | Mark 9:23 | Chris | 8776 | ||
Steve, Please consider my more detailed question I wrote for Nolan, and let me know if your answer is the same. How does the more clear question affect our interpretation of these Scriptures? |
||||||
23 | Mat 17:20 vs I Cor 13:2? | Mark 9:23 | Chris | 8741 | ||
Nolan, let me clarify my question. Jesus says that we need faith as a mustard seed, which was the smallest seed for planting purposes in Judea; I've heard they're almost as small as the head of a needle. But, Paul acts as if faith to move mountains is the most monumentous act of faith, how are we to interpret these Scripture together? Secondly, are the statements Paul makes in I Cor 13:1-3 possible? Notice that Paul states in vs. 2, "If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;" but in vs. 9,10 he states, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." So, is it possible to prophecy all mysteries and have all knowledge? If these are not possible, what about the other statements in vs 1 and 3? If vs. 2 is impossible what does that say about the other verses and how do I know if vs. 1 is possible? |
||||||
24 | Implications of Mat 17:20 vs I Cor 13:2? | Not Specified | Chris | 8670 | ||
Mat. 17:20 Vs I Cor 13:2; How are these verses to be interpreted in the light provided by each? Are the actions Paul mentions in I Cor. 13:1-3 possible? | ||||||
25 | Implications of Mat 17:20 vs I Cor 13:2? | Mark 9:23 | Chris | 8680 | ||
Mat. 17:20 Vs I Cor 13:2; How are these verses to be interpreted in the light provided by each? Are the actions Paul mentions in I Cor. 13:1-3 possible? | ||||||
26 | What???????????????????????????????????? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 8543 | ||
Hey Lionstrong, I’m writing in defense of Dispensationalism, and the aspects of dispensationalism described by Mr. Clark are correct. Unfortunately, his attempt to discredit this theology is shameful, at best! This author has chosen to set up dispensationalism as a ‘straw man.’(A perspective so weak that any rational interpretation of scripture rejects that perspective.) This is always done by making general claims about some form of Biblical interpretation and neglecting to mention the justifications and arguments for that interpretation. In this case, Mr. Clark makes some assumptions of his own and, without mentioning the dispensational view, concludes that dispensationalism is idiotic! I’m going to attempt to mention the weaknesses in Mr. Clark’s argument and give Biblical support of the dispensational view, but whether I succeed or fail, I’d encourage you to neglect this writer’s opinions; because, he obviously is willing to misinterpret the facts, or ignore them altogether, to support his view. I don’t want you to think I’m judging you or your theological perspective, there are many dispensationalists that set up reformed theology as a ‘straw man.’ And, I would not suggest reading them either! Any debate must be well considered and well researched, if the writer doesn’t do his/her homework, they should always be ignored. Ten Commandments before Moses: Gen. 2:3, 9:1-17; Romans 2:12-16. The claim was that Genesis ‘implied’ that the Ten Commandments were given to Adam. I disagree, if the giving of the Ten Commandments was so important for Moses as to be referenced more than once in the Law, why would they not warrant mention in the book of Genesis? You quote that the Commandments were repeated to Noah, where? See Gen. 9:1-17: in vs. 4 we see a prohibition from eating animals with their blood still in them. (Would that be ceremonial? It’s not one of the Ten, is it?) And, if we study vs. 6, we see that it is not a prohibition against murder, though clearly that was wrong by the vss implication, but rather a method of governing human activity. Whoever hurts a human being, by humans he will be hurt; hence the dispensation of human government. I don’t see anything in these verses that resembles the Ten Commandments! Finally, see Rms 2:12-16, in these verses Paul states that Gentiles did not have the Law (which includes the Ten), but if Adam and Noah had the Law in the form of the Ten, then the Gentiles would have had some of the Law but see vs. 12 ‘without the Law.’ But, Paul says in vs 14 that the Gentiles who ‘instinctively’ or ‘by nature’ do the things of the Law, so there must be an instinct in man to live according to some of GOD’s Laws, and I believe any resemblance between Genesis and the Ten can more appropriately be explained by this ‘instinct.’ Romans 5:13, 14: There are two main interpretations to these verses! Some interpret it in a similar way to Mr. Clark, without adding infant and voluntarily! Dispensationalism is actually more appropriate, in my view, with this interpretation! At the end of vs 13 we read, “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Mr. Clark, along with many others, realized that this ‘law’ is not the Law of Moses (and again, the Law of Moses includes the Ten), so what is this ‘law’? Obviously, it is some standard GOD set up before the Law to determine whether a man was righteous or not. This is exactly what Dispensationalism says! Each dispensation has a standard to which man must attain to be pleasing before GOD, some get closer than others (Noah, Abraham, Job). The other mainstream interpretation of these vss would be rejected by anyone of the Reformed persuasion, so there’s no use in discussing how well it interacts with Dispensationalism. Dispensational Support: Romans 3:21; 4:15, 16; 6:15; 7:1-6; 8:3-4 I didn’t continue past the book of Romans, I feel anything more would be repetitive. 3:21 - ‘apart from the Law’ the righteousness of GOD is displayed in Christ without the burden of the Law! 4:15,16 - Salvation comes to those NOT under the Law! 6:15 - We are NOT under the Law (there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law) but under GRACE! 7:1-6 - When one dies they are FREED from the Law, we have died with Christ! See vs. 6, “But now we have been released from the Law,” again, nothing to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law! 8:3,4 - The requirement of the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, including the Ten Commandments! Rebuttal of so-called ‘contradictions’: Of course Paul is NOT disparaging toward the Law! It is Holy, but we are NOT! Paul states that knowing the Law gave sin opportunity, so even though the Law is Holy, its affect on a man with a sinful nature is devastating, so GOD delivered us from the Law, including the Ten! |
||||||
27 | Sabbath-did you know? | Matt 12:1 | Chris | 7836 | ||
In defense of JVH, there is no passage in the New Testament telling us to observe a Sabbath DAY! In fact, the verses JVH cited suggest just the opposite, and if we are in a perpetual state of Sabbath(Heb 4:9-10), there is no single day in which we practice rest, it is practiced everyday. So, the issue is not mixing the Sabbath Day and the gathering day, but rather no longer observing a single day as the Sabbath and choosing a day in which Christians should gather together to encourage and exhort one another. The Bible seems clear that they chose the 'Lord's Day' which is the first day of the week, or Sunday the Resurrection Day. This is not a Biblical requirement or command, it is simply the day the apostles chose. | ||||||
28 | The Christian and the Law of God | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 7780 | ||
Lionstrong, I didn't take your last comments in a negative tone, but I wanted to ask, did you mean to suggest that dispensationalist are 'followers' of Scofield, or simply mean we follow the teaching he popularized? "In 1965, Dr. Charles Ryrie refocused dispensationalism. He suggested that what was essential to dispensationalism was not necessarily a specific prophetic timetable or belief in a certain number of dispensations. The essence of dispensationalism was a threefold sine qua non: 1. an understanding that the basic purpose of God's plan in history is manifesting His own glory, 2. a consistent employment of a normal or plain interpretation of the Scriptures,(This plain interpretation includes the correct identification and interpretation of figures of speech, symbols, and apocalyptic imagery. The problem is that the covenant theologians and other non-dispensationalists identification of these figures is much broader than the dispensationalist interpretation and is inconsistently applied. (Robert Dean Jr.)) 3. and a distinction between God's plan for ethnic and national Israel and the New Testament Church." (Essentials of Dispensational Theology,Robert Dean, Jr.) Lastly, I'd like to research your comments about Moral and Civil vs Ceremonial law in the New Testament. Could you give me the Scriptures that teach us that we are still under the Moral Law and no longer under the Ceremonial and Civil Law? Thanks, GOD bless! |
||||||
29 | Sabbath-did you know? | Matt 12:1 | Chris | 7768 | ||
Written by JVH0212: "Q: "...by what Scripture do you not keep [the 4th commandment]?" A: The Scriptures are: Colossians 2:16-17 Acts 20:7 Acts 15. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. In *Galatians 4:10-11*, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). In *Romans 14:5*, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). Heb 4:9-11. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). " Steve, I saw these Scriptures on a previous posting about Sabboths. I adapted it a little, but JVH always does a great job with finding Scripture. If you know a better interpretation of these verses please let me know! GOD bless! PS I don't believe we are bound by the Law, ANY of the Law(including the 10 Commandments)! I try to love all people just as Jesus loves me; if I do that I will not do many of the things prohibited by the Law, on the other hand, there will be many things that the Law prohibits that will not affect me in the least and I am in no way required to observe them. Whether I observe some of the commandments or not has no affect on my Salvation! The point that needs to be made is that Sabbaths and Circumcision are 'eternal' covenant commands, so some ask why we don't observe them, guess what? We DO! Notice Paul states that we, "were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;" Also, notice JVH's last quote Heb. 4:9-10, "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of GOD. For the one who has entered His(Christ) rest has himself also rested from his works, as GOD did from His." What is the rest of Christ? Salvation by faith NOT by works. And, if our works are over because of His (Christ) work we can enter GOD's rest, the perpetual state of Sabbath! So, we observe both these eternal covenants but in Spirit not in the flesh; because as our Lord said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Jn 6:63 |
||||||
30 | Arminian view of Called Rm 8:30? | Rev 21:27 | Chris | 7398 | ||
Hey Tim, I wanted to ask some questions about the Arminian view. I will be focusing my comments on Romans 8:29-30. I want to clarify some definitions according to this view: Foreknowledge (v29) - GOD knowing before hand who would be justified before Him through accepting Jesus Christ (believer’s acceptance) and who would be damned based upon their rejection of Jesus Christ. Correct? Called (v30) - Divine Call unto Salvation? (Strong’s #2564) I know that the word is used in Matthew 22:14 as ‘invited,’ but in Paul’s writing, how is this word defined? Do you believe this ‘call’ is revocable, as used in 8:29-30? I have always been bent toward freewill, and I probably always will be, but what I don’t understand is, if GOD foreknew who would choose Him of their own freewill, why did He ‘call’(2564) them(us)? And, if #2564 as Paul uses it is a ‘Divine Call’ unto Salvation, wouldn’t the fact that GOD ‘called’ all He foreknew still lead us to the conclusion of Eternal Security? GOD foreknows who will remain faithful to the end, but He only ‘calls’ those who do finish the course. So, wouldn’t the folks who fall short not be ‘Genuine Christians’ because they were never ‘called’ by GOD? As I’ve mentioned before, I am an Election/Responsibility person. As I understand it, this view fully recognizes man’s responsibility considering the unlimited atonement of Christ and the clear teaching that ‘whosoever will’ can be saved. This view completely rejects the idea of GOD predetermining some to hell, if someone goes to hell s/he holds the blame. However, this view also recognizes the Sovereignty of GOD in the Election of the saints (personal and corporate). How these two truths come together is beyond our realm of comprehension, but they are both clearly taught in Scripture (according to this view:-). |
||||||
31 | NASB95 study bible??? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 7358 | ||
Hey rover, I previously responed to your question, but I would like to modify my answer! I am reviewing a Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible, and I must admit that it is the most thorough study Bible I own! Unfortunately, I have the NIV version which is why it is not my number 1, but this study Bible in the NASB would be lights out(it is available in NASB95)! I have a website for a great deal on these Bibles, if you haven't already purchased one. If you would like it, respond back to me and give me you e-mail address! Extras that this Bible includes: A Synopsis of Bible Doctine (quite even handed, but Ryrie is a famed Dispensationalist!) Articles on: Bible inspiration, understanding the Bible, how we got the Bible, meaning and blessings of Salvation, archaelolgy and the Bible. Brief Survey of Church History Topical Index of Scripture Concordance (35000 entries in my NIV, WOW!) |
||||||
32 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6900 | ||
I'd like to add one more thing, Nolan. I truly believe that the CT and MT are great texts, thoroughly reliable, but often times I pick and choose which I believe is more accurate in certain situations. Examples: Mark 16:9-20, I tend to favor the CT, because the language in these verses is substantailly different from that of the rest of the book. There is also a viable reason for adding to this text, I believe the end was lost, and some good minded scribe was trying to remember the basic message given by Jesus. John 1:42,21:15-17 - I favor the MT, because we know from Matthew that Simon was called, "BarJonah" bar is an Aramaic word meaning son. So, was Peter the son of John or Jonah? Col 1:2 - This one drives me crazy! Paul always begins his letters with a salutation from the Father and the Son, off hand I don't know one letter by Paul that didn't include some time of greeting in the name of the Father and the Son, but the CT states, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father." That just doesn't sound right!! Here I obviously prefer the MT, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Great question, GOD bless!! |
||||||
33 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6899 | ||
Nolan, Actually, the Critical and the Majority are almost identical in Revelation, it's the Received Text that has so many variations. (I think the reason is that the fella that put the text together only had 6 Greek texts and all of them were missing portions of Revelation, so he translated the Latin Vulgate BACK to Greek.) Actually, the Majority Text is 'critically' appraised just like the Critical Text, but the two oldest manuscripts, which are the basis for the CT, are not given extra weight.(At least this is my understanding, I'm often wrong on these issues and my memory is not always reliabe! Darkness to Light is quite thorough on this issue, but you will have to ignore some of the reformed theology talk!) The Majority Text does give older manuscripts more weight, but not as disproprtiantly as the Critical. I would simply like a NASB Bible with all the variants between the CT and MT compared, in the back of the Bible or in the margin, like the NKJV. Unfortunately, the NKJV uses the RT and shows variants between the RT and MT and CT, so you end up looking in the margins more than you do in the text! (slight exaggeration:-) I also noticed that a new translation , the Holman Christian Standard Bible lables all varients but it doesn't tell you which is a varient from the MT verses a variant from the RT, HCSB uses the CT for the text. I don't trust the RT if the MT does not agree with it, see I Jn 5:7b in a KJV or NKJV, "For there are three that bear witness (in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.)" The brackets show what amount of this verse is in neither the MT nor the CT! This addition is only in a handful of manuscripts, and I do believe there was some tampering with the holy Scripture but it was late (after 1000AD?) shortly before the printing press. These variants are clearly weeded out by the Majority Text. One other note, an honest consideration of the book of Hebrews forces one to admit that the writer was using the LXX for quotations rather than the Hebrew Old Testament. And, some of the quotations used are not found in the Hebrew OT, so if GOD decided that the LXX was good enough for quotations in the NT, any of these three mss will lead us to the truth! GOD bless! |
||||||
34 | Study Bible Forum -- or Circus? | Gen 1:17 | Chris | 6860 | ||
Hank, I am inclined to agree with you. As one of those who has been involved in arguing, I apologize. I do not, however, believe that this forum should simply be a Bible trivia game or a stage for us to compare notes in our study Bibles. I believe this forum should be an opportunity for true seekers of GOD to discuss their understandings and experiences as Christians. I believe we should be exhorting, encouraging, and challenging each other to be more devoted bond-slaves of Christ Jesus. I think one problem has been that many folks (including myself) have asked questions that they have already made a decision about and are simply hoping to defend what they believe! I believe that we have been too busy defending what we believe rather than revealing what we don't know. Perhaps we still have not realized our helpless states, for though we admit to Jesus that we are helpless, we are still unwilling to admit it to each other! If we want to create a limitless Study Bible we need more than verse searches and book interpretations! We need progress reports from genuine Christians with genuine motives and genuine humility. We need to use each other as resources and encouragement. Since I am the one with all the suggestions, I'll be the one with a new line of questions: I've been struggling for some time now with GOD's will for my life. I know all the Scriptures, and I know that GOD's will for me first is to be sanctified, my question is, how do I know when I should be hearing from GOD? There have been times in my walk when I truly believe I would've been willing to drop everything and leave for Africa, but I never heard the 'call'. How do I know GOD has a particular will for my life, if I don't hear His 'call'? For any who have heard His 'call' for service, how did it happen, how did you hear, how did you know? I know the Bible teaches that He has a plan for each one of us, but at times I question that because I don't know what I should be doing! Has GOD dealt with any of you on this matter? How has GOD spoken to you? Do we all get a 'call'? As one Christian to others, I ask, what do I do next? GOD bless! |
||||||
35 | NASB95 study bible??? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6858 | ||
The best Bible I own is the one I just received, The Key Word Study Bible, Editor Spiros Zodhiates. Unfortunately, it is the 1977 NASB, but if you want a STUDY Bible this is it! The size is managable, it includes the definition of many Greek and Hebrew terms and the complete Strong's Definitions. Key words in the text are labelled with the Strong's number the it corresponds to, this Bible is great! Go to the Catalog caption at the top of the Forum website and you can scroll through ALL NASB 95 and 77 Bibles. There are lots to choose from! |
||||||
36 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6856 | ||
This is a good question, I prefer the Majority Text. This is not the Received Text, which if I recall correctly, was partially translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. (Revelation, in my opinion, SHOULD NOT be studied with the Received Text. The number of disagreements between the RT and both the CT and the MT are staggering; though the variations are minor every word counts!) In brief, I believe the scribes of the New Testament were abundantly faithful, and the easiest mistake to make when coping something is omission not addition. The original texts for almost all of the books of the New Testament were originally sent or kept in the Antioch area, so these autographs could be used for verification of texts. Also, it is stated in the writings of the Church Fathers that some of the Churches in Eygpt were guilty of apostasy at this time.(The approximate time of the mss.) To add to what Tim said, all manuscripts in English are 98 percent the same. (The differences in spelling and word order usually do not show up in translations.) I realize my defense of the MT is weak but I have some great websites! (And unfortunately, there is no mass marketed traslation of the MT, only the RT. As I stated early, I will not study the book of Revelation with this text so I use the NASB as well.) Majority Text Advocate: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html Critical Text Advocate: Dallas Theological Seminary - http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
37 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6855 | ||
This is a good question, I prefer the Majority Text. This is not the Received Text, which if I recall correctly, was partially translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. (Revelation, in my opinion, SHOULD NOT be studied with the Received Text. The number of disagreements between the RT and both the CT and the MT are staggering; though the variations are minor every word counts!) In brief, I believe the scribes of the New Testament were abundantly faithful, and the easiest mistake to make when coping something is omission not addition. The original texts for almost all of the books of the New Testament were originally sent or kept in the Antioch area, so these autographs could be used for verification of texts. Also, it is stated in the writings of the Church Fathers that some of the Churches in Eygpt were guilty of apostasy at this time.(The approximate time of the mss.) To add to what Tim said, all manuscripts in English are 98 percent the same. (The differences in spelling and word order usually do not show up in translations.) I realize my defense of the MT is weak but I have some great websites! (And unfortunately, there is no mass marketed traslation of the MT, only the RT. As I stated early, I will not study the book of Revelation with this text so I use the NASB as well.) Majority Text Advocate: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html Critical Text Advocate: Dallas Theological Seminary - http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
38 | More Info on Beliefs | 3 John 1:11 | Chris | 6709 | ||
Hey Tim, I've just finished reading all (and I mean all of them, not all kinds:-) of your posts, and I am quite impressed with your knowledge and your ability to express your views clearly! I was wondering what other beliefs you hold, say about end times or anything else. I applaud you for your patience and thoroughness when involved in discussions with the Reformed folks. I have not been quite as succesful myself, I am ashamed to say. I wanted to ask you a few more questions: 1. Rom. 9:19-21: I can adequately interpret all the other verses in this chapter assuming the Arminian point of view, but these three verses give me trouble. What's your take? (I know you wrote 60 pages, so a summary will suffice! I can work around these verses if I try, but it is not as you so eliquantly say, the most natural, clear reading. By the by, I do not ascribe to Arminianism, but I am certainly bent toward that direction when compared to 5-point Calvinists. I suppose I am a Election/Responsibility person, which means they're both true but only GOD knows how.) 2. I noticed your know-how with Greek. I was wondering what some of the best resources are? I have just purchased the "Key Word Study Bible" and the "Complete WordStudy Bible CD" both edited by Spiros Zodhiates. Have you seen these works? Any opinions? (The theology may not suit you, and it is quite prevalent, but the language info is worth it, in my opinion, but then Dr. Z is not that far from my beliefs.) Final note on this work, it is not as typical as you might think of an evangelical work, you had a question on I Tim 2:12, Dr. Z is quite adament about the fact that I Tim 2:11,12 should be wife and husband, rather than man, woman. And he is quite convincing, I never realized how ignorant I was just using the Strongs concordance!(I would have fought to the death that this verse COULD NEVER mean 'wife' but a little time with a better understanding of Greek and I've changed my mind!) The language is so much more than just the root words!(Voice, Mood, etc.) 3. Would you consider yourself Charismatic or Conservative? I don't want to get to personal, so if your not comfortable with this one, thats OK. I'm quite conservative, but I certainly desire a close relationship with my Lord. |
||||||
39 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5992 | ||
(Continued) As for I Tim, please consider Barnes New Testament Notes: ‘Who will have all men to be saved.' That is, it is in accordance with his nature, his feelings, his desires. The word will cannot be taken here in the absolute sense, denoting a decree like that by which he willed the creation of the world, for then it would certainly be done. But the word is often used to denote a desire, wish, or what is in accordance with the nature of any one. Thus it may be said of God that he "wills" that his creatures may be happy—because it is in accordance with his nature, and because he has made abundant provision for their happiness—though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he exerts his absolute power to make them happy. God wills that sickness should be relieved, and sorrow mitigated, and that the oppressed should go free, because it is agreeable to his nature; though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he exerts his absolute power to produce it. A parent wills the welfare of his child. It is in accordance with his nature, his feelings, his desires; and he makes every needful arrangement for it. If the child is not virtuous and happy, it is his own fault. So God wills that all men should be saved. It would be in accordance with his benevolent nature. He has made ample provision for it. He uses all proper means to secure their salvation. He uses no positive means to prevent it, and if they are not saved it will be their own fault. For places in the New Testament where the word here translated "will" (yelw) means to desire or wish, #Lu 8:20 23:8 Joh 16:19; #Ga 4:20 1Co 7:7 11:3 14:5 Mt 15:28 Mr 7:24. (Please take special note of this verse, "And from there He (Jesus) arose and went away to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house, He WANTED no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice." Emphasis mine, the word in all CAPS is the same word in the Greek that some translation render ‘will' in I Tim 2:4.) This passage cannot mean, as many have supposed, that God wills that all kinds of men should be saved, or that some sinners of every rank and class may be saved, because (1.) the natural and obvious interpretation of the language is opposed to such a sense. The language expresses the desire that "all men" should be saved, and we should not depart from the obvious sense of a passage unless necessity requires it. (2.) Prayer and thanksgiving #1Ti 2:1 are directed to be offered, not for some of all ranks and conditions, but for all mankind. No exception is made, and no direction is given that we should exclude any of the race from the expressions of our sympathy, and from an interest in our supplications. The reason given here for that prayer is, that God desires that all men should be saved. But how could this be a reason for praying for all, if it means that God desired only the salvation of some of all ranks? (3.) In #1Ti 2:5,6, the apostle gives reasons showing that God wished the salvation of all men, and those reasons are such as to prove that the language here is to be taken in the most unlimited sense. Those reasons are, (a) that there is one God over all, and one Mediator between God and men—showing that God is the Father of all, and has the same interest in all; and (b) that Christ gave himself a ransom for all—showing that God desired their salvation. This verse proves (1.) that salvation is provided for all—for if God wished all men to be saved, he would undoubtedly make provision for their salvation; and if he had not made such provision, it could not be said that he desired their salvation, since no one can doubt that he has power to provide for the salvation of all; (2.) that salvation should be offered to all men—for if God desires it, it is right for his ministers to announce that desire, and if he desires it, it is not proper for them to announce anything contrary to this; (3.) that men are to blame if they are not saved. If God did not wish their salvation, and if he had made no provision for it, they could not be to blame if they rejected the gospel. If God wishes it, and has made provision for it, and they are not saved, the sin must be their own—and it is a great sin, for there is no greater crime which a man can commit than to destroy his own soul, and to make himself the eternal enemy of his Maker. Great debate and GOD bless!! |
||||||
40 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5991 | ||
This will be my last post as well, Joe. I'm sure you're thinking, ‘FINALLY!' I just want to start by saying what an honor it has been to debate this issue with you! You have been polite, insightful, and thorough and I appreciate your point of view. And, you have truly made me seriously consider my opinion! So, thank you! I just want to finish with two issues you had previously mentioned which we see in different ways. Romans 8:29 (I apologize for quoting the incorrect verse in a previous correspondence.) dealing with ‘foreknowledge,' and I Timothy 2:4. First, Rm 8:29, I interpret this and the accompanying versus as a progression. In other words, each element mentioned is necessary before the next element can be accomplished. So with this interpretation, it would be impossible to take foreknowledge out of the equation; because, if we did the equation could not work. As to the differences in the view of foreknowledge, I would like to quote the Nelson Study Bible article titled ‘Election,' "Arminians, those who embrace the position of the seventeenth-century Dutch pastor Jacobus Arminius, understand ‘foreknowledge to mean GOD's knowledge in advance of those who would repent of their sin and believe the gospel." Later the article states, "Calvinists, named for the French Reformer John Calvin, understand ‘foreknowledge as a ‘relational' term. In other words, foreknowledge refers to GOD's intimate knowledge of and love for His elect before they coma into existence." And finally, the article concludes, "Put simply, Calvinists define ‘election' as the ‘unconditional choice of GOD that is the ‘cause of our faith. Arminians, on the other hand, would define it as the ‘conditional choice of GOD that is the ‘result' of our faith." Continued... |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |