Results 21 - 40 of 86
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: JRdoc Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | there's many denomination yet 1 spirit | Eph 5:1 | JRdoc | 61569 | ||
You Probably did not read the originals posts: The terms lalein glossei/glossais (to speak in a tongue/in tongues) that Paul uses so frequently in chapter 14 were commonly used in his day to describe pagan ecstatic speech. In the church at Corinth much of the tongues–speaking had taken on the form and flavor of those pagan ecstasies. Emotionalism all but neutralized their rational senses, and selfish exhibitionism was common, with everyone wanting to do and say his own thing at the same time (v. 26). Services were bedlam and chaos, with little worship and little edification taking place. It is an interpretive key to this chapter to note that in verses 2 and 4 tongue is singular (cf. vv. 13, 14, 19, 27), whereas in verse 5 Paul uses the plural tongues (cf. vv. 6, 18, 22, 23, 39). Apparently the apostle used the singular form to indicate the counterfeited gift and the plural to indicate the true. Recognizing that distinction may be the reason the King James translators supplied unknown before the singular. The singular is used of the false because gibberish is singular; it cannot be gibberishes. There are no kinds of pagan ecstatic speech; there are, however, kinds of languages in the true gift, for which the plural tongues is used. The only exception is in v. 27, where the singular is used to refer to a single man speaking a single genuine language. MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes. (1 Co 14:6). Chicago: Moody Press. |
||||||
22 | there's many denomination yet 1 spirit | Eph 5:1 | JRdoc | 61561 | ||
Ed.B. YOU SAID: "Where do you get your information? Tongues is from the tower of Babel and dispensationism is from tongues and automatic handwritting (??). That is utter nonsense. Do yourself a favor and don't repeat that." You made statement, but did not support it? PLEASE note I did not say TONGUES (PL)--those were a gift from God and in the Book of Acts and in 1 Cor 14. I did state the "UNKNOWN TONGUE" (Singular--particular vs in 1 Cor 14) which descended down throughout pagan history......and "you" wonder why there is so much diversity among denominations?? You need to take some courses in church history. Apparently from your reply you have not traced any of the doctrines of Scripture in history or more importantly according to the text of Scripture. Read some books: Dispensationalism--RIghtly Dividing the People of God? by Keith Mathison Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by John Gerstner Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Godet, Franz. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. MacArthur, John F., Jr. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians Robertson, Archibald, and A. Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Spiritual Gifts, by John MacArthur. |
||||||
23 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | JRdoc | 61554 | ||
Hank YOU SAID:"The Arminian perspective is a philosophy, is it? So what, pray tell, is Calvinism, the inerrant voice of God? --Hank" Man this place a time with "context." I was using the term "philosophy" in the "context" that we should not begin with a premise of human thought (i.e. "the Arminian perspective" the term used by its original poster), but Scripture (God's thought) and from that see the "Theology of God" and not the "Philosophy of Man." Please re-read the "context." Hank: One cannot begin the study of God's word from preconceived thoughts but only line upon line precept upon precept, from the Scripture itself. If you think Arminianism is more than philosophy, prove it. State a Scripture. Give your interpretation from the original language and lets go.....you choose... |
||||||
24 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | JRdoc | 61538 | ||
1. YOU SAID: “Dear John, “ John did not write this! -JRdoc, unless of course this is my good-bye letter to be kept from the forum… 2. YOU SAID: “that actually deal specifiically with the sovereignity of God WITHIN the Arminian perspective”….” That is not an idea held WITHIN the Arminian perspective.” So I cannot look at Scripture to assert the truth. The Arminian perspective is a philosophy. You can not begin with a false premise (philosophy) and end up with truth! Begin with a Scripture and lets examine that, but this “from the Arminian perspective” business, just because you assert it does not make it truth. State a specific Scripture. Let us look at the Greek or Hebrew. Let us discuss the Word of God and not a slide or the Dollar Store—though your illustrations were found faulty. 3. YOU SAID: “ Please remember that we are only talking about whether it is possible for God to be soverign in the Arminian perspective, thus it is not helpful to try to convince me to believe in the Calvinist perspective.” It is not possible “for God to be sovereign in the Arminian perspective” and since I cannot use Scripture, it is not possible to state the truth. Arminianism sees man as “partly” sovereign and in turn takes away from God’s total control (sovereignty). Again, I stressed in the original reply that C- does not deny a will, but at a different time and to a different degree than A- 4. YOU SAID: “For instance, in our town their is a store where everything costs 1 dollar. Now a parent could go to that store and lay a dollar bill on the counter and then tell their kid to go pick out any on thing in the store and the money on the counter will pay for it. The kid then actually does have freedom to choose whatever they want, but the parent’s “prophecy” will still come true when they bring it up to be paid for and the dollar bill is already there. This is an example of a time when a subject can be given both the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make a choice while at the same time some future things will not change. Since God is all powerful, couldn’t He do the same thing” A. Yes, he will pick something that costs a dollar, but he would never select that which belongs to God: Rom 3:11 “There is NONE that UNDERSTANDETH, there is NONE that SEEKETH after God.” Or in this case NONE would SELECT God’s merchandise for he would not have a will to this disposition. The God of this world has blinded him so he could not see to make that selection.—SCRIPTURE!—2 Cor 4:4. B. Again, you assume the child is spiritually alive to make this choice when the Scripture affirms he is dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1). He is dead he can not see or even walk to God’s shelf. C. You are assuming God is parent that only offers a “chance” at salvation and are making the offer a smorgasbord (The Dollar Store). The Scripture says: John 6: 40 And THIS IS THE WILL OF HIM that sent me, THAT EVERY ONE WHICH SEETH the Son, and BELIEVETH ON HIM [a gift], MAY [without a doubt, not just a chance] have everlasting life: and I WILL [without a doubt, not just a chance] raise him up at the last day. (chapter 17 of John has several other illustrations, et. al.). Jesus went after the 1 lost sheep (not goat), salvation is more than a “possibility,” it is God’s eternal “promise” to His elect. D. You fail to understand the “foreknowledge “ of God—meaning relational-ship knowledge (Gen 4:1; Rom 8—pro-ginosoko, yada). God has a relational-ship knowledge with His elect from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1) and has elected, predestined His choice (Rom 9). 5. YOU SAID: “Couldn’t He create a universe where humans have the FREEDOM and ABILITY to choose whether to love God or not, yet at the same time be able to determine several critical points along the way (including the end of time)? And if God had the ability to, at any point, take back over and dictate everything, then wouldn’t He still be completely in control? See you changed the sovereignty of God when you said “several critical points”, but not “all points—and all are critical” so you are asserting that God is only partly sovereign? The only way Arminianism may come close to proving its point is not to look at the Scripture. 6. YOU SAID: “Just because God chooses not to excersize His abilitiy to dictate everything, does that make Him cease to be supremely powerful?” Yes it does. Dan 4: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and HE DOETH ACCORDING TO HIS WILL in the army of heaven, and AMONG THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH: and NONE CAN STAY HIS HAND, or say unto him, What doest thou? |
||||||
25 | there's many denomination yet 1 spirit | Eph 5:1 | JRdoc | 61533 | ||
P.S. You posted this twice? YOU SAID: “If there is one spirit why is there so many interpretation on the Word of God; and why is there so many denominations. “ You are assuming they are all interpreting the Scripture from the viewpoint of the Word of God and His Spirit. Trace the history of the churches, denominations and such and you will be very surprised how many “false theologies” did not find their beginning in the text of Scripture, but in a cult…….i.e. the unknown tongue of 1 Cor 14 may be traced back to the Tower of Babel (see thread on this) dispensationalism may be traced back to the Tongues movement and automatic handwriting….and the list goes on…. There is a difference between exegesis (rightly dividing the Word of God) and “I”sogesis (assuming your mind and thoughts upon the text). YOU SAID “Wouln't that mean that christ is a polygamist if he embraced all of them churches. Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wive............(read)not plural. I only have one wife. Christs has many wives(churches) is that possible.” There is only ONE true CHURCH and not many churches. Christ’s true CHURCH (sing) is in many churches (Pl). No one denomination has “all” the saved without exception in it (there are tares among the wheat in every church…..and here I speak of evangelical churches not the cults...). There is one bride and One Lord, Christ died for His Church and nothing more and it is The Church that will rise to be with Him in the end…… |
||||||
26 | christ has many wives | Eph 5:1 | JRdoc | 61531 | ||
YOU SAID: “If there is one spirit why is there so many interpretation on the Word of God; and why is there so many denominations. “ You are assuming they are all interpreting the Scripture from the viewpoint of the Word of God and His Spirit. Trace the history of the churches, denominations and such and you will be very surprised how many “false theologies” did not find their beginning in the text of Scripture, but in a cult…….i.e. the unknown tongue of 1 Cor 14 may be traced back to the Tower of Babel (see thread on this) dispensationalism may be traced back to the Tongues movement and automatic handwriting….and the list goes on…. There is a difference between exegesis (rightly dividing the Word of God) and “I”sogesis (assuming your mind and thoughts upon the text). YOU SAID “Wouln't that mean that christ is a polygamist if he embraced all of them churches. Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wive............(read)not plural. I only have one wife. Christs has many wives(churches) is that possible.” There is only ONE true CHURCH and not many churches. Christ’s true CHURCH (sing) is in many churches (Pl). No one denomination has “all” the saved without exception in it (there are tares among the wheat in every church…..and here I speak of evangelical churches not the cults...). There is one bride and One Lord, Christ died for His Church and nothing more and it is The Church that will rise to be with Him in the end…… |
||||||
27 | What are God's Names? | Gen 1:1 | JRdoc | 61528 | ||
• Elohim (God) • Jehovah/Yahweh (the self-existent one: I AM) • Jehovah-jireh (the Lord will provide) • Jehovah-rapha (the Lord who heals) • Jehovah-nissi (the Lord our banner) • Jehovah-Shalom (the Lord our peace) • Jehovah-ra-ah (the Lord my shepherd) • Jehovah-tsidkenu (the Lord our righteousness) • Jehovah-shammad (the Lord is present) • Jehovah-Elohim (the Lord God) • Jehovah Sabaoth (the Lord of hosts) • El Elyon (the most high God) • Adonai (our master) • El Shaddai (Almighty God, the strength giver) • El Olam (everlasting God) (1) Elohim: The plural form of EL, meaning “strong one.” It is used of false gods, but when used of the true God, it is a plural of majesty and intimates the trinity. It is especially used of God’s sovereignty, creative work, mighty work for Israel and in relation to His sovereignty (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18; Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7). Compounds of El: • El Shaddai: “God Almighty.” The derivation is uncertain. Some think it stresses God’s loving supply and comfort; others His power as the Almighty one standing on a mountain and who corrects and chastens (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2). • El Elyon: “The Most High God.” Stresses God’s strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25). • El Olam: “The Everlasting God.” Emphasizes God’s unchangeableness and is connected with His inexhaustibleness (Gen. 16:13). (2) Yahweh (YHWH): Comes from a verb which means “to exist, be.” This, plus its usage, shows that this name stresses God as the independent and self-existent God of revelation and redemption (Gen. 4:3; Ex. 6:3 (cf. 3:14); 3:12). Compounds of Yahweh: Strictly speaking, these compounds are designations or titles which reveal additional facts about God’s character. • Yahweh Jireh (Yireh): “The Lord will provide.” Stresses God’s provision for His people (Gen. 22:14). • Yahweh Nissi: “The Lord is my Banner.” Stresses that God is our rallying point and our means of victory; the one who fights for His people (Ex. 17:15). • Yahweh Shalom: “The Lord is Peace.” Points to the Lord as the means of our peace and rest (Jud. 6:24). • Yahweh Sabbaoth: “The Lord of Hosts.” A military figure portraying the Lord as the commander of the armies of heaven (1 Sam. 1:3; 17:45). • Yahweh Maccaddeshcem: “The Lord your Sanctifier.” Portrays the Lord as our means of sanctification or as the one who sets believers apart for His purposes (Ex. 31:13). • Yahweh Ro’i: “The Lord my Shepherd.” Portrays the Lord as the Shepherd who cares for His people as a shepherd cares for the sheep of his pasture (Ps. 23:1). • Yahweh Tsidkenu: “The Lord our Righteousness.” Portrays the Lord as the means of our righteousness (Jer. 23:6). • Yahweh Shammah: “The Lord is there.” Portrays the Lord’s personal presence in the millennial kingdom (Ezek. 48:35). • Yahweh Elohim Israel: “The Lord, the God of Israel.” Identifies Yahweh as the God of Israel in contrast to the false gods of the nations (Jud. 5:3.; Isa. 17:6). (3) Adonai: Like Elohim, this too is a plural of majesty. The singular form means “master, owner.” Stresses man’s relationship to God as his master, authority, and provider (Gen. 18:2; 40:1; 1 Sam. 1:15; Ex. 21:1-6; Josh. 5:14). (4) Theos: Greek word translated “God.” Primary name for God used in the New Testament. Its use teaches: (1) He is the only true God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30); (2) He is unique (1 Tim. 1:17; John 17:3; Rev. 15:4; 16:27); (3) He is transcendent (Acts 17:24; Heb. 3:4; Rev. 10:6); (4) He is the Savior (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10). This name is used of Christ as God in John 1:1, 18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Tit. 2:13; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1. (5) Kurios: Greek word translated “Lord.” Stresses authority and supremacy. While it can mean sir (John 4:11), owner (Luke 19:33), master (Col. 3:22), or even refer to idols (1 Cor. 8:5) or husbands (1 Pet. 3:6), it is used mostly as the equivalent of Yahweh of the Old Testament. It too is used of Jesus Christ meaning (1) Rabbi or Sir (Matt. 8:6); (2) God or Deity (John 20:28; Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:11). (6) Despotes: Greek word translated “Master.” Carries the idea of ownership while kurios stressed supreme authority (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4). (7) Father: A distinctive New Testament revelation is that through faith in Christ, God becomes our personal Father. Father is used of God in the Old Testament only 15 times while it is used of God 245 times in the New Testament. As a name of God, it stresses God’s loving care, provision, discipline, and the way we are to address God in prayer (Matt. 7:11; Jam. 1:17; Heb. 12:5-11; John 15:16; 16:23; Eph. 2:18; 3:15; 1 Thess. 3:11). http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
28 | "And to the angel of the church in Phila | Rev 3:1 | JRdoc | 61518 | ||
Philadelphia: Here are some notes for interpretation, hope this helps? Christ addresses Himself as the Holy and True One—contrasting the pre-tense of the non-believing Jews were not pleasing to Him. Christ alone has the Key of David (Is 22:22, Mat 16:19, 28, Rev 5:5). The opened door means (1) the wonderful opportunity to proclaim the Gospel (2) the operation of God’s grace creating willing ears to hear and eager hearts to accept (2 Cor 2:12; Col 4:3; Acts 14:27). Against Jewish scoffers the church had kept the “word of patience.” Divine protection “I will Keep” and exhortation to continue “hold fast”…. 4 fold promise to the conquerors: (1) they will prevail and gain the victory (2) be kept safe through the hour of trail—Is 43:2; Mk 13:20 (3) conquerors (all in Christ—see 1 John or Rom 8) will abide in Heaven—permanence –pillar—Ps 27:4 (4) assurance that he belongs to God—name of his God, new Jerusalem,…... |
||||||
29 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | JRdoc | 61512 | ||
Sir Pent: YOU SAID: "In fact, if a mere parent can allow their child to pick which slide to go down in the park without it diminishing the parent’s strength and ability, then wouldn’t it be logical that God (who has infinately more power) could allow a human to choose whether to love Him or not without it diminishing God’s power or control?" The difference is God knows which slide had razor blades put on it the night before by .....and would not desire "this child" to slide to his death. In other words God is Sovereign in both ability, knowledge, and His desire, (etc) which shall take place. Your word picture also fails to picture that the child is dead and can not slide in the first place..... he is "dead" in trespasses and sin thus not alive to choose. It fails to recognize that the child does not know what a slide is and does not know even how to use it. Remember we are talking about “initial” salvation.—thus the question “What must I do to be saved?”, not “What choice will I make?” Since, no man seeketh after God, who do you think puts this in the heart of man to ask—God. Where you are missing it at here is Total Depravity, which I assume you do not believe, but contend man still has "some" ability. But from the C- perspective (and from Scripture) man does not have the "any ability" to chose God, UNTIL God chooses him. To affirm that he does makes salvation a "work," to which God then would not be the author of salvation. C- does not do away with choice, it just looks at choice in a different time-line and degree than A- C- Sees God enabling man (making him alive) so then he will irresistibly chose what he could not see in the past---As per my example in the Sovereignty and Free-Will thread. After salvation C- sees man having a freer choice (one with light), but still not as free as A- asserts: 1 Thess 2:18 .....there are still hindrances to our will after salvation as well....can we chose when Christ is coming again..... Some desire this or that and never attain this or that, because God says your thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are your ways my ways......and God controls the elements, the circumstances, the conversations, the issues, "all" without exception, to accomplish His direction in "each life" (not just the saved) so His will, will be carried out in its entirety—it is His universe! He may do this both directly and indirectly and without sin. ...”Everything” affects “Everything” else and if God is not sovereign in “all, without exception”, than He can not be God, for “Something” would not be under His immediate and direct control and thus “Everything” from that point would change “Everything” else. Simply if it were not for the sovereignty of God in life then the dead could never chose God—one logically comes before the other. Lazarus came forth when his name (very specific) was called (he came to life and then came forth and then was loosed…), not before because he was dead…..Lydia did not chose first, but God opened her heart…… (Acts 16)……(Acts 26:18, John 12:37-41, et. al. ) Simply, if you attempt to isolate the Sovereignty of God from the Depravity of man you will end in error when it comes to the theology of the atonement. |
||||||
30 | Discussion Question | Matt 19:24 | JRdoc | 61499 | ||
Deb: We see both views in Scripture. Some are and will be poor giving those that are rich an opportunity to obey God's Word to give. In both instances sin may enter in. The poor can chase after riches as their "god" and the rich can worship riches as theirs. It is not sin to be either rich or poor, but it is sin to mishandle anything God gives. Some have the gift of giving, hard to fo if one does not have the riches to give. There is a man that supports my ministry who is very wealthy. His house is maybe 130,000 (which is not big or even average for our area), he has two nice vehciles, he sent his sons and daughters through college...he gives....and yet you would never know he was worth millions upon millions (unless you know his company's stock...which is still going well I may add). |
||||||
31 | What does your church believe? | John 1:1 | JRdoc | 61494 | ||
Our church is SBC, but hold to the 'original" SBC......doctrine: We hold to the Abstract of Principles and you may read about all that here: http://www.founders.org/library/founders.html |
||||||
32 | Why were Adam and Eve unable to resist? | Gen 3:6 | JRdoc | 61492 | ||
The Scripture asserts that it was part of God's plan, though He did not sin in the process. Ephesians 1 is very clear on this. Christ was predestined to die before the foundation of the world. In other words God knew they were going to fall before they were formed and thus could have stopped if He had desired--He is God afterall.... For a deeper study on this you need to look up the terms "Infralapsarianism" and "Supralapsarianism" though I agree with neither, it does give some revelance to the issue. The question normally arises "why?" Very briefly Adam and Eve had a good relationship with God. They walked with Him in the Garden. They saw Him, they knew Him, but they did not "know" Him the way He was intending for them to know Him in all eternity..... They did not know the totality of His love.... No greater lover hath a man than this than that HE lay down His life .... Thus, because of Calvary (while we were "yet" sinners Christ...), now man can see this (that is His elect can see it) and one day we will be able to enjoy God's love and understand it even more fully than Adam and Eve did originally. May God Bless. |
||||||
33 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61491 | ||
There are several views on the Second Coming of Christ. The details on such a thread would need to be handled chapter by chapter (of the Book of Revelation). You would get interpretation after interpretation. I am willing, but it would need to be regulated (one week on chapter 1, one week on chapter 2, or something similar.....to give everyone an opportunity to post...) Though I "know" there are differences on this issue it should not separate unity--this is not an atonement or other issue of such mammoth importance to one's eternity....(please do not think it is not important, I do not think that...and Christ even adds a very severe warning to those whom He knows will attempt to pervert the book). I merely mean that if one is not saved, his view on the Second Coming does not matter, either way he is going some place else, of course than he would understand a little more about the time of his going. In essence I am not dogmatic about this issue--of time, though I do have an opinion backed up from the original language, history, ....... Certain things that one should keep in mind about the Revelation: 1. Every "credible (that holds some credence that is--only one is really legitimate) view" holds that Christ is Coming Again--We All Agree. This is pivotal. This is the Revelation--He is Coming. 2. Now as to when, there is the problem. I would guess from the other posts I have seen here that most here are pre-trib...there may be a couple of Post Tribs and I know there is at least one A-Mil (myself). The whole of when Christ is coming back revolves around Revelation 20 and one's interpretation thereof. Once done the interpretation of Revelation unfolds beautifully. Another study I would urge one to take is on the origins of dispensationalism (Scofield)--tracing its history through automatic handwriting (yes, cultic), the return of the Tongues movement, Lewis Way of the "London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews", its doctrine manifested by a Chilean Jesuit (The Coming of Christ in Glory and Majesty (ca. 1791)), Henry Drummond, Edward Irving, and the list goes on. Tracing its history you wonder how any Christian could ever hold to it? If you and others desire to begin a thread on Rev we can go Chapter by Chapter. ANyone for a Rev THread? Start it. |
||||||
34 | Exactly where was Adam's present ? | Gen 3:6 | JRdoc | 61479 | ||
Yes, at least in the general area.....theologians argue exactly how close in proximity, ("with her" is pretty clear to me though) but Eve decided that Satan was telling the truth and she had misunderstood God, but she didn’t know what she was doing. It was not overt rebellion against God, but seduction and deception to make her believe her act was the right thing to do (v. 13). The NT confirms that Eve was deceived (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14; Rev. 12:9). But Adam made a direct transgression without deception (1 Tim. 2:13-14). | ||||||
35 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61477 | ||
YOU SAID: “...both sides are 'defending' their position for the 'faith', when in reality they are defending their belief frantically (I speak of both sides) because they feel that if they are incorrect, they are somehow 'bad'. “ It is not that we think that it is “bad” but that it is incorrect. The Scripture tells us to “earnestly contend” for the faith. It tells us to preach the truth. Thus this is not a “frantic” effort, but based on what we should be doing. 2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. -- YOU SAID: “An Arminian or a Calvanist will look at one another and think, if I believed what THEY believed I know how I would act, so how can their beliefs not negatively affect their walk? We defend our beliefs because if, God forbid, the other person is right, where does that leave us?” I find it amazing that you can condemn, judge, and be critical of doctrines (though you are nice about it) before you study them and are able to rightly define the “error” (if any) in them. The Bible says to judge righteous judgment. This cannot be done without a proper assessment of the facts. I began as a pastor and that being an Arminian. I attended Arminian schools and graduated with honors from their institutions. But, when I studied the languages, history, and the complete text in context…. I came to the understanding of the Reformed faith. Then I went back to one of the Reformed schools. I will always be learning, but this one thing I know—the Reformed faith is correct in their assessment of the atonement. Every other system falls apart when taken in its complete form. See anyone can defend “something” as long as you do not progress into other areas, but once you do that, “something” will begin to take on a new face. I can make a study of car engines…and assert, assert, assert everything about them, but I can not get the automobile to go without the rest of the parts. Theology must be taken as a whole and not just in parts and this is where you will see the truth which will set you free (the whole)—continuously. Purchase a systematic theology go through it and see if you can discern truth from error and overcome their objections: Berkhof’s Systematic is good or Gerstner Theology in Dialogue has a different and interesting approach you may enjoy. --- YOU QUOTED: “Truth is not the sum total of all true things, it is a person.“ I agree the Bible is about THE person, but it is also about how He revealed Himself and desires Himself to be understood—theology. ---- YOU SAID: “Jesus says that he is the truth, and the truth will set you free.” True, but theology explains how this is done. Will or does a new convert need to know “all” this…of course not. Salvation is by grace alone. But one should grow and mature in the faith and keep what is rightly divided from the text….. Many today are given a “false” sense of assurance because another Jesus is being preached…. --- YOU SAID: “Not, it should be pointed out, our relative understanding of the truth, yet this is how we behave. If the 'truth' of Arminianism or Calvanism means we usurp another truth, that we are undivided in Christ, then what value is it? And yet, being human, we allow it to divid us, resulting in many denominations and arguments. I am not saying it is wrong to discuss things, or that some beliefs are clearly incorrect, I am just suggesting that our motivation for argument is a little different than we think.” I agree that we should behave correctly. We should also be able to take jokes and such. I guess I spent too long on debate teams, but we threw jokes back and forth all the time—clean ones, theological ones, not meaning any harm, just in fun mind you. So occasionally I let a joke or a comment fly, again not meaning ill harm (and I pray those here are mature enough in their faith to take a joke). But, I also believe in attacking “false” and “inconsistent” theology. Mind you the “theology” and not the “person.” We should be mature enough to understand that as well—think of Paul and the Church of Corinth, if ever one needed correcting, he corrected it, and he used love, sarcasm, and doctrine to do it. Yes, sarcasm (read 1 Cor 4:9; 6:7; 7:39; 9:7; 14:6, et. al.). There is ONLY ONE complete truth of all Scripture. Everyone claims to have, but no one understands it all. There will always be different denomination upon this earth. God saves in-spite of our “sin.” Though I would say to treat all in love and respect I would never say to embrace that which is false—for that is not true love or respect for God and His Word or others. |
||||||
36 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61473 | ||
Generally when one speaks of Calvinism or Arminianism they speak of the 5 points. They use the term generally to refer to the 5 points. I do not use the term as such and rather prefer the term Reformed Theology for a number of reasons: 1. Through Calvin was a very able theologian, he was not 100 percent correct in everything he asserted. By this I mean no disrespect to him or his theology...some of it was plainly Catholic, but considering what he came from and what battles were brewing he was the man for the time--as God well knew. 2. Calvinism when rightly understood is much more than 5 points. Thus, I like Reformed Theology as its gives a "broader" more accurate definition of a whole system of theology. 3. I do not call 1-4 point Calvinists actual Calvinists, but Arminians with some Calvinist leanings (some call them pre-cals or Armcals). The whole Bible is One Systematic Theology that agrees within and of itself when correctly understood. It is commonly known and easily proven that if one point of Calvinism is incorrect then the whole system would indeed fall. Of course it is not incorrect and thus stands as the proper interpretation of the inerrant Word of God. 4. Hyper Calvinists are in as much error as Arminians. Though you say God's Word is your final authority you still need to interpret and it will be interpreted within one of the two systems (if looked at broadly). Of course you have those that re-write the whole of the text--Mormons, J.W..........and they are lost. |
||||||
37 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | JRdoc | 61463 | ||
All have sinned! Men have a will and sin of their own volition. Without God’s call, election, grace, justification, atonement (etc) men will continue to sin and will be held accountable for the same, for it has not been forgien. YES, Christians still sin. When the return of the Lord does come His elect will rise and be with Him forever all sin having been taken care of--Justification. Sanctification is complete--Glorification. Crowns shall be given. Some rewards will be lost. Now if you desire an complete exposition on The Revelation and how the process of the judgment and all will take place that will take several posts and more time than I have to devote. |
||||||
38 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | JRdoc | 61418 | ||
Hank Well, your initial post bothered me somewhat because of its tone. You were doing the criticizing. To someone new like me I did not understand “why.” I could understand some of your concern, but not the tone –the wording. Next, how are we to assert what we believe without theology? Though I may be Reformed Baptist I have several friends in several denominations that are Christians as well. I do not always agree with them, but we do discuss theology and in the discourse I change my approaches and either re-affirm my belief or I change because the argument presented, if it cannot be biblically refuted. They do the same. Thus both grow in some form. How can you have a conversation about any issue in Scripture without “your” theology being involved to some measure—you can’t! I do agree that one must use grace in his speech—posts— and such and since I am new here and have not seen hardly any of the posts, so I can not comment on them. If people are abusing that then Calvinist/Arminian/Dispensationalist/……are wrong and need to apologize to one another. This is biblical (Mat 18). But this is far different than refraining from “any” theological discussion on Reformed or Arminian theology or others “ologies’ and ‘isms’ that I have seen here. I hope we can meet each other and discuss “all” issues of theology in the way that God intended. 2 Tim 4: 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. |
||||||
39 | is there a god | Gen 1:1 | JRdoc | 61414 | ||
Ask him what makes him believe there is no God. Answer his question with a question. Get to the root of the problem. It is easy to make a statement "like there is no God" what they can not get out of is their reasons "why." Get to the "whys" as soon as possible and uncut his unbelief with Scripture. Slowly but surely the Word of God as a sharp two-edged sword will defeat each premise and of course send you back for more Bible Study and prayer if he has any "ability" to defend his position at all. Of course God's grace is what will change his belief, not you or I. But, you are not given the privilege of the conversation with him by accident either. |
||||||
40 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | JRdoc | 61412 | ||
Thanks for the clarification. When one is of a "theological system" (which all are) it would seem hard to comment on certain issues without getting into debates. I do agree that one should not be combative and use demeaning language but assert the text (the whole texts) in their arguments. I guess even the best of us allow personality to get in the way at times. I am guilty of that I am sure and as I stated before I apologize for any misunderstanding on my behalf. But I can not apologize for the "content" of my posts for I can not apologize for what the Scripture emphatically states to the glory of God alone. No offense was taken here and I pray none was received. I must admit though I was a little bothered by Hanks "tone" of his post, but he has probably seen and heard moe than I have here and thus just weary...as his post did indicate. May God Bless the Truth. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |