Results 21 - 40 of 100
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bjanko Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13468 | ||
HANK bjanko, you make some good observations, and it seems unconscionable for any Christian to entertain the palest of notions that God is anything but sovereign. We do, however, tread in water over our heads when we presume to read the mind of God with our limited minds, and no better example can be put forth than our pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes, and this would surely encompass the terms election and predestination, about which I know little and understand even less..... BJANKO If you will re-read my posts, I would be very interested if you can actually find any "pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..." I would also take issue that the long-held orthodox teachings on election and predestination, are pretenses "at understanding fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..." These are long-held doctrines, not because they venture into the "secret counsels" of God, but because they are revealed in Scripture. If you fear that they might lead to human pride, trying to uncover every facet of the secret counsels of God, then I would venture to correct you: the doctrines of predestination and election are not what are in question, but your understanding of those doctrines are, as you honestly claim when you said, "about which I know little and understand even less..... " HANK I'm not sure your contextual definition of "semi-Pelagianism" squares with the views of Pelagius. He held that man is born with no bias to evil and is capable of freedom from sin and of salvation by works. He taught that man sins because of his environment alone and not at all because of his nature. All of which is, of course, unvarnished heresy." BJANKO True. That is why I did not say your beliefs were "Pelagian," but rather "semi-Pelagian," which is a technical term, fairly similar with the term "Arminianism." Neither "semi-Pelagianism" nor "Arminianism" is rank heresy; but they are both unbiblical. Whlie they may try to claim that God has some sovreignty in salvation, they always, ALWAYS place man's responsibility and will ABOVE God's sovreignty -- a view which is patently unscriptural. HANK While you and I may have slight variations of viewpoints on the subject of election, neither of which approaches heresy, I think that we are certainly in unison on the belief that God is sovereign. BJANKO I have to admit, I'm not completely sure of your views; but if you are an Arminian, then I would suggest that our differences on election are more than slight and that, while neither of us would be a heretic, our views on God's sovreignty are equally NOT in unison. HANK On this note I submit that it is in the best interests, not only of ourselves but of the forum as a whole, to drop the issue and thus not attempt to resurrect a debate over it that raged on and ravaged the forum for many days in the recent past. Thank you for sharing your beliefs, and it is hoped that I will be privileged to engage in further discourse with you, but on a somewhat less controversial subject. BJANKO Nice conversing with you. |
||||||
22 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13457 | ||
HANK: Note: bjanko, in view of your statement on election, please look again at John 3:16. The text says "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." BJANKO: Thank you. I'm glad you brought this verse up as it supports the view of limited atonement very powerfully. HANK: It does not say that Christ is not able to save, it does not diminish the power of God or elevate man's will. It simply stipulates in clear and unequivocal language the fact that, even though the offer of salvation is universal, the sine qua non is belief in Jesus Christ, i.e., the offer must be met with acceptance. BJANKO: Yes, it describes in very plain terms that whoever believes in Him will be saved. However, it nowhere says that just anyone at all is able to believe in Him! HANK: Belief, in the biblical sense, involves more than mere intellectual affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God. BJANKO: True, but doesn't seem to be releveant here. HANK: All are not saved, that is perfectly true. But all are by no means willing to surrender their lives to Christ either. BJANKO: I would not only agree with this but go further and assert, with the Scripture, that there are none willing to submit their lives to Christ: "As it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD.' (Rom. 3:10-11). When the God draws His elect to Himself, however, (see John 6:34), then those people become willing to surrender; this is evidence of their election. So, you are quite right to put forth John 3:16 as a prooftext of limited atonement. "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." This is a perfect description of those whom the Father has chosen to give to the Son for salvation: The ones the Father regenerates by His Spirit are the ones (whosoever's) who will believe. And those "whosoever's" will be saved, as God has predetermined. This puts all will and decision in the hands of God, thus glorifying Him, rather than in the hands of man, thus glorifying man, the creature. One is orthodox Christian; the other is semi-Pelagian and is false doctrine. |
||||||
23 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13452 | ||
If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved. But all are not saved. Only some are saved: the elect. Those are the ones Jesus died for. To say otherwise is to say that Christ is not able to save, effectually, those whom He has chosen. To say otherwise is bring God down and to raise man's will up on a pedestal. |
||||||
24 | some more things to consider... | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 12125 | ||
Those OT examples are a demonstration of God's righteousness and will be performed on the last day. Additionally, God judged in Christ all the sins of his elect people. Those OT principles are still valid. But the problem is there is no Christian theocracy active now as there was in the land of Palestine back then. But when Christ returns, the theocracy will be restored and so will its judgments of those who are pagan, who rejected Christ, or are tares in the spiritual "kingdom" of today. |
||||||
25 | biblical or cultural? | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 11979 | ||
It's all biblical and applicable unless the Bible itself says or teaches that it's not. |
||||||
26 | How do you then interpret the verses... | Luke 8:13 | bjanko | 9683 | ||
Both are right. Paul was writing to Christians to remind them about the slime from which they emerged. |
||||||
27 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | bjanko | 3763 | ||
No. | ||||||
28 | what are the days? | Gen 1:2 | bjanko | 3762 | ||
What's wrong with the sun and moon being created on day 4? Who says that day 7 did not have an end? |
||||||
29 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | bjanko | 98 | ||
No, but rather you need to be saved first before you can be baptized. | ||||||
30 | Define term inerrancy and is it true? | 2 Tim 3:16 | bjanko | 2519 | ||
The doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture is the teaching that the Scripture is without error. The reason this is so is because the Bible is revelation from God, it is God's words. Since God is a God of truth and cannot lie or be in error, then neither can His words be false or errant. So, at the core, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is rooted in the fact that the Bible is from God Who Himself is unable to err. | ||||||
31 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 2445 | ||
Thank you for your kind acknowledgement. God's Blessings to you. | ||||||
32 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 2435 | ||
Yes. To say that a true believer would choose to leave, betrays a total misunderstanding of what salvation is. It is a change from spiritual death to spiritual life. We have a new nature. We do not strive to create a new nature within ourselves, but rather God gives us that new nature. Therefore, though we might struggle with sin, God, working through the Holy Spirit in our new man, will not let us fall. And the Spirit will never leave. The only way we could leave God is if the Spirit left us. But God has promised never to leave nor forsake his people. (Hebrews) So it just does not make any sense to speak of believers leaving the faith. It might LOOK like that, but that's not what we see. What we do see are people who have never been saved, finally giving up the act and simply living, by nature, out the lusts of the flesh, determining to wander elsewhere on their path to destruction. Their being in the church was a mere happenstance; even they themselves may have been self-deceived. Nonetheless, no true believer ever leaves. He might have many great struggles, but he will never ultimately turn from God, or lose his salvation. After all, he never gave himself his salvation in the first place, did he? No. The Arminian believes he chose God; so it makes sense he might think he could choose another way as well. The Calvinist says that God chose the believer and if God choooses, who can resist His will? (Romans 9) |
||||||
33 | Would you please give scripture evidence | 1 Cor 13:12 | bjanko | 2286 | ||
I was not trying to be argumentative, but rather to make a point. So, I suppose you could be right; my note might have SEEMED argumentative. That does not mean that it was meant to be so. | ||||||
34 | Predetermined or Free Will | Luke 8:13 | bjanko | 2284 | ||
No need to bother explaining it later in the week. I'm sure that if you are more than convinced, it must be true. |
||||||
35 | Would you please give scripture evidence | 1 Cor 13:12 | bjanko | 2257 | ||
That is not evidence, but a faulty presupposition. There could be two reasons, at least, why Jesus was not recognized. 1) is the reason you give: that He appeared so differently that He was not recognizable; 2) that the two on the road were supernaturally prevented from recognizing Jesus. Why this would be so, we don't know. But there is really no "proof" of either reason; no Scripture texts. We can only guess at it. | ||||||
36 | healing the man who was born blind by Je | John | bjanko | 2188 | ||
Ray wrote: 'Dear bjanko, You have gotten and given the message from the (Light) of the world here. It's a good writing. My only question is why after in the beginning you spoke of Jesus as Savior you didn't finish as strongly? You say "he makes us "see" the truth about this". Why the lower case Savior?' Because I forget to press the SHIFT key while typing the "s." -- bjanko |
||||||
37 | healing the man who was born blind by Je | John | bjanko | 2085 | ||
The theme of John is to get the hearer/reader to believe in Jesus and be saved. Romans 10:14 says, "... How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? ..." When we hear the gospel and believe it, we spiritually "see" that Jesus is the Savior. At the end of the passage in question, Jesus turns the idea of blindness right around on the Pharisees. John 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?" John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains. The man in the story starts out blind but ends up seeing... not just physical sight, but he "sees" that Jesus is the Christ. The Pharisees, while under the delusion that they have spiritual discernment (that they can "see") are really bilnd. The exalted Pharisees are humbled, i.e., shown they are blind; and the humble blind man is exalted, i.e., given the gift of faith (spirtual "sight"). In John 20:30-31, John tells us that these things were written so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and be saved. This is why Jesus did the miracle, "so that the works of God might be displayed in him," (v. 3) and so that we might believe that Jesus Christ is OUR savior; he makes us "see" the truth about this -- heals our spiritual blindness -- and thereby causes us to cross over from death to eternal life in Him. |
||||||
38 | Abiding seems to be very important in sc | John 15:4 | bjanko | 2083 | ||
3306 menĂ´; a prim. vb.; to stay, abide, remain:--abide(16), abides(22), abiding(4), await(1), continue(4), continues(1), endures(3), enduring(1), lasting(2), lives(1), living(1), remain(20), remained(6), remaining(1), remains(8), stand(1), stay(11), stayed(11), staying(3), waiting(1). Keeping the words from this lexicon in mind, "abiding" means to STAY DEEPLY STUCK in Christ, rooted in Him at such a deep level that you are as a branch which grows out of a vine, so that your very life and existence find their sap and nourishment in Christ Himself and in no other. Admittedly, a broad interpretation on my part. : ) |
||||||
39 | Can a homosexual be an "Elect" | Matt 12:31 | bjanko | 1888 | ||
This question implies so many other questions. But, taking this question at face value, the answer would have to be "yes." | ||||||
40 | God saved His best for last | Mark 12:6 | bjanko | 2053 | ||
God saved His best for last -- Jesus. Unlike the man in this parable, God knew they would not respect His Son. No, this Son was rejected by the Jews and they killed Him. As in the parable, judgment will come to all who do not respect the Son of God. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |