Results 21 - 40 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | 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: |
||||||
22 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6275 | ||
Reformer Joe, It would have been a little short-sighted on God's part to have declared He would destroy all flesh while wanting to save all flesh. God saved exactly whom He wanted to be saved. It would also be senseless on the part of God to have Noah try to "convince" people to be saved (for 120 years) knowing He would destroy all of them, would it not? How would the backyard Bible club respond to such a question? Sam Hughey |
||||||
23 | 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 |
||||||
24 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | reformedreader | 6271 | ||
Reformer Joe, A very astute "theological" observation! Just think, the word "flesh", which refers to "humans", does not always refer to "all" flesh (humans). Sam Hughey |
||||||
25 | 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 |
||||||
26 | The number one third? | Rev 8:7 | reformedreader | 6269 | ||
Ray, I greatly appreciate your response to an old question that remained unanswered by those who raised the idea. However, I feel as though the question is still not answered. This cannot be resolved by just simply adjourning to a favorite translation for you must remember these translations did not exist prior to 1600. So, what would you have recommended had you lived prior to 1600? If taken literally, this event would leave absolutely no grass anywhere on the entire planet. And if we take this literally, we must also assume real hail, fire and "blood" will fall from the skies? I find great, great difficulty in believing all the fire departments in the world could put out a fire that consumed one third of all the trees and one third of the entire planet as well as all the grass on the entire planet. Sam Hughey |
||||||
27 | 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 |
||||||
28 | What is reformation? | Heb 9:10 | reformedreader | 6021 | ||
charis, Verse 11 is the time of reformation. The previous verses spoke of the "insufficiency" of sacrifices and ordinances that shadowed the "sufficiency" of Christ Himself. The book of Hebrews is mainly concerned with the sufficiency of Christ in that many new believes (and some not) were still making trips to the temple for atonement. They were not trusting in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement to put away the condemnation of sin forever. Christ is the reformation (change) of a law only in respect to the levitical law (priesthood), sacrifices and ordinances related to sins. This is not to be confused with the "whole" law, only that "part" of the law specifically related to the end of the levitical priesthood and all associated ordinances and sacrifices. |
||||||
29 | All names still in the book of life? | Rev 17:8 | reformedreader | 5618 | ||
camainc, While I’ve nothing against the right use of logic, I’ve found that all too often Christians do not rightly use logic when it comes to interpreting scripture. One example of this is when we take a verse that is clear, precise, distinct and directly to the point and then assume it says something not even found in the text or is blatantly contradictory to the text. Perhaps it is because a particular verse does not agree with one’s preconceived idea of what they believe. Nevertheless, if we ignore verses that leave no other conclusion than precisely what it states, then we can create our own truth and force scripture to mean whatever we want it to mean. To your statement: “(2) those that do not believe in and accept the free gift of salvation offered by the Father through the Son are destined to perish in the lake of fire”, I would disagree slightly but probably because of an insufficient explanation which could lead to a misunderstanding of scripture. It is true that one must believe, however, believing alone does not save anyone. The unclean spirits believe but also tremble in fear for they know their eternal fate. Many humans believe but never come to salvation. I never had any problem believing what the bible stated many years before I was saved but I was still an unbeliever. I would also disagree with salvation being a gift offered to the unbeliever and left to their own logic as to whether they want to be saved or not. The unbeliever is blinded by Satan so that he cannot see (understand) the glorious gospel. Therefore, logically speaking, the unbeliever is unable to understand the gospel and this is further supported by 2 Cor. 2:14. His logic is rendered useless and since John 1:12,13 clearly state that the unbeliever’s will has nothing to do with his salvation, we must rest on the clear passages of scripture that rule out salvation being an offer made to the unbeliever to exercise his will logically to decide if he wants to be saved. To your statement: “(3) believers’ names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation (I assume this means the creation) of the world, then one could presume that (4) unbelievers are destined for the Lake of Fire from the foundation of the world (Rev 20:15)” In the light of clear and unambiguous scripture, one can come to no other conclusion and I agree with you. Rev. 20:15 is clear, distinct, direct and to the point. Adding anything or changing anything this verse says only destroys the truth of what it says. To your statement: There is no verse that I know of that *explicitly* says that, but there are also no verses that *explicitly* say that God is triune. Perhaps not “explicitly” in word for word detail, however, the bible is replete with the doctrine of the trinity. One does not need a verse that literally states in word for word detail the trinity to be actual when there are hundreds of verses that very clearly lead a logically minded believer to be convinced of the trinity. To your statement: If one accepts the doctrine of predestination (and I don't know how you couldn't, with all of the verses that are very clear-cut on that), then you have to accept predestination to hell as well as to heaven. I agree but many do not. Many do not believe in what is called “double-predestination”. However, I have found they have trouble understanding it because of a faulty understanding of scripture. To your statement: How we reconcile predestination with John 3:16 is a mystery, and I don't think any of us will know how God in His infinite wisdom and grace works out the details of free-will vs. predestination (at least until we get into His Presence in our glorified state). Reconciling the two is not a mystery. With all due respect, NOT reconciling the two is a mystery, meaning I cannot understand why any believer would want the two to be contradictory when they are not. The basic problem with free-will theism is when it is placed at the wrong time and to the wrong person. The unbeliever has no free-will to decide if he wants to be saved according to the numerous verses mentioned above. However, many will completely ignore those verses and insist on the unbeliever being able to do what God says he cannot do. It is when the Holy Spirit circumcizes the heart, gives life, renews the will to become responsive to God’s calling that the believer’s will repents and believes. The will must be enabled to respond, repent and believe. Sam Hughey |
||||||
30 | All names still in the book of life? | Rev 17:8 | reformedreader | 5463 | ||
JVH, Thanks and no apology is necessary because I am not at all offended. Text only discussions often lead to misunderstanding because of its limited nature. Reply whenever you so desire and I greatly respect the man who takes time to reason his statements. Sam Hughey |
||||||
31 | All names still in the book of life? | Rev 17:8 | reformedreader | 5451 | ||
JVH0212, I think you might have misunderstood me just a bit. My post was rhetorical. I wasn't implying that Rev. 17:8 could be wrong but, rather, rhetorically speaking "since it is true" we must conclude something from my question. I most definitely do believe every verse of holy scripture to be true. I presented my question as I did because some Christians believe all humans were written into the book of life and upon reaching an age of accountability, they rejected Christ and were thus erased from the book of life. There are others who deny anyone was written into the book of life before creation because they reject the doctrine of predestination of the elect to salvation. The point is that if (since) “some” humans were written into the book of life before creation, they were obviously predestined (predetermined) to become saved at some time in history, else how could they have been written into the book of life before creation. melchizedekau asked the question, “when” was a person written into the book of life and that is primarily the reason for me asking what I asked and how I asked it. When you responded with Rev. 17:8, I only intended to draw out those who hold either view presented above and discuss why they believe so. If we reject the doctrine of predestination, how then could anyone have been written into the book of life before creation just as Rev. 17:8 states to be a fact? If we accept the doctrine of predestination, then what does that say about those who were/are not written into the book of life before creation? 1) a) All humans are born under the condemnation of sin (Rom 3:10, 23). b) Where does the Bible SAY that *any* or *all* are "*predestined* to the lake of fire?" 2) Nowhere in the Bible, including Rev 17:8, does it SAY that all humans were written into the book of life. I completely agree that “all” are under the condemnation of sin because none are righteous apart from the righteousness of God according to Romans 3:10. However, since Rev. 17:8 clearly states that some are predestined to be saved by the fact they were written into the book of life before creation, and since we know some are already in the grave waiting to face eternity in the lake of fire, we can only conclude they were not written into the book of life prior to creation. Therefore, it is quite obvious that they were predestined to spend eternity in the lake of fire which means I agree with you that not all humans were written into the book of life prior to creation. Sam Hughey |
||||||
32 | Who hears Christ's voice? | Rev 3:20 | reformedreader | 5438 | ||
Nolan Keck, And who is it that will hear Christ's voice and why? Sam Hughey |
||||||
33 | All names still in the book of life? | Rev 17:8 | reformedreader | 5437 | ||
JVH0212, According to Rev. 17:8, this would indicate either all humans or some humans were written into the book of life before the creation of the universe. I have a couple of questions for this forum to think about. If Rev. 17:8 is true as it is written and if all humans were written into the book of life: 1) why then are all humans born under the condemnation of sin and predestined to the lake of fire for eternity which is the opposite of life? 2) why then do only some humans actually end up in the book of life? Sam Hughey |
||||||
34 | What exactly is idolatry? | Ex 20:3 | reformedreader | 5300 | ||
Hank, Idolatry is the worship of false deity through the use of images. The second commandment does not, per se, forbid the making of an image of creation. An image of a snake on a staff was used to heal the Israelites bitten by snakes in the wilderness. It is not the image itself that God forbids. It is the intent to worship the image in place of God which violates the 1st commandment. If there are other gods, then God is not who He claims to be. The word "god" in the bible is usually misunderstood and misinterpreted. They are not gods at all, they are only treated and thought of as gods. Satan is referred to as the god of this world, however, Satan is not a god in any sense of the term "deity". Satan is not an image but he is worshipped by those who reject God's laws as though he is a "god" or even "God" Himself. The word does have both a narrow and broad meaning. Sam Hughey |
||||||
35 | 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 |
||||||
36 | Why evangelize if already chosen? | 1 Pet 2:9 | reformedreader | 4133 | ||
Lionstrong, Thank you for such a sound and biblical apology for both God's election and our responsibilty to obey God. I pray that those who are anti-Calvinistic will at least attempt to honestly see what Biblical Calvinism truly teaches instead of the old worn out stories that never prove to be true. (Isaiah 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. Man's will cannot thwart, deny, deprive, correct or change the pre-determined will (word) of God that goes out to accomplish "SUCCESSFULLY" whatever it was sent out to do. Sam Hughey |
||||||
37 | chcking scripture context | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 4060 | ||
JVH0212, Thanks for the URL. John is very prolific when expounding the true gospel. Sam Hughey |
||||||
38 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4028 | ||
JVH0212, And I agree that it is cited as the most common definition of the church ("body of Christ") and I also agree that it "is" the biblical definition of the church ("body of Christ"). My apology for misunderstanding your intent. Sam Hughey |
||||||
39 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4014 | ||
JVH0212, Thank you for joining this discussion and I'm sure you know I will request the reference for the sake of any misunderstanding of either what scripture is being used and how it is being interpreted. Your statement about restricting the church as to being only from Pentecost (Acts 2) until the Rapture involves several troubling areas. First of all, there is an assumption that you are referring to the dispensational doctrine of the rapture. If this is so, then the church does not exist afterward (to dispensationalists). This is assuming that dispensational theology is absolutely correct on this doctrine and has no possibility of being in error. The (dispensational) millennium will not have any saints in it or at least none that can be called the body of Christ. If not, then where does the New Testament treat these Christians as being different (and how) than any other Christian of any time period? In fact, dispensationalism wants to create a multiplicity of divisions of those who are saved. It first wants to divide Old Covenant Saints from New Covenant Saints, then it divides pre-rapture Saints from tribulation Saints, then divides millenial Saints from all other Saints and without a single shred of scriptural evidence to justify doing so. This would also exclude Abraham, the father of faith of all those found in Christ (who are also known as "the body of Christ"). How would one exclude him from being in the body of Christ but at the same time include him to be in Christ? Are we not all in the body of Christ because we are all in Christ? Can any of us be in Christ and not be in the "body of Christ" which is His church? Also, nowhere in the second chapter of the Acts does Luke make any explicit or implicit statements that would lead us to a logical conclusion that only those saved at this period of time comprise the church (body) of Christ. There are no corresponding verses anywhere in the New Testament that would support such a view. I look forward to hearing you answer. Sam Hughey |
||||||
40 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4010 | ||
Hank, Thanks for your response. The word "trinity" does not need to be literally found on the pages of scripture. The doctrine of the trinity is both implicitly and explicitly declared throughout the whole of scripture. There can be no other conclusion to anyone seriously reading scripture from Genesis onward than the reality of the trinity. I don't believe I made any reference to "no such reality as God's progressive revelation to humankind", unless I misunderstood you. In fact, I very much do believe in progressive revelation through God's covenants and have stated so often on this forum. However, the question of a church age still remains unsettled. Scripture either implicitly or explicitly teaches a church age referring to only those saved since Calvary or it does not. I think verifying that would be paramount to this discussion which I think is very important to how many of us interpret scripture. Thanks again, Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |