Results 2221 - 2240 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2221 | Mercy's God's prerogative | Rom 9:15 | Reformer Joe | 13610 | ||
Tim: This view simply robs Romans 9 of any meaning whatsoever. The whole thrust of that chapter is that some are "vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory," (9:23) and others are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (9:22). Notice that both sets of vessels were PREPARED for their purposes. There is no logical way of getting around that. In addition, we know that these vessels of mercy are not a particular nation or ethnic group, but rather believers from both Jew and Gentile ethnicities: "even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." --Romans 9:24 Therefore, the clear reading of Romans 9 tells us: 1. God will have mercy upon whom he chooses (9:15). 2. We are the creation, and have no right to tell the Potter what we shall be used for (9:19-21). 3. Some were prepared for destruction (9:22) 4. Others were prepared for mercy and glory (9:23) 5. Those vessels prepared for mercy are not entire races, but subsets of races set apart for this purpose (9:24). Romans 11:32 does not say that God WILL show mercy to all men. Paul is referring here to the remnant of Israel that will be grafted back in, along with the Gentile "wild olive branches." If you think that "all" here necessarily means "everyone," look back at 11:26. Does his use of "all Israel" mean that every single descendent of Jacob WILL be saved? If you are consistent with the view you are putting forth with regard to 11:32, then by the same logic you must conclude that there will be universal salvation for every member of the twelve tribes. --Joe! |
||||||
2222 | So God is the cause of sin then | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13602 | ||
Bob: In order to be more clear, I am going to quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith, one of the important documents reflecting the Reformed view. This is the first section of Chapter III, entitled "Of God's Eternal Decree": "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." So we see two important things right away: 1. ALL things are ordained by God. 2. God is NOT the author of sin. God not only foreknows sin; he allows sin to exist and uses it ultimately for His glory. You would agree that nothing happens without God allowing it, correct? I guess what differentiates the Reformed view from others is that rather than merely saying God's ultimate purposes are accomplished DESPITE the sinful rebellion of His creation, the Reformed theologian will state emphatically that God weaves the rebellion of man in the tapestry of His overall plan. However, man is the CAUSE of man's sin, not God. Regarding the human will, permit me to quote again from the WCF, from Chapter IX, "Of Free Will": ************************ II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it. III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. ************************ Therefore the Reformed view agrees with Scripture that while man was created with the ability to please God, that was lost in the Fall for Adam and all of his natural descendants. Romans 8:7-9 demonstrates that the unregenerate human is completely incapable of pleasing God. God did not cause this sinfulness, either; it proceeds from the curse which resulted from Adam's sin (Genesis 3). Another place where we can see this illustrated is the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis. After his entire ordeal from being sold into slavery, to being framed for sexual assault, to spending years in prison unjustly, to rising to the top of the political ladder in Egypt, he had this to say to his brothers: "Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his household and ruler over all the land of Egypt." --Genesis 45:8 Joseph says that GOD sent him to Egypt, but it was by means of the sinful actions of his brothers. This mans that God ordained it to happen, but didn't author the sin. How would you interpret this verse otherwise? Man's sin was part of God's decree. Joseph repeats the same idea again in the last chapter: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." --Genesis 50:20 There is no mistaking that God MEANT it to happen, not merely that he allowed it to occur and "cleaned up the mess" for His glory and His purposes. Again, he did not cause the sinful attitudes of the brothers, but since the original intent was to kill Joseph, it isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that God redirected that motive through Reuben. On last thing: You wrote, "If God has pre-determined every infitessimal detail of history, which must obviously include sin, then how can those individuals who commit those predetermined sins be held responsible for them?" Rather than answer myself, I will let the apostle Paul do the talking: "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Romans 9:19-21 Just out of curiosity, how would you work the verses here and in my other posts into another framework. Where do you stand on the reconciliation of God's sovereignty and man's sin? --Joe! |
||||||
2223 | "Decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13563 | ||
Bob: I guess the hardest part about the Reformed view to accept from our finite perspective is the idea that God pre-determined that sin would (temporarily) be a part of His grand design. It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth by virtue of His creation of Lucifer and a human couple he knew would succumb to Satan's treachery. Another very good example is the crucifixion. Was that a part of God's plan? In other words, did he intentionally send His Son to the earth for the express purpose of being murdered unjustly? I think that most Bible believers will admit that He did just that. What Reformers would argue is that He also orchestrated events so that there would be a party of Jewish leaders called Pharisees would emerge and eventually become hypocritical "whitewashed tombs" that would be His instrument in the death of Jesus Christ. Now the sticky point comes from this question: did God cause the unjust death of His Son? I hold that the answer is "yes," and I think Scripture supports that as well: "But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." --Isaiah 53:10 Here we read that God "was pleased" to actively participate in the crucifixion. However, we also see that the guilt of actually killing Jesus rests on the Pharisees, not on God: "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become." --Acts 7:52 We have a seeming paradox here. God orchestrated events so that Christ would die; it was no accident, and it was far more than a case of "a necessary contingency to insure optimal design." As I stated before, this is "Plan A." On the other hand, it is the Pharisees who bear the blame for the actual murder of Jesus, through which people who are guilty of rebelling against our Holy creator are saved. Now the question you seem to be interested in is, "Did God MAKE the Pharisees sin?" The Pharisees were born sinners, so the answer to that is "no." On the other hand, God directed their innate sinfulness through circumstance and withholding repentance so that the very act he decreed (the atonement) would take place. We see the same thing in the case of the Pharaoh. Pharaoh was already a sinner, but God hardened his heart so that he would not be "saved," so to speak, so that God would be glorified through the Exodus. Could God have changed Pharaoh's heart so that he would "let His people go"? Absolutely, but he chose rather to utilize the Egyptian's innate sinfulness for His purposes. Does that mean that Pharaoh was not responsible for his actions? No; he was not willingly cooperating with God, although in God's sovereign decree he did just that. Same holds true for Satan. Satan chooses to be evil, but we see in Job 1 where God most actively directs that evil in a particular direction (Job-ward). So we see from Scripture that God brings into existence evil people (after all, isn't that exactly how you and I started out?) for His purposes. Some He doesn't save. Some He does. Both are responsible for their own sins. God shows mercy to the latter, but both groups of people God decreed would exist and both serve his purposes. Romans 9 gives a much more lucid argument than I have here regarding "vessels of mercy" and "vessels of wrath" (imagine that: the Holy Spirit explaining it better than me!). It is undoubtedly a hard issue to wrestle with from a finite, human perspective, but the bottom line is that on a certain level God intends that sin exist for now and that it work for His purposes. Just as he brings Moses and Paul into existence for His purposes, so he brings Pharaohs and Pharisees into existence for His purposes as well. Our roles are decreed, and yet we are guilty of our own sin, not God. Complicated? Yes, but also very biblical! Feel free to respond, Bob. I don't mind wrestling throught his issue with you at all! --Joe! |
||||||
2224 | Does anyone really *do* this? | Luke 14:12 | Reformer Joe | 13562 | ||
Nolan: I would hardly call it "being crucified." :) --Joe! |
||||||
2225 | Spurgeon's calvanistic contradiction? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13554 | ||
Bob: Well, I hold a strongly Calvinistic point of view, so I hope I can shed some light on it for you! I don't know if Spurgeon made this statement himself, but it does reflect the viewpoint of Reformed theology quite well. The understanding of it hinges on grasping the meaning of the word "decree." To decree something is to simply declare that that thing shall happen. In the case of God's sovereign decree, the decreed event can either come from God causing it directly, or by God allowing it to happen. Sin falls into the latter category. From eternity past, God knew that His creation would rebel against Him. Therefore, He created Adam and Eve already knowing that the serpent (which He also created, knowing from eternity past that he would be His chief adversary) would be successful in leading them into sin. This was not some "mistake" or "fluke" on the part of a non-omniscient God. God, by creating the agents involved and allowing them to sin on their own, decreed what would come to pass. he then in turn used it, is using it, and will use it to glorify Himself. Sending Jesus was not "Plan B" to make up for what man had done. We read in Ephesians 1:4-5 that God had chosen and predestined the elect "from the foundation of the world." Therefore, God the Son had already consented to be the Savior before man was even formed out of the dust. This is what is known in Reformed theology as the "covenant of redemption," made among the three Persons of the Trinity in eternity past. Agin, God did not CAUSE the sin, but in His infinite sovereignty He declared that it would occur. We also see evidence of God intending to use man-originated sin for His purposes as well. In fact, Scripture is replete with such situations. His hardening of Pharaoh's heart (Pharaoh was the sinner; God just didn't bring him to repentance) in the book of Exodus is a famous example. God used Pharaoh's stubborn rebellion against Him to glorify Himself and His chosen people. Another excellent example is found in the book of Judges, when God's purposes for the sinful neighbors of Israel is spelled out in no uncertain terms: "So the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He said, 'Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to My voice, I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk in it as their fathers did, or not.' So the LORD allowed those nations to remain, not driving them out quickly; and He did not give them into the hand of Joshua." --Judges 2:20-23 We see that God refuses to keep driving out the enemies of Israel for a very specific purpose (i.e to test them). God allows these idolatrous, sinful nations to remain; he decrees that these nations which rebel against the true God will continue in the presence of His people and will continue in their sin. Does this mean that God causes the sin? Of course not. Similarly we can see all other "sinful events, such as Satan's temptation of Jesus (led out by the Spirit for that purpose -- Matthew 4:1) and the Babylonian captivity in that light. While the perpetrators of the events were clearly in opposition to God, God without a doubt decreed that these individuals would flourish in their sin for a season, so that in the end His glory would be known. The simple fact is that God is in control of every infinitessimal detail of His creation. Nothing happens unless He ultimately allows it, and in His omniscience and omipotence nothing happens that takes Him by surprise or falls outside of His ability to control. Factor in that He is perfect and incapable of sin, and what we have is a basis for the statement you attributed to Spurgeon. The thing that must be remembered in all of this is that God uses all of this for His own glory, all things together for good for us who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure" --Isaiah 46:9-10 --Joe! |
||||||
2226 | Does anyone really *do* this? | Luke 14:12 | Reformer Joe | 13551 | ||
Nolan: I understand your motive. However, it is important not to compromise Gospel essentials. There has been enough of that with "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and "The Gift of Salvation" to muddying the waters. Have you ever read the document "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration"? It is quite a well-crafted articulation of the biblical gospel, cast in the form of affirmations and denials. It is well worth a read by all on the forum, and several sites have it online. Here's one: http://www.antithesis.com/toolbox/evang_celebration.html Hope this is found to be enlightening! --Joe! |
||||||
2227 | Does anyone really *do* this? | Luke 14:12 | Reformer Joe | 13502 | ||
Nolan: You wrote: "You believe in Jesus Christ, and that He rose from the dead! That is enough, my friend, for you to warrant brotherhood and for you to be a part of our fellowship!" Does this make Mormons our brothers, too, then? --Joe! |
||||||
2228 | What do you base your belief on? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13500 | ||
Brian: You wrote: "How do we know Peter was choosen by Jesus to head his Church. "Three reasons: first, Matthew 16:17-19, And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church " And that was fulfilled in Acts 2. Nothing popish about this at all. --Joe! |
||||||
2229 | Documented?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13499 | ||
Brian" You wrote: "When Peter lead the Church, he created a Senate consistng of 24 priests and deacons - this is documented. One of the roles of this Senate was to elect the new Pope - with Linus being the first Pope elected by men." Exactly where is this documented? --Joe! |
||||||
2230 | Follow up Peter first Pope | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13498 | ||
None of the five tenets of the Reformation Church had anything to do with hatred. They were: 1. Scripture alone is our authority (i.e. while the church is important, church tradition is fallible and does not carry the same authority as the Bible). 2. We are saved by God's grace alone (not by any merit on our part whatsoever) 3. We are saved through faith alone (not by any works on our part whatsoever) 4. We are saved in Christ alone (i.e. by his sinless life and substitutionary death on the cross in the place of sinners, not through any institution or human intermediaries) 5. All of this is to the glory of God alone. Notice that the key word here in all five tenets is the word "alone." Martin Luther said he would not recant unless he could be convinced by the Holy Scriptures that his positions were wrong. Did he get a biblical refutation of his position? Nope. And Luther did not divide the church. He reformed it. He initially tried to point out the errors made by the Pope and church tradition in the light of Scripture. It was the Pope who excommunicated Luther, not Luther leaving the church. Now, is the Roman Catholic church wiser for clinging to church traditions and practices and beliefs which are clearly contrary to what God has revealed in His holy book? --Joe! |
||||||
2231 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 13495 | ||
Tim: I think his point was that you had already said you knew what the Reformed arguments would be, and that there was no point in re-stating them. --Joe! P.S. You know that there are already other threads where you and I have gone around on this. Why are we bringing it to a thread based on a verse which has absolutely nothing to do with election? |
||||||
2232 | Thank you - and where should I look | 1 Tim 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 13494 | ||
I would do a "quick search" for the thread "what does bible teach on election," where you will see a whole host of posts by me and those who disagree with me. --Joe! |
||||||
2233 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 13464 | ||
Limited atonement has been addressed on other spots on this forum. Let's debate it thoroughly, but on threads which already are devoted to that issue. --Joe! |
||||||
2234 | Why didn't tHe relent from His anger? | 2 Kin 23:26 | Reformer Joe | 13392 | ||
That doesn't answer the question of why God did not change his mind when hhis grandson Josiah implemented nationwide reforms. The fact is that God had had enough (1 Kings 21:10-15), and his will was that Judah would be judged. An important lesson for us: Do we fully understand how patient God is with us, but also how much he absolutely abhors sin with a wrathful, holy hatred? My guess is that most people do not get this at all. --Joe! |
||||||
2235 | Why didn't tHe relent from His anger? | 2 Kin 23:26 | Reformer Joe | 13391 | ||
Because God had already decreed what he was going to do, and had let everyone know through His prophets. God chose not to show mercy to Judah (Romans 9:18): Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, "Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 'I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 'I will abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they will become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.'" --2 Kings 21:15 --Joe! |
||||||
2236 | What is "the Law" and grace about? | Rom 7:12 | Reformer Joe | 13390 | ||
Law (big "L"): Usually refers to the Mosaic Covenant, with its moral commandments, ceremonial rituals, and procedures of sacrifices for atonement. Often, "law" (little "l") refers to simply those moral commandments made by God that he intends man to follow. That includes everything from God's first commandment to Adam to every instruction we read in the epistles. Since man is depraved and cannot submit himself to God's law (Romans 8:7-8), God in his mercy extended grace (His favor, which none of us deserve in the slightest) to those who put their trust in Christ. Those who are believers in Christ, therefore, are indeed "under grace" (i.e. justified) and also are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, equipped to follow God's moral will for their lives (Romans 8:9). --Joe! |
||||||
2237 | What is "the Law" and grace about? | Rom 7:12 | Reformer Joe | 13389 | ||
And don't forget that for those who are already believers, the moral law reminds us of what God's will is for our sanctification. --Joe! |
||||||
2238 | What is the Apocrapha and its history? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13251 | ||
The Apocrypha was only recognized as canon by the Catholic Church in 1566, after the Council of Trent. The inclusion of these seven books is clearly a move of the Counter-Reformation in the 16th century. The Apocryphal books were included under the "Apocrypha" section of the 1611 KJV. However, they were not included in the Hebrew canon of Scripture (although the Septuagint has them). The OT canon had pretty much been set before Jesus was born, so this is why the early church councils never gave them too much consideration as inspired canon (despite their belief that they were useful books for study---they just don't have the tradition and authority that the 39 included OT books do). In addition, we see no quotes or references to the events in these books from the New Testament writers, which of course is an argument from silence; but history tells us that the Jewish people did not regard them as inspired, so neither do we. --Joe! |
||||||
2239 | What is your definition of Law and grace | Mark 10:21 | Reformer Joe | 13174 | ||
Bill: Whoa. First you say Jesus fulfilled the Law, and then go and say that it was the Pharisees who were "full of Law" compared with Christ, who was "full of grace and truth." The statement about Jesus is correct, but the problem with the Pharisees was not their following of Law, but rather their seeking justification through the Law and also looking at it as a tool to outwardly follow in order to win the praises of men, while their hearts were wicked and uncircumcized. I would also disagree with your definition of grace as well. Grace is God's extension of forgiveness to us in spite of the fact that we deserve exactly the opposite. You keep quoting Romans 7 and keep divorcing it from the point Paul is making at the end of the chapter: "I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. FOR I JOYFULLY CONCUR WITH THE LAW IN THE INNER MAN, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I MYSELF WITH MY MIND AM SERVING THE LAW OF GOD, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:21-25 Notice while we are free from the curse of the Law, the regenerated Paul concurs that the moral commands of the law are just and holy and good and spiritual, all of which are terms he uses to describe them in this chapter. The biggest issue that the antinomian has to address, however, is the fact that Paul quotes the Decalogue in his instructions to believers: "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." --Romans 13:8-10 So if Christ is the fulfillment of the moral law in every sense (i.e. that we are not expected to follow it), how is our loving our neighbor (which is actually a quote from Leviticus--more law) "the fulfillment of the law" as well? He quotes four of the Ten Commandments here and says that WE are fulfilling the moral obligations of the law by loving others. Ephesians 6 shows us another quote from the Decalogue: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH." --Ephesians 6:1-3 Paul quotes straight from commandment number five here and reminds believing Gentiles that this is a commandment that needs to be continued. There is no other reasonable way to interpret this passage. He doesn't say, "The Ten Commandments don't matter, but it is a good idea to honor your parents." He re-issues the commandment verbatim. James has more to say on this: "If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty." --James 2:8-12 James again quote Leviticus, and uses the Ten Commandments as a standard of determining the sinfulness of the believers he is addressing. Taking the whole counsel of God into consideration, there is no reasonable way to say that the Ten Commandments and God's larger moral law that encompasses these commandments have no value or application to the believer. The very apostles you cite as evidence for your position deny what you say in their writings. --Joe! |
||||||
2240 | What is God doing in Rom 1:24, 26? | Rom 1:24 | Reformer Joe | 13151 | ||
Steve: Since it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates the sinful heart, "giving them over" carries the idea of not restraining them and letting their sinfulness run its full course. Does God call some of them to Himself (I don't use back in the case of individuals because they never really were with Him in the first place)? Yes, just like he calls malicious murderers and greedy gossips into a relationship with Him (like those mentioned in 1:29) Notice that this has occurred after the sinful man has already rejected God, exchanging His truth clearly revealed in nature for a lie, which is what all of us did in our hearts before the Lord called us. Paul is referring to the excesssive pagan practices here that clearly demonstrate just what lengths man goes to in his rejection of Him. And From the thrust of Romans 1-3, my understanding is that Romans 1:24-32 is merely a non-exhaustive list of examples of how our universal depravity manifests itself. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 ] Next > Last [123] >> |