Results 2301 - 2320 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2301 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6999 | ||
Now on to part (b): Paul is again writing to the church at Corinth and also to believers (v.1:1), which is important to note. This passage is a little more packed, so forgive me if I ask a few questions myself to clarify your take on it. Identifying the pronouns again is a good place to start. The "we" and "us" here in this passage (at least starting in v. 12) seem not to be all Christians, as in the Romans passage, but rather Paul and his fellow ministers. There is a "we"/"you" distinction between two groups of believers who are experiencing some, ah, "friction." The "you" are the Corinthians, and the "Him" is clearly the Lord Jesus. The big question is who the "they" is referring to. Obviously it refers to "all" and "the world" (vv. 14,19). Verse 19 in particular says that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." Again, I ask, are we all reconciled? Are those who die rejecting Christ "reconciled"? Even those who do not wish reconciliation and are alive right now are "reconciled"? Of course, another interesting question is why Paul begs his audience to be reconciled to God. Wouldn't they be reconciled already, being part of "the world." I do not see how they could be both "reconciled" and "not reconciled" at the same time. Part of being reconciled also apparently entails God "not counting their trasspasses against them." (v. 19) What about those who will be suffering in Hell for all eternity. For whose tresspasses are they paying? If Christ died for their sins, that would imply that sufficient payment has been made; and either Christ died needlessly for the sins of the damned, and/or God is imposing the same penalty twice for the same offense. --Joe! |
||||||
2302 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6995 | ||
Okay, let's look: a) I admit unfamiliarity with the "middle passive" voice in Greek, so I am unable to comment on the grammatical particularites involved here. In any case, I do not contend that the active reception of a gift or faith runs contrary to the Reformed position in any case. Calvinists contend that we do choose Christ, that we do place our faith in Christ. It is volitional and active on our part, but only because the disposition of our hearts have been changed logically prior to exercising saving faith. This differs from Arminianism in the sense that it is more than a "prevenient grace" that merely makes us ABLE to receive Christ; it makes us WANT to do so. The verse does not imply that there are some to whom it is offered but not received. And, of course, the verse itself does not identify who those people are that will "receive the abundance of grace." However, let's see if we can infer who those individuals may be. We know that they are initially "ungodly" (5:6), which does describe everyone, but doesn't necessarily mean ALL ungodly men. The same verse also identifies the ungodly as "we," so does the "we" mean "we humans" or "we Christians" to whom the letter is addressed? Obviously the latter category is a subset of the former, so we need more to go on. We see that the "us" is continues in verse 8, in that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Same people being referred to here as in verse 6, unless you can see some reason why the "we" has shifted. Verse 9-10 shows that "we" have been "justifed by His blood" and "shall be saved of the wrath of God through Him" and "shall be saved by His life." Do Arminians hold that all humans fall into this category? Verse 11 shows the pronoun "we" again, in terms of having received reconciliation. Have all human beings been reconciled to God now? It seems that the "we" referred to is limited to Christians. Now it may be that Paul is not emphatically saying in this passage that the unsaved are unatoned for, but the "we" seems to be dealing with those who have been justified, reconciled, saved through Christ from the wrath to come. Therefore, the "ungodly" in verse 6 and the "us" in verse 8 seems very likely to be referring to believers. Now verse 17 is in the middle of a passage where Paul is comparing Christ's atonement to Adam's transgression. He uses the words "the many" to refer to both the condemned and the saved in all the verses except for 18, in which he states that Adam 's sin resulted in condemnation of "all men" and through Christ's death and resurrection "there resulted justification of life to all men." First of all, were ALL human beings condemned until Christ? Secondly, were ALL human beings justified through Christ? Keep in mind that justification means a "declaration of righteousness" and that there is no evidence that Paul is speaking of a "potential justification," just like he wasn't writing of a "potential condemnation." This is why Calvinists hold in many cases that "all men" means "all kinds of men" (which is really not any grammatical stretch) rather than "each and every human being." --Joe! |
||||||
2303 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6967 | ||
Thanks for the prayer, Tim. We have about 50 teens who are investing at least two weeks in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in a variety of different settings this summer. I do hold to a "sovereign will"/"moral will" distinction myself on the part of God, in which God's sovereign will is everything done according to his active involvement in affairs of creation, as well as his allowance of things that he allows that are outside his moral will (e.g. rebellious acts on the part of demons and humans, or "non-moral" acts such as me choosing the red shirt over the blue one). What I meant on the whole "God's will failing" is the following: 1. God is omnipotent and omniscient 2. If God is willing that no humans perish at all, then 3. He is either incapable of saving everyone or chooses to limit Himself in some way, stopping short of doing everything possible to convert the sinner. And from a Calvinist perspective, the only way God "prevents people from being saved" is by not extending saving grace to them. It is the depravity of their nature, their sin, their active rebellion against a holy God which prevents them from being in a right standing with God. It just doesn't logically follow that if God chooses to show undeserved kindness to some that all the rest suddenly deserve the kindness shown to the elect. The elect are shown mercy; the reprobate receive justice. No one is shown injustice. I would contend that NO ONE wants to submit to God in their unregenerate state. In looking at an Arminian view, why is God's "prevenient grace" effective in some and not in others? Does God not know what the "hook" is to reel the sinner in? Or is it that the one who chooses Christ is wiser or smarter or more intuitive or whatever? If the latter is the case, how can the one who chooses Christ not have a reason to boast superiority to the one who also received "prevenient grace" and didn't choose Christ? In short, what is the quality in the sinner that makes her choose Christ rather than reject Him if God's saving grace is extended to all, and how is that not meritorious in itself? --Joe! |
||||||
2304 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6950 | ||
Hello, again, Tim! Just wanted to put in a few brief points myself. Been busy working on a teen mission trip (yes, Calivinists DO evangelize! :) ), so I haven't had the luxury of following this thread too closely. 1) What evidence is in the text that receiving in Romans 5:17 is an active deed rather than a passive kind of receiving? 2) If we hold that election is conditional, who is really the one doing the choosing? Does that match up with Sho is choosing in every passage in the NT where this is brought up. In other words, where is there any comclusive, incontrovertible verse that states that we are at any point "free to accept or reject Christ." We both know that the "whosoever believes..." passages are not ignored by Calvinists, but easily fit into the TULIP framework. Is there anything else besides those, since we both agree that all who will believe are saved? 3) My biggest problem with this (and I am a fairly new Calvinist by the way -- last couple of years), is that a God who is not willing that any should perish is a God who fails to some extent in his redemptive plan. What I mean by this is that if he loves us all in a salvific way, then why would he not "do more" (which is within the capability of an omnipotent God) to change the minds of all who have rejected him? A corollary to this is the question, What makes some accept Christ and others reject Him, if the Holy Spirit works equally to "try and save all"? Thanks again for your dialogue. I do enjoy it! --Joe! |
||||||
2305 | How does God make Himself known? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 6792 | ||
Through nature (Romans 1), which points to an Intelligent Designer. Through direct, divine revelation (Take your pick of a whole host of passages, but Revelation 1 and Isaiah 6 are a couple of my personal favorites). NOTE: This is not a "dime-a-dozen" thing that any of us should expect or actively seek. Most definitely through the earthly ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1). Most clearly for us in the 21st century? Through His word, the Bible. Both in the Old Testament, by his Law (Psalm 119:97-104) and in the New, by means of the Gospels and the epistles (2 Timothy 3:16). Want to know what God is like? Read His book! --Joe! |
||||||
2306 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6786 | ||
You lost your original answer? Jesus saves...why don't you? :) Thanks for providing your perspective on Romans 9. It doesn't seem that many people who hold a "free-will" view want to go there. I would like to point out two things that keep me from accepting the "nations" view in Romans 9. The first is that God clearly is shown to not extend his mercy to some, which included Esau as an individual in Genesis, not the Edomites. The second is that the "vessels of mercy" referred to are not the Jews nor the Gentiles as a race, but those "of the Jews" and also "of the Gentiles," i.e. individuals within those nations (v. 24). Also, Paul takes the time to clearly delineate in the first part of Romans 9 that not all descended from Jacob are considered "all Israel" for the purposes of his discourse (v. 6). I don't see how one concludes that Paul is speaking of Gentiles and Jews in general in Ephesians 1. He is addressing Gentile believers, but he himself is a Jew, and he groups them both together (i.e. the church at Ephesus and Paul, not nations) as those chosen according to the kind intention of God's will. What do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
2307 | Is prayer of Jabez special? | 1 Chr 4:10 | Reformer Joe | 6776 | ||
Hank, one of the best pray-ers in the Bible was King David, "the man after God's own heart." I have just finished reading 1 Chronicles, which contains that one-verse "Prayer of Jabez." In my opinion, while it was a sincere prayer, in terms of Biblical elaboration, it pales in comparison to David's prayer of praise to the Almighty in 1 Chronicles 29:10-19, after the preparations for the temple have been made. I recommend that everyone take a look at that passage and see everything that David ascribes to our great God! --Joe! |
||||||
2308 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6775 | ||
Tim: Doesn't election (choosing) imply that some are set apart and that some are not? How can election really be called "election" if everyone is elected? Furthermore, does that jibe with Romans 9:15 ff.? Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are not identical, but what they do have in common is the notion that salvation is synergystic. In other words, that at some point we are capable of choosing Christ with only an "assist" from the Holy Spirit. Arminians declare that our depravity requires prevenient grace to enable us, while semi-Pelagians deny that we are completely and totally depraved in the first place (i.e. not spiritually dead, but spiritually "wounded"). Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
2309 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Reformer Joe | 6768 | ||
Apology accepted without reservation, and if I have offended you with my manner, please accept mine as well. My point about modalism is that your post provides a very good defense against it regarding the Isaiah verse that Oneness folks are so fond of quoting as "indisputable evidence" that Jesus is the Father. --Joe! |
||||||
2310 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6767 | ||
That question in itself demonstrates that you possess wisdom, Hank! :) | ||||||
2311 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6737 | ||
I understand, Mel. I just can't imagine why you think that obedience is such an easy thing, living in a world system which hates Christ and all who follow Him. Try reading 1 Peter to get an idea of living with trials in true obedience. Or Philippians. Yes, obedience is carried out by cooperation with the Holy Spirit, but from one vantage point it is terribly challenging. By the way, you still haven't addressed my original post. --Joe! |
||||||
2312 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6724 | ||
At times, harsh language does indeed have its place. Paul himself used it. So did our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not an apostle, but nowhere do I find in Scripture that harsh language is to be used only by Messiahs and apostles. We are to rightly divide the word of truth and be discerning toward unscriptural notions and heresies. Unrelenting and unrepentent heresy certainly calls for harsh language sometimes to convey the seriousness of the matter, especially when it is confusing believers and causing some of the brethren to fall away. We are indeed to judge, using as our standard the word of God. --Joe! |
||||||
2313 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6723 | ||
Actually, it was the town council of Geneva who voted to burn Servetus at the stake for his incessant heresy. Contrary to your assumptions, John Calvin did not run the entire town, and actually opposed burning Servetus at the stake. Yes, he was in favor of hanging Servetus, but putting Calvin in the context of his times, such a punishment was not considered inappropriate. Consider the fact that in the United States during the 1800s horse thieves were hung on a regular basis. Capital punishment for repeated offenses (such as the case of Serevtus, where his heresies would do a lot more than leave a man without his horse) was par for the course. What SHOULD be appreciated, on the other hand, is that there was only one person executed for heresy during an era when many,MANY more people were killed by the Catholic clergy for their "crime" of Protestantism. In any case, whether Calvin was part of a committee which voted to execute Servetus says nothing about whether his theology was true. My post was an admonishment not to be so quick to paint Calvin as some bloodthirsty, evil overlord. That is simply an unfair characterization, and that is precisely how you were intending to characterize him in your original post. Martin Luther was pretty anti-Semitic himself. We can find all kinds of sins among the Reformers. Does this mean that the Protestant Reformation was not of God, or that their theology is flawed? Perhaps you should take a little more time to study Church history and realize what a radical turn of events it took to get us back our Bible. --Joe! |
||||||
2314 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6542 | ||
You are right; 10 percent is not a lot to work with. Sorry about the typo! :) The law of non-contradiction may not be explicitly stated in the Bible, but it is pretty hard to reason without it. For example, the Bible clearly says that there is one God. That means there is not more than one God nor less than one God. If God is just, that means that he is not unjust. That is just simple logic, and everyone operates with an understanding of the law of non-contradiction, whether they admit to it or not. Likewise, if Calvinism is an accurate representation of God's revealed plan, then Arminianism cannot be, due to the fact that they make contradictory claims. The vice versa holds true as well. Thanks again. --Joe! |
||||||
2315 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | Reformer Joe | 6532 | ||
This idea is not too far off from the Christian Science view of God as some "divine principle," a force of nature to be tapped into. It saddens me greatly to see many Christians who think of God as something like the Force from Star Wars, an impersonal law of nature whose forgiveness we gain and whose power we can obtain for ourselves if only we focus our own wills and energy in the right way. Terribly New Age, and it has no place in a biblical, Christian worldview where God actually says "no" at times when we pray to him, no matter how much faith we can "muster." Then, many Christians blame themselves when bad things happen despite all their prayer. "My sister wouldn't have died if only I had had enough faith" and that kind of talk. As Christians, we must all strive in our own congregations at lovingly but firmly eliminating such spiritual pollution. Trouble is, there aren't enough people speaking out against popular yet ungodly trends due to the fact that they would be perceived as not being "nice" or "trying to quench the Spirit," etc. Thanks for your insight! --Joe! |
||||||
2316 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6531 | ||
With all due respect, you didn't respond to the content of my post at all. Please re-read and address what I wrote. Simply repeating an unsupported assumption regarding election does not make you any more or less right than you were the first time. By the way, I did look at the two verses, and they do nothing to support your original contentions. God is anything but "simple and easy." From the human side of things, our salvation is easy, but it cost Christ a great deal. Furthermore, since God does all the work in regenerating us and causing us to desire to place our faith in Christ, it again is easy for us. Our holy God, however, is anything but simple; and the committed Christian life is one of external difficulty and trials (ask Paul). Our eternal rest comes later. Lastly, one cannot pick and choose from Scripture the attributes of God that we are most comfortable with (well, I suppose we can, but it will not be the real God we will be worshipping). God is loving, but God is also completely holy. Check out Revelation 1 for John's first-hand experience of the utter holiness of Christ. He is also completely just, and will not compromise His justice for the sake of love. He is also a God of wrath toward sin. The God who sent Christ to die for my sins is the same one who destroyed all humanity with the exception of Noah's family. He is the God who will let many spend all eternity in Hell to justly pay the penalty for their sins against Him. Simple? I don't think God is the simple One here. --Joe! |
||||||
2317 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6514 | ||
I am afraid that I misunderstand you (at least I hope that you are not saying what it appears that you are saying). Are you saying that Paul and Christ were unwarranted in the tone of their correction? I am not convinced that I hold in myself the knowledge of right and wrong. However, I do hold a Bible in my hands, and it makes a lot of things very clear. I am convinced that God is holy. Is that too dogmatic? I hold to the universal depravity of mankind. That certainly can't be called self-righteous! I hold that we are saved by the grace of God through faith in the sinless life and substitutionary death of Christ. Please tell me when I am getting too bigoted or narrow-minded. I also hold that Ephesians 1 clearly points out that it is God who chooses those who will be saved. I hold that Romans 9 does the same, as do other lengthy passages in the Old and New Testaments.If someone has a reasonable, alternate exegesis of these passages, I am more than willing to hear them. So far, I have heard none. What is your viewpoint on this issue, by the way? If God has revealed His nature in the Bible, it is most definitely because he wants us to know what He is like. As I said previously, ignorance of God's word is no excuse. I assume you have a Bible. Examine the Scriptures and explain from the text your own views rather than posturing as noble for sitting on the doctrinal fence and hinting that those who have examined them and drawn very reasonable conclusions are being "dogmatic" and "self-righteous." --Joe! |
||||||
2318 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6513 | ||
Your manner of speech doesn't trouble me in the slightest. Your hypocrisy in "correcting" me in the tone of my response to Nolan while referring to me as a "bigot" I just found strange... I am 10 percent open to discussing other viewpoints. If I am wrong in the historical interpretation of God's methods and motive in salvation, please point that out to me from Scripture. I have yet to see anyone effectively address the problems I have with an Arminian view in light of clearly expounded passages to the contrary in Scripture. You speak of Calvinism as if it is something other than Christian. Do you hold the two as mutually exclusive? Yes, I hold to my views because I believe they are correct. Everyone does that, including yourself. Likewise, due to the law of non-contradiction, I hold opposing views to be wrong. By claiming that salvation is by God's grace through faith and not of works, does that make me "narrow-minded" to views that I must work my way to heaven? In the same manner, is my conviction that the Calvinist view is correct mean that I think Arminians are wrong? Absolutely. Do I think that means that no Arminians are saved? Of course not. Am I open to discussion on the issue? Without question. Has any discussion that has ensued on the topic satisfactorily addressed my concerns with an Arminian view in light of Ephesians 1, Romans 9:15 ff, John 6:35-65, etc.? Not at all. In short, do I think that I am right? Of course I do. If I thought I was wrong, I would believe something else. You painting me as someone who is convinced that he is right and others are wrong is what philosophers call a "red herring." Everyone falls into that category. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
2319 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | Reformer Joe | 6481 | ||
Hank, I was wondering if you had actually taken the time to browse through the book. I haven't, but then I always am kind of allergic to whatever is on the "Top 10" shelf at my local Christian bookstore. If you have taken a look at it, what are your thoughts? --Joe! |
||||||
2320 | We may be missing something here | 1 Pet 3:20 | Reformer Joe | 6470 | ||
Indeed, let's get the whole meaning. I don't see the connection you are trying to make between 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 3, so please elaborate how you think the passage is relevant. And the question is, who is the "all" referred to in 2 Peter 3:9? The fact that God is patient not toward unbelievers, but believers (the "you" in 3:9 refers to the believers reading this passage -- v. 1:1) indicates that God is not waiting for "ALL" to be saved (which will take forever if that is what God is truly waiting for), but rather for those who are elected to eternal life throughout human history to born again. That includes people who have not been born a first time. Fact is that this verse isn't inconsistent with an election viewpoint, where many, MANY lengthy passages (Ephesians 1:1 - 2:10; Romans 9:15 ff.; 1 Peter 1:1-2; John 6:35-65 and so on) directly eliminate alternate views. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 ] Next > Last [123] >> |