Results 2341 - 2360 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2341 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | Reformer Joe | 6273 | ||
An interesteing side note on this: In my missionary position, I will train teenagers this summer to use evangelistic materials aimed at children to put on backyard Bible clubs. The problematic part is that one of the days has to do with Noah, and the materials add to Scripture by suggesting that God wanted to save everyone. Noah "must have" tried to convince people to get on the ark with them, but they just wouldn't listen and be saved like God so desperately "wanted"! Needless to say, that error will be addressed during the training sessions...good thing these materials are developed by another Christian organization and not mine! --Joe! |
||||||
2342 | Speaking of Christ's Kenosis? | Matt 4:1 | Reformer Joe | 6197 | ||
Uh-oh. Asking me MY views will inevitably lead to LONG posts! :) Obviously, God set aside the exercise of some of his attributes when he humbled himself to an infinite degree by becoming like His creation. He did not exercise his omniscience, for example. I would imagine that Jesus did not come out of Mary's womb with the power of speech; he had to learn to talk. As a human being, he had to develop cognitively, I would imagine. I wonder what that was like without sin, don't you? No "terrible two's," no having to overcome the unbridled expression of a sinfulness that everyone else in Nazareth possessed, including his parents. One thing that we can see that Jesus did have at a very early age, however, is an innate sense of who he was. At twelve he is saying that he must be about his Father's business. Of course, Mary and Joseph would not have been taken aback by such a statement, having been there from the miraculous beginning. In short, Jesus laid aside His privileges as God the Son, but that is far different than saying he laid down His character. Christ did not stop BEING God; he only elected, for our sakes, not to utilize his divine abilities. I think the best way to put it is that He put Himself perfectly in man's position, but without sin. I would think that this included limiting himself physically (i.e. doing his signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit, like the apostles would later) and intellectually (e.g. not knowing the day nor hour of His return). In this way, he became the perfect sacrifice, His infinite holiness lived out in human form. He relied on the Spirit perfectly to follow the Father perfectly in order to be the perfect propitiation for our sins. And we did not deserve it in the slightest way! Now that is the humility Paul is talking about in Philippians 4:3-5, the same attitude that Christ Jesus had in doing all this for those who believe in Him. Quite an attitude for Paul to encourage us to imitate, huh? --Joe! |
||||||
2343 | The Temptation of Christ | Matt 4:1 | Reformer Joe | 6188 | ||
I disagree with the last sentence, Hank. In his earthly incarnation, he made himself completely obedient to the will of the Father, which is exactly what a perfect human being would do. He did not exercise the POWER of His deity, but that is something far different than saying that His CHARACTER was corruptible. As you correctly stated, he completely surrendered himself to God the Father. But being God the Son, he embodied the complete holiness and moral perfection of the Godhead. Saying that evil is possible for Christ because he took on a human body is flirting with gnosticism, too. It is not the material nature of flesh that makes man so prone to sin. It is the spiritually inherited sin nature (Romans 5:12) which Christ does not have, being the eternal Son of God. So what was the purpose of The Spirit leading him to Satan to be tempted (which is something I am sure that Satan immensely enjoyed, even though he knew it would end in failure)? Well, in order for Christ's righteousness to be credited to our account, he had to himself live out the completely sinless life in our place, so that he could die in our place. Christ was exposed to that opportunity to sin, not to test his resolve (remember, this is GOD we are talking about), but rather so that he would glorify His Father by not succumbing and in a very poignant way walking always the path of righteousness. This righteousness that Christ lived out in the wilderness was imputed to us when we became believers, so we should praise God for sending his Son to accomplish for us what it is impossible for us to do! "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15 Thanks, as always, Hank, for the stimulating discussion! --Joe! |
||||||
2344 | Noah and his family | 1 Pet 3:20 | Reformer Joe | 6141 | ||
Are you suggesting that Noah changed God's mind on ending "all flesh"? I don't think we should assume that God ever intended on wiping the entire human race off the face of the earth for several reasons: 1. Satan wins in that scenario (Genesis 3:15). 2. The plan for salvation through Christ Jesus was established before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). If no more people were left, no Jesus to come. That means everyone is without a Redeemer, so all humanity dies in its sins. 4. Romans 8:28-30 tells us we were all foreknown, so God planned on us being here. 3. More evidence that Noah is not included in "all flesh" is found later in Chapter 6, when God tells him he has decided to end "all flesh," and then instructs him to build the ark. Evidently Noah was not part of the plan. God intended on wiping out the human race except for Noah's family. Thanks for your input! --Joe! |
||||||
2345 | The Temptation of Christ | Matt 4:1 | Reformer Joe | 6135 | ||
No...being holy God, he is incapable of acting against his own nature. He was tempted externally to live out the sinless life and be the suitable atonement for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust." -- James 1:13-14 The word of God says it all! Jesus is God, and has no lust with which to be enticed or carried away. --Joe! |
||||||
2346 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6106 | ||
And what we Calvinists need to remember is not to let our knowledge of the truth be used as a reason to boast as well...it is very easy for pride to creep into the minds of the Reformed when dealing with those who hold to other views. As we believe God is sovereign, we do not need to use the truth as a sledgehammer, but rather speak the truth always in love. Thanks for your response! --Joe! |
||||||
2347 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6016 | ||
I myself am a 5-point Calvinist with regard to my soteriology. However, I must admit my biggest "hang-up" with the traditional Reformed position is what we are discussing here: paedobaptism. The question is not whether the Reformation and the Roman Catholics banded together against the Anabaptists or not. It is theoretically possible that both are wrong. I do not argue that the salvation of the elect is monergistic on the part of our Lord. What I need to resolve this question in my mind is more evidence that (a) the church did indeed practice infant baptism from its EARLIEST days (which is not erribly apparent from Scripture; and, tied into that, (b) the Scriptural evidence of the covenental nature of baptism. I pretty much have the answer to (b) in the fact that household baptisms were common. The question in my mind is whether that included infants or whether everyone who was baptized first believed as well. In any case, this thread is worth the in-house discussion, and your view is definitely within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. --Joe! |
||||||
2348 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5959 | ||
God has freedom of choice, but he is perfect by his very nature, so he will never desire anything but what ultimately brings Him the most glory. What we have to understand is that there is not even the slightest shadow of unholiness or imperfection in God, so the impossibility of him doing evil springs not from any lack of omnipotence, but the very fact that sin and God don't even belong in the same sentence. Praise be to God that one day all believers will share in this luxury of freedom from sin! Of course, being of the Reformed persuasion, I hold that the unregenerate man's free will is in bondage to sin, so that he will not desire to choose good until liberated by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to Romans, we are bondslaves to sin and death or liberated by Christ. Sin is bondage, not freedom. Paul expounds on sin as slavery in Romans 6. Give it a read! Sin is not an act of freedom. --Joe! |
||||||
2349 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5958 | ||
Yes, I understand. I don't think it is a question of tying His own hands, however. God's nature being immutably perfect, he will never desire to act any other way than according to that perfect nature. That's why we say "God can do anything" when we really mean that "God can and will accomplish His purposes." You are correct in that when God makes an unconditional covenant with his people, he is bound to it because it would violate his nature to do otherwise. I contend additionally that God WILL NOT desire to do otherwise, since that too would violate his nature. Of course, being omnipotent and omniscient, God already sees the end from the beginning. Therefore, when He makes His covenants, there are no conditions or extenuating circumstances in the future which take him by surprise. I believe that when God makes His covenants with humanity, it is not so much a case of "Let's make a deal" as much as it is "here is what I am going to do for you." Therefore, God is not putting Himself into a box that He will ever want to get Himself out of later. The only two things God cannot do are "not be God" and do what is impossible in logical sense. For example, God cannot make a square circle if by definition a circle is round. --Joe! |
||||||
2350 | Is the United States in the Bible? | Dan 7:4 | Reformer Joe | 5956 | ||
I find it interesting that you are certain that the "wings" refer to the U.S. and U.K., and then exhort others not to make the Bible fit to their view... Maybe we should spend a lot less time majoring on eschatology and work more on theology. That is definitely letting the Bible speak for itself. --Joe! |
||||||
2351 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5936 | ||
So then you are saying that Christ did not pay the penalty for their sins. Or He did and they are paying it again, which rendered Christ's payment ultimately useless. Or Christ's payment counted and the resident of Hell is paying the penalty again, which makes no sense at all with a just God. You also said that you believe that some can lose their salvation. That debate is outside the range of this thread, but let's assume for argument that this is the case. We have a sinner who accepts Christ. Therefore, Christ paid the penalty for his sins (both our views will acknowledge that Christ died for this individual). Then he loses his salvation. Does that mean that Christ paid the penalty and then didn't? It is these problems that lead me to reject limited atonement and to interpret Scripture to say that in many cases, the "world" does not mean every single individual who has ever or will ever live. What does atonement mean, after all? Finally, how is people accepting Christ up to the Holy Spirit? I thought in the Arminian view He provides all with prevenient grace, so salvation is ultimately up to the sinner who can accept or reject that prevenient grace? Think about what I am saying. If there is some logic that I am missing here, please bring it to my attention. Thanks, and God bless! --Joe! |
||||||
2352 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5934 | ||
You didn't address anything I said about Saul or Jonah or Jeremiah. I also do not see the threat of the church dying out in an Arminian wordlview to be a "petty matter," and I don't think you really believe that, either. I am not trying to corner you, Nolan. If Arminianism is truly what is revealed in the entire biblical text, I will accept it. I need to be shown it, because I certainly don't see it myself. My own thinking itself did not move to Calvinism until a couple of years ago, because upon examining it (and not some straw man set up by its opponents), I became convinced that it offered the view consistent with the Bible, and answered a great deal of the questions I had regarding my previous views. If you do not have immediate answers to my questions, Nolan, that is fine. I am not in a rush here. I am simply pointing out what I consider to be serious flaws in Arminian thinking. We all should examine our views and let them be directed by the word of God itself. Take the time to think about the answers to these questions. Ask other Arminians you know how they would answer these questions. However, by no means IGNORE them and leave them unanswered, because I think we would both agree that God has not left his nature to be some "guessing game" where we do not know how he operates. If you come up with Arminian answers, please share them with me! May God bless you and lead us both into a complete knowledge of his revealed truth. --Joe! |
||||||
2353 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5921 | ||
With all due respect, you didn't answer question 2. Whose sins are the damned dying for? The same ones that Christ died for? --Joe! |
||||||
2354 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5920 | ||
And I contend that this not love. If you have children, do you let them play near a hot stove if they are determined to do so? If they are determined to play with a plugged-in hair dryer, would you say, "Well, I love you, but it's your choice."? I do not make the conclusion you do because I hold that your premeses are flawed. --Joe! |
||||||
2355 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5919 | ||
That is not what the text says here, Nolan. Show me where Jeremiah HAD to cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Did King Saul cooperate with the Holy Spirit in 1 Samuel? In any case, the Old Testament prophets were by and large different from the NT believers, because, except for a few cases, they were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but rather He came upon them to accomplish His purposes. In the case of Jonah, when he was chosen, did he cooperate? Then why was he still a preacher to the Ninevites? God surely respected his "free will," right? ;) You believe in a very weak God, Nolan, if He can say something like he does to Jeremiah in 1:5 and then be thwarted by his creation. There is no "maybe" to God's plan. In your view, if everyone who is a believer suddenly decided to stop evangelizing, the church would DIE OUT! Don't you see the logical conclusions of having such an elevated view of mankind, one that Scripture does not support? --Joe! |
||||||
2356 | earth 6-10000 years old | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5907 | ||
Of course, there are many folks who would disagree with Ryrie on this (well, at least points 1 and 3). That is definitely not a can of worms I intend to serve up here, though! --Joe! |
||||||
2357 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5901 | ||
I think Free Will means the ability to act ACCORDING to our nature. God's nature has been, is, and always will be morally incorruptible, not fallible in the slightest. Man's initial nature was perfect, but fallible or corruptible (Genesis 1-2). After the Fall, man's nature was corrupted and now sinful (Romans 5:12). When the Holy Spirit regenerates us, He gives us a new nature, which allows us to please God once more (Romans 8:8). We are still corruptible, but we are now capable of pleasing Him and serving Him as well. Therefore, God acts according to His nature. The unsaved act according to theirs, and the believer has two competing natures. In the case of the Christian, depending on which one is "fed" the most, that nature will be the one whose will is carried out. Man, of course, does not have the power, perspective, and soverieignty of God; so by our very nature as creatures we do not have the ability to carry out our purposes the way God does His. That's a good thing considering our nature... :) Tag, you're it! |
||||||
2358 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5899 | ||
Contrary to whoever voted against you, I think this is a very valid question. The simple answer: God's character is unchanging. Therefore, God cannot be "un-Godly." Whatever the Scripture reveals Him to be, then we know that He will continuously act in concert with that nature. Now, then, God is the Creator and sovereign Lord, so he can do whatever he wants with us. He cannot act against His nature (for example, he cannot lie), but His hands are not tied by His creation, either. We cannot control God in any way, contrary to those who speak on TBN of the Holy Spirit as if He were the Force from Star Wars. Does this help address your question? --Joe! |
||||||
2359 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5890 | ||
With all due respect, you didn't address my post's content at all. Jeremiah 1:5 does not tell us that ALL are forewknown! It does not say, "I knew all humans." It says that he knew Jeremiah. If this passage is addressed to all of us, then are all humans also sanctified from the womb, and are we all ordained as prophets? Don't claim things that God spoke to individuals for yourself unless it is clear that God is speaking of a category to which you belong. In this case, He is clearly speaking to one man about him alone. By the way, where is Jeremiah's free will in this passage? Did he agree to be a prophet before he was in the womb? Doesn't it seem to you that God was 100 percent calling the shots here? This verse supports divine election much more than it does a free-will view. Thanks for your comments! Keep searching for truth. --Joe! |
||||||
2360 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5888 | ||
I was not personally offended by your comments. If I got offended every time someone with a theologically different viewpoint questioned my motives, I would be curled up in a fetal position, crying in the corner. Forgiveness is no problem. I do, however, have a knee-jerk reaction to those who claim that those who hold to limited atonement having a dishonest heart. Jonathan Edwards the Great Awakener didn't have an honest heart? Francis Schaeffer didn't have an honest heart? R.C. Sproul does not have an honest heart? John Calvin the Reformer did not have an honest heart? See? Once you start lining up those who held/hold to limited atonement (and this is just the very tip of the iceberg), it becomes clear that either God used in tremendous, powerful ways those with "dishonest hearts" when it came to who Christ died for; or that just maybe their hearts were not dishonest after all. For the record, I did not directly call you a blasphemer. What I did intend to say is that if limited atonement is indeed Biblical, dismissing it as a "doctrinal slant" is treading dangerous water. For example, put the word "Trinity" in the place of "limited atonement." You and I both are Trinitarians, and if a Oneness Pentecostal came along and called the Trinity a doctrinal slant deriving from a dishonest heart, we should think that God would be extremely displeased at such an accusation. While I do not hold limited atonement to be a salvific issue, if there exists even a possibility that limited atonement is what is revealed in Scripture, we should not be so quick to brush it off. Sorry if that did not come out the way it was intended! In any case, I do not see how one can logically hold to unconditional election and unlimited atonement unless Christ didn't actually pay the full penalty for humanity's individual sins on the cross. If Christ actually died for the sins of all human beings (i.e. paid the full penalty), whose sins are those in Hell paying for? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ] Next > Last [123] >> |