Results 2341 - 2360 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2341 | Never had a chance to reject Christ | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41214 | ||
They will pay for their sins for all eternity in hell. That is justice. "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS" --Romans 2:5-6 --Joe! |
||||||
2342 | Never had a chance to reject Christ | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41319 | ||
That is NOT what this verse says. Try reading it in its context. --Joe! |
||||||
2343 | Is today the only day of salvation for a | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41320 | ||
Arnie: Again, Romans 1 makes it very clear that every single human being who is able to perceive creation around them in any fashion has received God's revelation. You keep avoiding a discussion of that crystal-clear passage, choosing instead to repeat your assertion that there MUST be another chance. What do you think that second chance is? Reincarnation? The Mormon concept of "spirit prison" where people can receive Christ in the afterlife and have people baptized for them here on earth? God the Father has revealed Himself to all. Humanity as a whole has rejected Him. The fault is ours. Nowhere does it say in Scripture that God MUST give everyone the gospel. There is no question that He calls on us to proclaim it everywhere. It is absolutely certain that at some point it will be proclaimed everywhere. But NOWHERE does it say that every individual who has ever lived has been given (or will be given) an opportunity to "accept or reject Jesus Christ." We are condemned not for our rejection of Christ. We earn Hell first and foremost for our rejection of God the Father and his holy moral will, clearly revealed in nature and in our consciences (in addition to the specific revelation He has given to His people). Sixteen-year-old Muslim suicide bombers are rebels against a holy God that has revealed Himself, and therefore they will be judged and sent deservingly to hell. The theological ramifications of your unbiblical notion here do much to destroy the idea of God's omnipotence and sovereignty and justice, Arnie. When it all boils down, you are really just making something up in your own head rather than deriving your theology from what God has expressly said in His Word. --Joe! |
||||||
2344 | Never had a chance to reject Christ | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41322 | ||
Arnie: You wrote: "Your saying,that the bible says, God the Father is going to throw some one who has never had a chance to know the truth into everlasting torment? Isn't Romans 2:5-6 talking about some one who knew the truth? Rom 10:14-15" No, I am saying that God is going to throw someone who knew the truth, and suppressed it in unrighteousness, into hell. This is the group that Romans 2:4-5 refers to, and this group consists of everyone apart from Christ. Romans 1:18-20. The truth of God HAS BEEN REVEALED to all. Romans 10:14-15 just supports the need to evangelize, specifically because those who have not heard the gospel CANNOT call on Jesus Christ. We do not know who will reject Christ and who will receive Him among the evangelized, but it is certain that mercy is not extended to those to whom the gospel has not been preached. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as 2 Corinthians 5 tells us, and we need to extend the kingdom of God and the message of the gospel as God enables us to do so. We, the church, are God's means of extending His mercy to all those whom He will save. Time we got busy! --Joe! |
||||||
2345 | Is today the only day of salvation for a | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41362 | ||
Okay...one last time and I am done: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." --Romans 1:20 When did God start revealing His invisible attributes? SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. God has revealed Himself through CREATION, before a single word of Scripture had been written down, before He even spoke the first word to Adam, creation pointed out God and his attributes. Anyone who has use of their senses has access to the knowledge of God the Father. What are those attributes that have been clearly seen? HIS ETERNAL POWER AND DIVINE NATURE. This again was not revealed first by someone coming up and opening a Bible. CREATION reveals it to humanity. The tribal chief in the most remote part of the Amazon rain forest has access to creation, and therefore has access to the knowledge of the eternal power and divine nature of God. Thanks to his fallen nature, however, he will suppress that truth in unrighteousness. How are these things understood? From an evangelist coming to preach from Scripture? Not primarily, but rather THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE. If you can show me how a Muslim teenager does not have direct access to "what has been made," to God's creation, then I will be the first to jump on your "second-chance" bandwagon. The problem is not ACCESS to the truth of God, but rather SUPPRESSION of it, thanks to our depraved natures. Simply put, the unregenerate man DOES NOT WANT to believe. We are not morally neutral...we are hiding from and running from and denying the truth that is literally testified to all around us until God in His mercy corrects our thinking. But no one will be able to stand before God and make the claim of "not enough info," because God has made Himself and His nature evident through what has been made. Now, moving on to verse 21: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." So there truth, which is evident to all, but each one of us rejects it and that results in futility of thinking and the darkening of our foolish hearts. Notice that he does not write "ignorant hearts," but rather "foolish" ones for rejecting the truth that was made evident to them by God in what has been made. You wrote: "Because that, when they knew God,KJV Which God is he referring to? ALLAH?" Nope...Allah is the replacement for the true God revealed in creation, thanks to the futility of their thinking and their darkened hearts and their suppression of the truth of the real God revealed in what has been made. Really, Arnie...under your scheme of thinking, it would be cruel to evangelize unreached people groups, because without hearing the name of Christ they would at least have an excuse. The whole point of Romans 1-3 is to show that Jews (who had the oracles of God, i.e. the Law and Prophets) and Gentiles (who did not) are equally under the wrath and judgment of God. It simply makes no sense to argue that God's wrath is only revealed (Romans 1:18-19) to those who have heard the name of Jesus, because before the 1st century A.D., that would mean EVERYONE had an excuse! And finally, you did not seem to address whether you think reincarnattion or spirit prison would be your "second chance" of choice. Please support which one you believe in by Scripture affirming its existence. --Joe! |
||||||
2346 | Never had a chance to reject Christ | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41364 | ||
First of all, since God is sovereign over life and death, no one dies "prematurely" in His economy. There is a body of Christian thought that holds to an "age of accountability," which doesn't have to do with the information at one's disposal, but rather one's cognitive abilities to apprehend it. However, an adult in an unevangelized country does not fall into the same category as a stillborn infant under this scheme, because the light of creation and the light of conscience are able to be appprehended by the adult. Comparing aborted fetuses to adult terrorists is complete nonsese. Just rest assured that your nonsense continues a very noble tradition of nonsense that all-too-frequently pops up on this forum! --Joe! |
||||||
2347 | Never had a chance to reject Christ | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41431 | ||
Well, Paul was speaking about himself, not Arnie. --Joe! P.S. The Romans were the ones who were contantly imprisoning Paul for his message. They were indeed offended. |
||||||
2348 | Is today the only day of salvation for a | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41643 | ||
I am glad I am not God, either...I wouldn;t be very good at it at all! :) I would also say that Jesus came to provide the means for God's mercy to be given to sinners. However, He accomplished more than that. He defeated Satan at the Cross. He glorified God the Father by His sinless life. He leads the way for us, being the first to be resurrected from the dead (we will follow!). Since you are a believer in Christ, Angel-1, God has shown you incomparable mercy! :) --Joe! |
||||||
2349 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Reformer Joe | 51664 | ||
Treadway: You wrote, regarding 2 Peter 3: "The notion is sinners whose numbers are finite, that is, reflective of the people in that same generation who are not saved yet." No, the whole point of the passage is that God's timetable is NOT out own timetable. What we see in this chapter is Peter's answer to mockers that have said, "If Christ hasn't come yet, then He obviously isn't going to." (v. 3-4). Peter then cites the example of Noah building his ark and God waiting with patience until the ark was completed until His chosen people had been rescued. Obviously Peter did not close the Second Coming into a span of a few decades with this verse: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." --2 Peter 3:8 He then follows that by saying that, just as He did in Noah's day, he is waiting for all of His chosen people to come to repentance before the destruction comes. What this chapter clearly IS showing is that the destruction of the present earth and the new earth will soon follow the Second Coming. How does the preterist answer this charge? Most preterists will say that the earth is going to continue down nature's path for billions of more years before this happens. Not terribly biblical at all, if you ask me. You are correct that the number of sinners are finite, but that is a view that I hold as well. Nowhere does Peter say that the sumber of sinners who are going to come to repentance are already born. In fact, between the time of the ascension of Jesus Christ and the writing of 2 Peter, countless thousands of new sinners had been born as well. With all due respect, you need to evaluate a great number of the sound biblical arguments that are out there pointing out Ingersoll's errors. When evaluating any new teaching (especially one that has not been held by the majority of the church in its 2000-year history), it is important to look at both sides of the issue before making the sweeping conclusion that non-preterists simply have not read their Bibles. --Joe! |
||||||
2350 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Reformer Joe | 51713 | ||
Treadway: You wrote: 'Seems as if I'm caught in a "Catch-22", since I say my post is my last on this subject, then there is another response, and I can't help myself--have to respond. Maybe this can be the last? :)' Maybe, but as you have found, it is easy to get drawn into things here... :) You wrote: 'As far as citing the verse, "But don't forget this dear friends, that a day or a thousand years from now is like tomorrow to the Lord," has no real meaning to the current situation. Do you think it assuaged the problem for the disciples? Do you think it helped them with their waiting?' I would assume that it did indeed help them, but that is not the issue. God's revelation is not solely for the purpose of making us feel at ease or comfortable. It does fit in very well to the purpose of Peter's letter. Whether it would assuage you may be another story, but again, God doesn't exist to serve our wants. Regarding Mark 9:1 and parallel passages in the other gospels (particularly Matthew 24), many Bible scholars have adopted what could either be called a "partial preterist" or a "preterist" view, depending on whether one refers to the notion that the Second Coming has already occurred as "preterism" or "hyper-preterism." Essentially, this view holds that the events depicted in the first 35 verses of Matthew 24 refer to the impending destruction of Jerusalem, along with the slaughter of over a million Jews and the razing of the Temple. The rest of the chapter is understood to refer to the Second Coming. Not being heavily transfixed by eschatology, I have not examined each of these views in any great detail, but I wanted to assure you that there is a great deal of difference among Christians regarding the timing of end-times events prophesied in the Old and New Testaments. Like the prophecies regarding the coming Messiah, there was quite a lot of difference among the Jewish population regarding how and when God would bring the deliverer of Israel. Many very intelligent and Bible-believing Christians regard Tim LaHaye as anything but an authority on the future events depicted in the Bible. While I will agree that dispensational pre-millenialism that we see in the "Left Behind" series is currently "the rage," it is by no means the predominant view in church history. Personally, seeing that events such as the glorification of the saints (1 Corinthians 15) have quite obviously not taken place yet, I could not subscribe to "complete" or "hyper-preterism." Therefore, it is possible that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming are two separate events prophesied by Jesus and the apostles. For a more complete look at these views, I recommend two sources that I have throughly examined, but which analyze differing viewpoints on the end-times events, including the issues that you raise. One is this Web site: http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/index.html and the other is a book by R.C. Sproul called "The Last Days According to Jesus." If not convincing to you, these resources will provide alternatives to those of atheists and "Left Behind." --Joe! |
||||||
2351 | Who are the "any" and "all" in verse 9 | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 53005 | ||
I say the same thing as ye. :) If God is waiting for all to come to repentance, the world is never going to end. --Joe! |
||||||
2352 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81249 | ||
A covenant theology perspective on Scripture eliminates the "problems" with the predominant Reformed understanding of this verse. Peter can be addressing the covenant people of God with the implicit understanding that not all of God's covenant people are true believers (and therefore objects of God's patience). --Joe! |
||||||
2353 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81297 | ||
"Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-)" I am afraid that simply is not good enough. From now on, I think we should all identify ourselves theologically by our user ID's like I do... :) --Joe! |
||||||
2354 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81298 | ||
"Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-)" I am afraid that simply is not good enough. From now on, I think we should all identify ourselves theologically by our user ID's like I do... :) --Joe! |
||||||
2355 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81328 | ||
"I join CDBJ in ruing the day when it no longer means much to call oneself a Christian without the use of modifiers. One is pressed in today's world to accept one label or another, and if he refuses to do so, along will come the label makers and slap one on him anyway." Lest we forget, however, the apostles had to deal with Judaizer Jim and Gnostic Gus (or should that be "Gnostic Neil"?). On down the line came Coptic Carla, Arian Alex, Monophysite Michelle, Nestorian Ned, Orthodox Orville, and Protestant Pete and all his spawn (both liberal and evangelical). Then we have all those modern-day, pretend relations who want the family name for themselves. I am finding it hard to locate any time in Christian history where one could say "I am a Christian" and everyone nodded their head as if that said it all. Labels are useful, even it they are not always a perfect fit. --Joe! |
||||||
2356 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81329 | ||
Here is a good explanation: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html --Joe! |
||||||
2357 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81358 | ||
"I have been told more than once that since I view Calvinism as totally heretical I have to be Arminianistic." How do you define the word "heresy"? Please define it in such a way that historically-held Reformation theology could be considered heresy. Then please explain how modern-day Pentecostalism and pretributlational dispensationalism could not fall into that category, using the same criteria. While I hold these two things to be wrong interpretations of Scripture, I would not consider them "heresy." So, what is your criteria for slapping the "heresy" label on a particular system of doctrine? "However I view Arminianism as equally aberrant." That's news. On what points? --Joe! |
||||||
2358 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81365 | ||
"This topic Has been discussed before ..." Could you point me to a specific post where my question was answered? Specifically, where has EdB clarified what he means by heresy in such a way that historic, Reformational, Protestant theology fits; but in a way that modern Pentacostalism and pretribulational dispensationalism does not? Thanks. "I think it is anything that is contrary to the Bible." Do you not think it possible that any of your beliefs (down to the tinest detail) might be actually contrary to Scripture? Assuming that you allow yourself even the slightest margin for error, do you consider yourself a heretic? "Both sides use the Bible to prove there point ... so is that heresy? I think it is more eisgesis (sp)." I agree, but "eisegesis" was not the term that was employed. "Heresy" was. So I continue to ask, what is the line between minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy) and heresy? --Joe! |
||||||
2359 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81377 | ||
"CRI does take a strong stand against heretical, extremist variations of these views: for instance, the hyper-Arminian belief that God does not know all things, or the hyper-Calvinist notion that evangelism and prayer are superfluous because everything is already preordained." Thanks for the article. I find it interesting that CRI agrees with me that open theism can be considered a kind of "hyper-Arminianism." --Joe! (always Calvinist, sometimes hyper, but NEVER hyper-Calvinist) |
||||||
2360 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81378 | ||
"1. I choose not to spend the time to look up your specific question on heresy." That's okay; the question was specifically addressed to someone else, anyway. Unless you are a mind-reader or actually had seen the answer somewhere in the archives, it would be impossible for you to answer. "People can deine it the way they want." If that were true, nothing could ever be definitively called heresy, and the term would be nothing more than an empty insult. "2. If I am shown I am in error, according to the Bibe, I must change, or I am a heretic." So are infant baptizers heretics? What about tongues-speakers? Those who worship on Saturdays? Those who say there will be no "Left Behind" scenario? What about those who think the Prayer of Jabez is nothing but a bunch of pop Christianity fluff? Those who say "trespasses" rather than "debts"? Those who think that tithing is biblical for today? Those who think that it is unbiblical to radically distinguish between OT Israel and the church? You likely side on one side or the other on these issues. So are you the heretic (bringing up sections of Scripture to support your position) or the one who disagrees with you (bringing up sections of Scripture to support his position)? "Unless, I have my own sounf Biblical support." So are you saying, then, that it is possible that two people in disagreement over an issue can each have at least a fair amount of biblical support? "3. "Minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy)" usually is eisegesis not heresy." It is never heresy, since "heresy" and "orthodoxy" are mutually exclusive opposites. My question, once more (for the person who used the term "heresy" in the first place) is where orthodoxy ends and heresy begins in such a way that the Protestant Reformers are heretics but dispensationalists and Pentecostals/charismatics are not. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ] Next > Last [123] >> |