Results 2381 - 2400 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2381 | 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! |
||||||
2382 | 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! |
||||||
2383 | 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! |
||||||
2384 | 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! |
||||||
2385 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 7024 | ||
Tim: You said, "You ask whose sins are people suffering in hell for? Their own, because they refused to accept the sacrifice of Christ, which was sufficient to pay for all our sins." This is precisely my problem with the view of unlimited atonement. Did Christ die for any ACTUAL sins? Take a person (let's call him "George" for simplicity's sake). The view of unlimited atonement says that Christ died for George's sin on the cross. If George "refuses the payment," according to Arminianism, then George pays for his own sins for all eternity. Therefore, we have a case where Jesus AND George pay the penalty for George's sin. The only other alternative I see is viewing Jesus' death on the Cross as only a POTENTIAL atonement for everyone, rather than an ACTUAL atonement for the elect as Calvinists view it. Christ's death really saves no one unless we act in accordance with it. It is terribly troublesome to think that Christ and I both have to do something for Christ's sacrifice to not be a futile one. If there is another alternative that I am missing in which God ends up being just (no "double jeopardy") and Christ's sacrifice was an actual payment for the actual sins of actual people on the first Good Friday, please point that out to me. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
2386 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 7025 | ||
Tim: You wrote, "May I point out that every time you deal with a passage that says "all" or the "world", your objection is based upon your theology, not upon the text itself. 2 Cor. 5:11-20 simply does not make any sense under Calvinism, but it makes perfect sense under Arminianism. Our reconciliation is an accomplished objective fact at the cross (God was reconciling the world to Himself), but we must accept God's gift (and be reconciled.)" Actually, I used to hold a view similar to yours, so my adoption of Calvinist theology was based in part on the fact that ALL are obviously not saved, and therefore reconciliation is not an "accomplished objective" for all human beings. In addition, I do not conclude as you do that the other passages we previously have discussed reveal a "nations" view, rather than an "individual" view on election, unless one pre-supposes an Arminian free-willism. Actually, the more troubling thing about 2 Corinthians 5:19 for me is that the "Be reconciled" command seems to be directed toward those who are believers already (i.e. already "reconciled" in a salvific sense). Why do you think Paul would tell the saints to "be reconciled"? --Joe! |
||||||
2387 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19524 | ||
Tim: How does the Arminian interpret Jesus' conversation with the Jewish leaders here? "Then He said again to them, 'I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.' So the Jews were saying, 'Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, "Where I am going, you cannot come"? And He was saying to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.'" --John 8:21-24 It seems from this passage that those who will not believe in Christ will die in THEIR sins. How is this possible if all sin was propitiated at the cross? And just a side note: Arminians also do not take every instance of "all" to mean "every single one." To be fair, you should point out that the Reformed do not say that "all" means "some," but rather we disagree as to whom the "all" is referring to. For instance, Ananias says to Saul: "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard." --Acts 22:15 Was Paul really a witness to all men? Even if we consider his epistles a "witness," is he even today a witness to ALL men? One more example, so as not to belabor the point. I would think that you would agree that every human being is not justified, but we have verses like this: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." --Romans 5:18 Now if we take this verse by itself, it would seem to teach universalism. We may disagree on the interpretation of this verse in its context, but I would think you would admit that ALL are not justified, since that comes through faith in Christ. The context qualifies words like "all," Tim. That is why we can go to 2 Peter 3:9 and say that the "all" in that instance could very well mean "all the elect" (cf. 2 Peter 1:1-2) rather than "all of humanity" (which clearly will NEVER happen). --Joe! |
||||||
2388 | An Arminian Consensus in the Forum? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19525 | ||
Norrie: To get back to the root of the distinctives between Calvinism and Arminianism, you can read the Canons of Dordt. Since this a Calvinist document, all that it affirms represents Calvinist theology, and all that it rejects/denies are distinctives of Arminianism. I would encourage anyone who wants to undertsand the differences and why they are so important to read this document. It will help you grasp the two views and see why you are generally one or the other, even if you reject the labels themselves. You can find it here: http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html --Joe! |
||||||
2389 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19563 | ||
Tim: Regarding Acts 22, my point was that the savage in the deepest jungle of the Amazon forest has not been witnessed to by Paul. Therefore, not "all men." I know that this is so completely obvious so as to be ridiculous. However, the point I was trying to make was that most everyone understands that Ananias' words to Saul were not referring to every single individual on the earth at that time or ours. This is one blatantly obvious example of where "all" needs to be understood in a contextual/common sense fashion. Granted, 2 Peter 3:21 does not fall into the "blatantly obvious" category. However, the sweeping statement that the Reformed simply want to instantly re-define "all" to mean "some" does not really ring true. The problem that the Reformed have with the Arminian interpretation of this verse, incidentally, is that Peter is saying that the return of Christ has not come yet because God is waiting. Why is God waiting? Because he desires for all to come to Christ. When will ALL come to Christ? Never, and God knows that. If his desire regarding the salvation of each and every human being will not be met (God not ultimately getting what He wants is a BIG problem for me, but let's leave that for now), he has known that from the beginning. So once again, what is God waiting for? --Joe! |
||||||
2390 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19566 | ||
Tim: RE: John 8 Reformed teaching goes further than saying "only the elect will respond in faith." We hold that individuals can only die in THEIR sins because they are not atoned for. It is that same situation of "Who pays the just penalty of the sins of the damned?" Arminians seem to say that it is BOTH Christ and the sinner. --Joe! |
||||||
2391 | Salvation by Grace and . . .? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 34173 | ||
Momma: You quoted Romans 10:9, and then asked why we must confess Jesus as Lord. I suggest that you read the verse again, since that exact phrase is right there. Yes, the thief on the cross acknowledged Jesus as Lord. That is not the same as salvation by works. True, saving faith includes repentance (i.e. a change of attitude toward self and to sin) and acknowledgement of Christ's Lordship. Neither is a work any more than "placing one's faith" in Christ is. Nothing comes through clearer by reading the gospels and books like James and 1 John than the fact that faith is more than just a nod of agreement with a set of facts. And all of this is a gift of God. --Joe! |
||||||
2392 | What commandments to keep? | 1 John 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 54534 | ||
The word of the LORD *is* doctrine, Bub. Doctrine means "teaching" or "instruction." As you have correctly pointed out, the word "Torah" can mean the same thing. The question, therefore, isn't between "the word of the LORD" and "doctrine," but rather which doctrine is indeed the word of the LORD. Here are the things that you have directly said or implied that is considered to be heresy by the Church of Jesus Christ: 1. That the New Testament (at least in its entirety) is not the word of God. 2. That Christ's death was not sufficient grounds for the forgiveness of our sins, since the temple sacrifices should have continued if the temple had not been destroyed. 3. The church is not following Jesus Christ, but is rather a thinly-veiled paganism which rejects the "truth." How such "paganism" would have met with such fierce opposition in a thoroughly pagan Roman Empire no one has yet to adequately explain to me. 4. I would assume that you would deny that Y'shua and the Holy Spirit are YHWH, so correct me if I am wrong there. 5. You have insisted, contrary to the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Paul's epistle to the Galatians, and the epistle to the Hebrews, that the entire Torah must be kept for one to be a follower of Jesus Christ. You STILL have failed to address my post citing Hebrews which answers questions you yourself raised, choosing to ignore them completely. 6. You have posted that Christianity is a false religion born of cowardice in the face of Roman persecution of Jews (when the destruction of the temple and the city itself was God's judgment upon Israel's rejection of her Messiah -- Matthew 24). What among the things above classifies you as someone meeting the guidelines that the owners of this Web site as someone qualified to post here? And from the perspective of biblical Christianity, which is the world view of this forum, you are indeed a heretic for holding any ONE of the above positions, just as you consider and have accused Christians to be heretics from the "true faith" (even if you have not used that exact word). So please do not try to spread your false beliefs on a Christian forum, criticizing the New Testament and Christianity itself, and then start crying about what a "victim" you are. Repent of your own failure to follow Torah because of your depraved nature, and embrace the only one who was righteous in His own right before God, and won that righteousness for all who trust in his once-for-all sacrifice. The word of the LORD? Here it is: 'What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." 'Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 'But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. 'This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 'Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 'Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.' --Romans 3:9-31 Y'shua is THE Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sins of the world. He is the Passover Lamb. Embrace him by faith and escape the wrath of YHWH to come. --Joe! |
||||||
2393 | What commandments to keep? | 1 John 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 54668 | ||
Did Sunday worship originate with Constantine in the 4th century? "On the day called the Feast of the Sun, all who live in towns or in the country assemble in one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read as time permits. Then, when the reader has ended, the President instructs and encourages the people to practice the truths contained in the Scripture lessons. Thereafter, we all stand up and offer prayers together." --"Apology," Justin Martyr (110-165) "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens." --The Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between the destruction of the Temple in 70 and the Bar Kochba revolt in 132) "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight." --Acts 20:7 "On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come." --1 Corinthians 6:2 The first day surely seemed to be set aside for something, and unless God let worship of His Son degenerate into false teachings within one generation of the resurrection (since it is quite obvious that the Jews by and large rejected Jesus as their Messiah at all), we must accept the fact that there does exist a very ancient tradition for setting aside the first day of the week in honor of Jesus Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
2394 | jesus | 1 John 2:22 | Reformer Joe | 64157 | ||
Isaac, First of all, please be honest enough to admit to the forum that you are not the Christian that you are portraying yourself to be. Now, to answer your questions: "Where did Jesus Christ say in his own words that he came to die for our sins?" Get a Bible and read these passages: Matthew 20:28 Mark 10:45 John 8:24 John 3:14-20 John 5:24 Luke 19:10 Matthew 16:13-19 Matthew 26:26-28 There's a start. By the way, the entire Bibel is true, so not only are Jesus' claims about himself true, but also the testimony of angels such as Gabriel (Matthew 1:21) and the apostles' testimony about him in the epistles. You wrote: "and why was Jesus sweating blood when the Jews were after him ?" Have you read the account in the Bible? The Bible makes it pretty clear why. "if he was suposed to die for us why would he be soo worried?" Who said anything about him being worried? --Joe! |
||||||
2395 | What is sin? | 1 John 3:4 | Reformer Joe | 49052 | ||
"Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God." --Westminster Shorter Catechism, Answer to Question 14 In other words, God has revealed His law (i.e. His good and perfect will for His creatures), and we as His creatures are bound not only to keep from violating it, but also to conform to it completely. This law is revealed both in our consciences (Romans 2:12-16) and most clearly in his commandments in the Old and New Testaments (Psalm 1, Psalm 19 and Psalm 119). Both of these tell us God's law, and any breaking of it or failing to fulfill it completely is sin. And that is why we can readily agree with Scripture that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) --Joe! |
||||||
2396 | Where in Scripture is sin defined? | 1 John 3:4 | Reformer Joe | 66529 | ||
Many things in Scripture are identified as sin, and the word "sin" itself comes from an archery term which means "to miss the mark." One thing that all of the passages regarding sin have in common is that they speak in reference to God's law, the moral commandments that He has given to His people. Simply put, every example of sin is either not doing what God commands or doing what God forbids. That includes our thoughts, words, and actions. --Joe! |
||||||
2397 | Any biblical answers to Mormon beliefs? | 1 John 4:1 | Reformer Joe | 30991 | ||
Shelley: In addition to the good resources mentioned by others here, I would like to recommend two excellent, recent books that can serve as guides to understanding Mormon beliefs and also as tools for evangelism. They are _Mormonism 101_ by Bill McKeever and _The Gospel According to Joseph Smith_ by Ethan Harris. Both provide thorough analysis of the teachings (past and present) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the biblical response to those teachings. You should be able to order both of them from your local Christian bookstore or any of the major Internet retailers. I heartily recommend both! Also, if you would like more Mormon-specific resources for evangelism, I would recommend contacting Watchman Fellowship (www.watchman.org), a Christian counter-cult evangelism ministry. James Walker, the president, is a former fourth-generation Mormon who has spent the last quarter-century evangelizing LDS members and other cultists. In addition to the great resources they have in print, they have a friendly staff who would be more than happy to chat with you one-on-one and give you tip and advice. Please keep us posted on your situation, and be in prayer! God constantly is bringing individuals out of cults into the true church. And He employs people like you to be His instruments quite often! --Joe! |
||||||
2398 | Evidence against authenticity 1 John 5:7 | 1 John 5:7 | Reformer Joe | 30152 | ||
Nolan: Nice to see you quoting those good, Reformed sources! ;) --Joe! |
||||||
2399 | Trinity? | 1 John 5:7 | Reformer Joe | 64077 | ||
No, it is not the cornerstone of the Trinity. The cornerstone of the Trinity are six separate teachings of the Old and New Testaments: 1. There is one God. 2. The Father is God. 3. The Son is God. 4. The Holy Spirit is God. 5. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit. 6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. --Joe! |
||||||
2400 | KJV "inspired"?? | 1 John 5:7 | Reformer Joe | 98706 | ||
"Makarios - I say (and believe) that theKJV is "inspired" in the lesser sense of the word; very much like when we say that a sermon or a piece of music was "inspired". I do believe that God superintended the translation and revision process for THIS VERSION PARTICULARLY so that it would NOT mislead anyone." And your basis for making this assertion is...? And are there any other translations in the world which have the privilege of being "inspired" like the KJV? --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ] Next > Last [123] >> |