Results 2421 - 2440 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2421 | Are stars symbolic for something else? | Rev 6:13 | Reformer Joe | 64785 | ||
What about Jesus saying, "I am the light of the world." Is He a literal light? Both metaphor and simile are used in Scripture. --Joe! |
||||||
2422 | Only 144,000 to asend to heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 67679 | ||
Revelation is a hard book to tackle, as it contains very symbolic prophecy. The 144,000 (whether that is a literal number or a figurative one) is talking about the Jewish people (the twelve tribes). For a preview of what is going to happen to all believers in Jesus Christ, I recommend reading 1 Corinthians 15. It is a much more concrete depiction of the universal resurrection at the end of the age. I am delighted to hear that you have been attending church! Perhaps you could share a little bit of that with us by making a profile and telling us your background and where you are going now. --Joe! |
||||||
2423 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84764 | ||
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 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 1:18-20 --Joe! |
||||||
2424 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84765 | ||
They don't. --Joe! |
||||||
2425 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84766 | ||
"I don't believe everything I hear, I need proof. I can prove that Abe Linclon lived." You can? "How since I wasn't there. Simple: Democrate and Republicians at the time both agreed that he lived." How do you know? Records can be forged. "Historians of all political groups of the time agreed." How do you know our historical records are accurate and haven't been tampered with? "I can go to where he is buried and do a DNA test." You have a sample of Honest Abe's DNA?!? "Can I do this with God or Jesus?" Nope. Listen: while arguments against the existence of Abraham Lincoln are pretty ridiculous, they are not ridiculous because anyone alive today can PROVE his existence. However, the evidence of his existence is overwhelming. Unless someone has obstinately pre-supposed that Lincoln couldn't have existed, the most plausible conclusion based on the evidence is that he did. Ultimately, however, we put our trust (i.e. faith) in the reliability of the evidence, despite the fact that I have never laid eyes on him. Nothing is 100 percent provable. Now to God. No one alive has seen God. The question is, however, what does the evidence of nature (both physical nature and human nature) show to someone who hasn't already pre-supposed that no gods exist? --Joe! |
||||||
2426 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84827 | ||
Correct. --Joe! |
||||||
2427 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84828 | ||
But you are not ignorant. You suppress the revealed truth in your desire to rebel against the living God. --Joe! |
||||||
2428 | John 3:16.. whoever believes not perish? | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 28934 | ||
Mylene: In answer to question #1... "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." --John 5:24 The very fact that we possess saving faith in Christ indicates that we are chosen. According to Reformation theology, all those who are chosen and possess the mental faculties to do so have or inevitably will embrace Christ, having received God's mercy. Those who are not chosen will continue in their unbelief and reap the just condemnation for their sins. Regarding question #2... "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." --John 3:18 Since those who are chosen are the only ones who will be persuaded and enabled to trust in Christ, then it logically results in those not chosen and given a new nature going to Hell. Regarding #3, The verse of Peter's you quote has been debated back and forth on this forum already. Arminians see the "any" and "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 as referring to those of the whole human race, while Reformed/Calvinist folks argue that the context of the argument in the rest of the chapter and the whole of the epistle lends itself to the conclusion that the "any" and "all" refer to members of the elect who will be saved at a future date. This is why God is postponing the end. As far as question #4, Arminians hold that the object of God's love is every single individual in the world. The Reformed argue that Jesus is not speaking of a specific, saving love toward every individual, but rather a love that is applied to those individuals that Jesus speaks of in John 3:21, those whose works were "wrought in God." The basis for this understanding is other passages in Scripture which clearly teach that Christians are chosen by God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1) as well as the reality that the entire world is obviously not saved, since people are passing into eternity without Christ even as I write this post. Number 5 is the trickiest question. It all depends on what you mean by a "secondary argument." If you mean that is it an issue on which our salvation hinges, then I believe that most on both sides of the debate would reply with an emphatic "no." People can be wrong on this issue and still be saved. Furthermore, I regularly fellowship with other Christians with whom I disagree on this issue. On the other hand, any church that takes the study of theology seriously at all will inevitably have to take a stand one way or another on this issue. The sermons from the pulpit will either have one slant or the other. It effects the evangelistic efforts and styles of its members, and it almost always leads to a difference in worship. If one takes theology and doctrine seriously, it will inevitably have an impact on the corporate life of the congregation as well as in the individual life of the believer. Theology truly believed will impact the whole outlook and behavior of the committed Christian. Of course, my fellow Christians who disagree with me on this debate will have their own interpretation of the differences, but I can tell you that in my case I felt convicted to leave a church that my wife and I had been members of for several years because of some of the natural results of Arminian theology. It had grown to a point where little confidence was placed in the Bible as a means of God's saving grace (emphasizing instead techniques and more contemporary music to be more friendly to the "unchurched" who, as far as I know, are still not in attendance at this church in any great force). Confidence seemed to be placed less on the Holy Spirit and His work in regenerating the sinner and more on what the church members could do in themselves to "bring a person to a decision," even if that decision were to be shallow and possibly not a true one for Christ alone. To sum up, to stay or leave a church should be based primarily on whether the whole counsel of God as found in Scripture is being preached faithfully and seen as the sufficient and complete guide to the Christian life; the administration of the Lord's Supper and baptism as Christ instituted them; and a system of church discipline that works to keep the church doctrinally pure and deal with obvious and unrepentant sin on the part of congregants. Hope this lengthy post helps you make whatever decision you need to make! Be in prayer about it, and search the Scriptures for the truth. --Joe! |
||||||
2429 | John 3:16.. whoever believes not perish? | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 28986 | ||
I am saying that he predestined not to save them from their sins and receive the just punishment for their rebellion against him. So I hold the answer to be "yes," even though it is their willful and unrepentant heart which lands them there and not cruelty on God's part. They receive justice. We who are believers in Christ receive mercy in our just punishment being taken on by Christ 2000 years ago. And of course, the Arminian will disagree and say that the will of man at some point is capable of rejecting or accepting God's inward offer of eternal life to each and every person. --Joe! |
||||||
2430 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87756 | ||
"Your the master of proof text, but your message does not agree with the rest of scripture. John 3:16 Jesus died for who ever should believe not just the chosen few." So "the rest of Scripture" means John 3:16? By the way, the word "whosoever" is not in the Greek. The Greek reads "all the believing ones." Believers believe because they are the elect of God, not the other way around, which is what far more than 88 verses relate. "Proof text taken out of context is pretext my friend." And what is the context of John 3:16? What else does Jesus say in his conversation with Nicodemus? "Sit down and read the WHOLE Bible not your favorite 88 and see what God said." Ed, it is the implication that you have superior knowledge of Scripture that always leads to the ugliness that arises in these discussions. You have accused a brother in Christ of "proof-texting" and responded with a single verse, your understanding of which should be the lens through which we see the entirety of Scripture. My friend, that is the classic definition of proof-texting. "Look how He dealt with the patriarchs." Look how he dealt with the Canaanite nations. "He gave them a choice, look how he dealt with people all through the Old Testament. In each case God reached out to man either to be accepted or rejected." Yes, the Philistines and Jebusites and Hivvites and the citizens of Jericho and the Moabites were all given that chance to "accept or reject," right? :) --Joe! |
||||||
2431 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87757 | ||
"What WOULD you Calvinists have to talk about if it weren't for Romans 9 ?? !!" Genesis 1-Romans 8 and Romans 10-Revelation 22. :) --Joe! |
||||||
2432 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87792 | ||
"Yes they were call proselytes and Rahah was a whore from Jericho. Do I dare mention Ruth? Just to name two that also ended up in the lineage of Jesus." You may mention Ruth, if you dare. :) Both of those you mentioned, along with other notable OT Gentiles mentioned in the Bible, were rescued providentially by God. However, I wouldn't suggest that Jericho was evangelized prior to its destruction or that Israelites sent missionaries to Moab. God commanded his people not to incorporate them into the nation of Israel, but to utterly destroy them. Where is the "accept or reject" here? (Answer: we all have already rejected God before we have even heard the name of Jesus Christ) "The temple had a court yard of the gentiles for those that had not fully converted (not yet circumcised)" Did people come from China and India and Australia and Mesoamerica to the court of the Gentiles? I never claimed that God completely excluded Gentiles from his covenant people prior to Jesus (despite the fact that they did de-Gentile themselves to do so). Rather, my problem is with the biblically unsubstantiated assertion that EVERYONE has been given (or will be given) a chance to accept or reject salvation. Biblical evidence is to the contrary. "So once again we see to believe in your theology we also have to learn creative reading." Creative reading? You proved my very point in your post. I said that the word "whosoever" is not in the Greek and your interlinear supports that assertion completely. "Everyone believing in him" ("hina pas ho pisteuwn") does not imply that everyone has the moral capacity to choose God. Actually, the word "whoever" doesn't convey that either, but has developed in some circles an implied connotation of moral freedom. "The translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV and NASB were all in a conspiracy to make Calvin look bad." No, you just are reading more into those translations than what is there. "Whoever believes" does not mean that anyone can join the club. If I say, "Whoever has twin offspring, respond to this post," that doesn't mean that you can decide whether or not you have twins at this moment. It means that I am distinguishing one category of human being from another. Nothing more. "Your making this laughable and I will not be drawn into this." Well, I try to be entertaining as I educate! :) --Joe! |
||||||
2433 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87810 | ||
"I think most theologians and Bible scholars will agree John 3:16 carries the essence of the Bible so while it may only be one verse it is one of the few that will stand alone." Is that like "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed..."? We must use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Therefore, while we certainly must use John 3:16 to help us understand the rest of the Bible, we in turn must use the rest of the Bible to help us better understand John 3:16. The whole of Scripture taken together not only defines more completely the biblical concept of belief (refuting those with whom we both disagree who say that belief is just a "nod of the head" regarding certain facts), but also tells us more completely precisely who are the "everyone who believes" and what makes us believe. You say that John 3:16 is a self-evident, stand-alone verse. Others have come here and used Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 as lenses for the interpretation of Scripture. Our "name-it-and-claim-it" buddies take 1 Peter 2:24 and make it one of their "stand-alone verses." There are no "stand-alone verses." Even when Christians use correctly in isolation a single verse or couple of verses, it is because of a previous, implicit knowledge of the rest of Scripture and how it supports the given interpretation and use. There is an interesting commentary on the (mis)use of John 3:16 in an open letter James White wrote to Dave Hunt last year. I hope you will take the time to read it, if only to refine your arguments against Calvinism: http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html --Joe! |
||||||
2434 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87811 | ||
I have to start posting here more again to earn my title back. You're goin' down, Adams! :) --Joe! |
||||||
2435 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87816 | ||
Hey, Tim. "Rom. 9 explains God's right to work out His purpose of election, but 10-11 defines His purpose of election. In particular, Rom. 11:25-32 shows that the Potter has been sovereignly working so that He might show mercy to all men, not just some." In order to conclude that regarding Romans 11, you have to do injustice to Romans 9:19-24 and essentially makes it meaningless. If he doesn't will to harden some, but chooses to show salvific mercy (Paul's polar opposite to hardening) to each and every individual on the planet, then the introduction to the discourse which begins in Romans 9 and concludes in Romans 11 is negated completely. "That is the point at which we differ my friend. I asked someone earlier, where is the verse which says that Christ died only for some? I can show you plenty that say He died for all, or the world. I know that you will then say that 'all' only means' some, and 'world' only means certain kinds of people. But, where is the verse which specifically states that Christ died only for some?" Where is the verse which specifically states that the Holy Spirit is God? We both know that theological truths are often derived from a number of passages taken together synthetically. There are a number of passages that speak of Christ dying for the elect and the church that have little impact on the discussion if what is really meant is that "Christ died for the elect and the church (and everyone else). Examples include Romans 14:15, 1 Corinthians 8:11, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, and Ephesians 5:25-30. And then of course, we have John 6, which is being debated (again!) in another thread. --Joe! |
||||||
2436 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87835 | ||
"1) How would my understanding of Rom. 11 negate Rom. 9, when Romans 11 specifically states that those who were hardened can be grafted in again?" Romans 11 deals with collectives of people, and speaks of partial hardening of groups (I think the text supports the view that "branches" are not individual human beings). Romans 9 speaks much more precisely about individual destiny (where "vessels" do speak of individuals. And we have two distinct categories of individuals: a) the ones from among both Jews and Gentiles on whom God has mercy, who are molded and prepared beforehand for honorable use and for glory, to whom God will make known the riches of his glory b) the ones from among both Jews and Gentiles whom God hardens, who are molded and prepared beforehand for common use and for destruction, whom God patiently endures for the time being and on whom God will demonstrate his power and wrath Romans 9-11 answers the big question: What about God's covenant promises to the Jews? If salvation is for the Jew first and also for the Greek, why were so many more Greeks being saved and the majority of the physical descendents of Abraham rejecting their Messiah to their own destruction. Romans 9 is addressing the first part of Paul's answer: all of those physically descended from Israel are not "childen of the promise." Romans 11 concludes the argument by addressing the direct hypothetical charge that God has rejected his people wholesale. Paul uses himself as an example of the falsehood of such a statement, and then employs the example of those who had not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah's day (showing that even in the OT God preserved only a remnant of the covenant people), and then goes on to say: "In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice." --Romans 11:5 The remnant is the group of those who are Abraham's children according to the flesh and according to the promise. By their own design? No, but rather "according to God's gracious choice." The Holy Spirit then says: "What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened" Again, two groups: the chosen remnant who obtained Christ's righteousness, and the rest who were hardened, according to God's choice. Then we get to the partial hardening and the cutting off and the grafting in of the branches, which do not refer to individual Jews and Gentiles (since a single unbelieving Jew was not born attached to the root). From our human temporal standpoint, the masses among Abraham's descendants who embrace Jesus the Messiah will be grafted in again collectively. "And so all Israel will be saved." --Joe! |
||||||
2437 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87838 | ||
"2) None of the verses you cite even use the word 'elect'! In fact, 2 Cor. 5:14-15 says that opposite, it says that He died for all! :-)" Here is the passage in question: "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." --1 Corinthians 5:14-15 On whose behalf did Christ die and rise again? For all human beings past, present, and future? Or for all "those that live"? "This has been my point my friend. A theological construction forces us to change the meaning of words so that simple declarative statements become complex theological constructs which must be interpreted differently than the normal language of the text would normally be read." This ties in to what I was saying to Ed about John 3:16 earlier. Simple declarative statements taken in isolation may be read a certain way, but understood completely differently when taken contextually. For example, stating "I love Tim Moran" would be understood very differently by different groups of people without any context. Am I homosexual? Am I stating that I love Tim's theological point of view and literary output? Do I love him like I love all human beings? Do I love him as a fellow laborer in Christ and a fellow partaker in a glorious future? That declarative statement needs more to grasp what I mean. Biblically speaking, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12) has a very different understanding when read along with the next verse, with the rest of chapter 2, with the rest of the epistle, with the rest of the New Testament, and with the rest of Scripture as a whole. Likewise, I grew up in churches where John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 were used to support an antinomian, "easy-believism," non-repentant salvation because biblical belief was presented as being roughly equivalent to believing that Mercury is the closest planet to the sun. A plain reading of those "simple, declarative statements" could legitimately lead someone to that conclusion, but books like Matthew and James and Hebrews and 1 John help us to understand more about what true, biblical belief is. 'Your a Spanish teacher Joe, if you read a sentence which translated as "Love all men", would you assume that it meant "love some men"?' No, but if I say, "Everyone turn in your homework," I am not expecting the entire student body to file in with papers for me (thanks be to God!). It is simply dishonest, in my view, to oversimplify the position of the Calvinist to "'all' means 'some'." People contextually use "all" and "everyone" regularly to refer to "all of a particular group" instead of "all of the human race." We may disagree with regard to whether the context qualifies the "all" or not, but the Reformed individual is not taking the magic marker to the instances of the word "all" and writing "some" in its place. We have biblically-supported reasons, both from the immediate context of the verses in question and from less ambiguous passages, for coming to the conclusions that we do. You may not be convinced, but it is far from the grasping at straws that the Arminian characterizes it to be. Peace in Christ to you! --Joe! |
||||||
2438 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87900 | ||
"Do you see how your argument is going my friend? You are in essence saying, "I don't believe that 'all' the people really did come out, even though the text says they did, so 'all' must only mean 'some'!" Would you buy this kind of an argument from me? ;-)" Now, I don't think that is quite fair. Unless you go for a wooden translation of the text, I think John's conclusion is a reasonable one. When Paul says in Colossians 1 that the gospel is bearing fruit in Colossae "just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing," do you think that Paul means ALL the world? Was the gospel bearing fruit in the Western Hemisphere? If so, perhaps I need to revisit Mormonism as a viable world view. No one always uses the adjective "all" with the connotation that you seem to think it MUST have. To force the "each-and-every" understanding in every instance of the word renders some passages nonsensical, others heretical, and some in direct contradiction with their immediate and general context. Regarding "My sheep," Jesus was speaking of Christians, of course. He laid down his life for His sheep. He repeats that twice, saying that He knows who are His, and He lays his life down for them. It completely deflates the discourse to write in "and those who are not my sheep, too." He is not everyone's Shepherd, nor does the Shepherd lay down his life for those who are not His sheep. Likewise, passages like Ephesians 5 compare the way a husband should cherish his wife, self-sacrificing like Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Again, to parenthetically assume that Jesus died for those who are not His completely ruins the simile. We also saw 2 Corinthians 5:15, where Jesus' death has the purpose "so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." The purpose is limited to "those who live" (i.e. the regenerate), so Christ dying for them and everyone else leaves a lot of purposeless suffering for Him. Even Arminians (except for kooks like Pinnock) say that God foresees who will accept and who will reject Jesus. The general redemption model makes Christ suffer needlessly on behalf of those who will never receive the ultimate benefit of that sacrifice. I find it interesting that Arminians have a problem with God not giving all sinners (i.e. those who deserve judgment) redemption, but have no qualms about Jesus the sinless Son suffering more of God's wrath to no end whatsoever. --Joe! |
||||||
2439 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 88144 | ||
"So, can God God not only tempt Adam and Eve, but ordain the act of sin which they commit?" This goes back to a semantic difference (addressed previously on the forum) in our understanding of the word "ordain." Correct me if I am mistaken, but you seem to hold that God ordaining something means in all cases that God is the most immediate agent in that event coming to pass. That is not our understanding of the term as used in our confessions. Taking the account of the Fall as your chosen example, we would agree that God created Satan knowing he would rebel. He created the world knowing it would become corrupted, and He created the garden knowing it would only be a temporary residence for those created in His image, whom He knew would succumb to the temptation once it was presented to them. He created all of the agents and all of the bait involved in the Fall. Christ knew in eternity past that His incarnation, earthly obedience, and crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification was not "plan B" from a divine perspective. Adam and Eve had an uncorrupted (but corruptible nature) and acted freely against God's revealed will to them, but in doing so did not take God by surprise, nor did they undermine God's eternal plan, which had to have been to redeem humanity (unless we take an open theism view). God did not immediately cause the Fall, nor did He sin. However, I think we both agree that He put everything in place knowing exactly how it would turn out. And that is why the Reformed perspective widens the definition of God's decree and ordination. God has created and governs all things, having already incorporated human and angelic obedience and disobedience into His decree. Another example from my recent Bible study: the Philistines decide to attack Israel precisely when Saul is closing in on David, causing Saul to break off the attack. So should David be thankful to God or the Philistines that he has been preserved? If God did not ordain the sinful actions of the Philistines (i.e. attacking His covenant people), then how can David thank God for sparing him and keeping His promises to him? All throughout Scripture, we see that God ordains sin (and by this I mean SPECIFIC acts of rebellion against God, not just allowing "sin in general") to occur to accomplish His purposes, without sinning Himself. From Absoloms coup d'etat as fulfillment of prophetic judgment against David's adultery, to the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions to chastize and judge his adulterous people, to the very crucifixion of His Son, God's hand was at work through the volitional acts of sinful humans: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." --Acts 2:22-23 Who delivered Jesus over to die? The Jews or God the Father? Humanly speaking, it was those who hated Christ. Divinely speaking, it was precisely according to God's PREDETERMINED plan. Did God the Father kill Jesus? No. Did he ordain that this sin occur in 1st century Judea by means of crucifixion? Absolutely. God doesn't sin, but ordains that the wickedness of men and Satan be used and directed in ways that ultimately give the Lord all the glory. --Joe! --Joe! |
||||||
2440 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 88156 | ||
"I would agree with how you summarized the creation. Of course nothing took God by surprise! I even believe that there are times when He overrides human will to accomplish His plans. For instance, some bad guy might try to kill me or my family and God zaps him! :-)" That is the clearest form of God's intervention. What amazes me about God's providence is the scenario where the bad guy holding your family at gunpoint is hit by the drunk driver coming around the corner. God provides the means for the drunk driver's sin and allows him to sin and orchestrates the events so that his sin is your salvation. "However, John seems to deny that man can make any free choices whatsoever, including Adam and Eve." I'll let him speak for himself, but most in our theological camp do not hold to the initial depravity of Adam and Eve. And, like you, I believe that we all have limited freedom. However, the boundaries and extent of that freedom and what we will actually do with that freedom is already factored in under the umbrella of God's decree. In this way, I believe that God micromanages sin (allowing only those which will ultimately result in His glory). The bondage of the will that I believe in is precisely that: centered on what an unregenerate human being can WANT to do. An atheist can always choose to say no to this sin or that one; what he can't do, in my view, is choose to do that which is good. The Heidelberg catechism gives the best summary (IMO) of what the Bible teaches is a good work: "Question 91. But what are good works? Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men." That is the limitation that I put on the unregenerate. Otherwise, the only thing standing in the sinner's way is means and opportunity and personal preferences and distastes (which themselves stem from a depraved will). And all of these are ordained and managed by God, even the "region of freedom" to carry out one's desires that both sinner and saint receives. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ] Next > Last [123] >> |