Results 301 - 320 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | Christ died on a stake and not a cross? | John 19:17 | Sir Pent | 62342 | ||
Support ........................................ I completely agree with Hank here. As I have often said, this forum has so much potential to be truly meaningful to a world of people searching for answers. However, for that to happen, Hank has hit the nail on the head. We should answer their questions about the details. But our overall goal should always be to point them to God, Himself, and His overarching message of love, forgiveness, and desiring a healthy relationship with each of us. And that is only possible through Jesus, and His death on the cross. Thanks Hank, for putting things in perpective on this one :) |
||||||
302 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | Sir Pent | 62294 | ||
A Different View ......................................... Dear Hank, Kalos, and apparently large numbers of other colleagues here on the forum (and even possibly the Lockman Foundation themselves), It seems that there has been a “piling on” lately of the person named John Reformed, who relatively recently joined our Forum. As a long time participant here, I would like to say at least something in his defense. I do not believe that John Reformed should be banned from this forum at this time. I understand that many of my colleagues (who I respect greatly) are frustrated that such a large number of his posts seem to be proselytizing the Calvinist perspective of Christianity. However, is this so unusual on this forum. ......................................... If one did a search of the user name “Ray” and the word “capitalization”, you would find that an unusually high number of Ray’s posts regarding scriptures and subjects from all over the Bible are focused on this one theme of capitalization. If you looked at all the posts written by Tim Moran, you would find that he focuses a lot more on Greek and Hebrew translation than almost all other forum members. I do not say this to insult Ray (who I haven’t had much contact with but is well respected here) or Tim (who I have had significant thread sharing with, and consider to be a friend). I am merely making the point that each of us has our own particular interests that are what fire our participation here at the forum. And these interests naturally tend to color our perception of everything in scripture, and therefore all of our posts here. ......................................... Therefore, John Reformed, tendency is not that unusual on this forum. Nor is it anti-Christian. I disagree with his perspective, but it definitely falls within the category of orthodoxy, and is believed by very large numbers of our Christian brothers and sisters. This all being said, I have found my own discussion with John Reformed to be (at least up to this point) constructive. He seems to be well aware of scripture and uses it quite often. He seems to be intelligent and thinks about his posts thoroughly. He also has done an admirable job of keeping his focus on the subjects that he is discussing as opposed to insulting the person who he is discussing with. It seems to me that these are the some of the key attributes of a person who would be beneficial to have posting on this forum. ......................................... In conclusion, I would encourage you all to rethink your opposition to John Reformed, and give him the chance to hopefully, over time, share some thoughts on other issues, while not squelching the thing that seems to drive his interest. |
||||||
303 | How Judas Iscariot died? | Acts 1:18 | Sir Pent | 60227 | ||
A Different View ................................. Hello again my good friend Mekarios. It has been a long time since I have had the pleasure of talking with you. However, not as long as the topic of Judas’ death has lingered on this forum :) I see that you answered this question over a year ago, and yet had to answer it again today. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people refuse to use the search tool to check their question before adding redundant threads. ................................. Oh well, after looking at the posts from the several times that this question has been asked and answered, I see the there seems to be complete agreement (rare on any forum) that Judas hung himself, then the rope (or branch) broke, he fell on rocks, and his guts came out. This is possible, and is what I believed for years about this issue. However, I have recently heard another explanation which is also possible. ................................. The basic idea is that the accounts in Matthew and Acts are not sequential events, but the same event. How can this be, you might ask. Well the explanation that I heard was the the use of a rope for hanging was actually a relatively recent custom, and was not used back in Jesus’ day and culture. Hanging meant something very different to the people back then. For instance, Jesus HUNG on the cross, yet He was nailed to wood, no rope involved. Another type of HANGING that was common in that time was to impale someone on a long sharp pole, and then stick it in the ground so that they are high in the air. ................................. Therefore, Judas could have set up a sharp pole, and then climbed a tree, (or a hill, etc.), and then flung himself headlong onto the pole, impaling himself. This would have been viewed in the culture of his day as HANGING himself, and would at the same time of course lead to some spilling of guts. |
||||||
304 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61495 | ||
A Different View ......................................... There has been a lot of venting since I posted last regarding the futility and devisiveness of C and A debates on this forum. I agree that these debates can be futile and divisive if the people are just covering the same ground repeatedly (quoting the same verses that each side always quotes, for instance). However, I believe that John Reformed and I are actually covering new ground here. I don’t think that there has been another thread that significantly covers whether it is possible for God to be sovereign from an Arminian perspective. I also think that this is one area where it is actually possible to reach consensus. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but I’d like to at least give it a try. I have enjoyed the discussion so far, and am up for it if you are John Reformed. You gave 3 reasons why God can’t be sovereign from the Arminian perspective. Let’s look at your points in reverse order. ......................................... You said that Scripture speaks throughout of predestination and fore ordination. I fail to see the relevance. I’ll grant that from your perspective those verses say that God excersizes complete control over the salvation of each individual. However, that doesn’t say anything about whether God would still be in control if He chose not to excersize that control at all times. ......................................... You also said that “If even one atom of matter is free from God's absolute control then chaos could result.” I believe that in one since you are correct. If the universe were completely free from God’s control, you would end up with chaos. Coincidentally (?) in science we learn that is exactly what is happening. It is called entropy, and it is the realization that all things are naturally going from a state of order to a state of disorder (just look at a child’s bedroom). However, I would say that God sustains the universe (biblical idea here), and keeps it from falling apart until He is ready for that to happen. I would also say that it is possible to delegate a limited amount of freedom to subjects without creating utter chaos. ......................................... Finally, you also said, “God is sovereign in a way that no mere creature can be described as sovereign.” I agree that God is sovereign beyond any mere creature, but how does that change anything. In fact, if a mere parent can allow their child to pick which slide to go down in the park without it diminishing the parent’s strenth and ability, then wouldn’t it be logical that God (who has infinately more power) could allow a human to choose whether to love Him or not without it diminishing God’s power or control? |
||||||
305 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61497 | ||
Personal Note ..................................... Dear Hank, I understand your frustration, and to some extent share it. That is one reason why I left this forum for a long time. However, I have not completely given up hope. I therefore have resolved to only respond to posts that I actually see potential for progress to be made, and so far this appears to be one. Keep lookin' for those cows :) |
||||||
306 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61498 | ||
A Different View ......................................... There has been a lot of venting since I posted last regarding the futility and devisiveness of C and A debates on this forum. I agree that these debates can be futile and divisive if the people are just covering the same ground repeatedly (quoting the same verses that each side always quotes, for instance). However, I believe that John Reformed and I are actually covering new ground here. I don’t think that there has been another thread that significantly covers whether it is possible for God to be sovereign from an Arminian perspective. I also think that this is one area where it is actually possible to reach consensus. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but I’d like to at least give it a try. I have enjoyed the discussion so far, and am up for it if you are John Reformed. You gave 3 reasons why God can’t be sovereign from the Arminian perspective. Let’s look at your points in reverse order. ......................................... You said that Scripture speaks throughout of predestination and fore ordination. I fail to see the relevance. I’ll grant that from your perspective those verses say that God excersizes complete control over the salvation of each individual. However, that doesn’t say anything about whether God would still be in control if He chose not to excersize that control at all times. ......................................... You also said that “If even one atom of matter is free from God's absolute control then chaos could result.” I believe that in one since you are correct. If the universe were completely free from God’s control, you would end up with chaos. Coincidentally (?) in science we learn that is exactly what is happening. It is called entropy, and it is the realization that all things are naturally going from a state of order to a state of disorder (just look at a child’s bedroom). However, I would say that God sustains the universe (biblical idea here), and keeps it from falling apart until He is ready for that to happen. I would also say that it is possible to delegate a limited amount of freedom to subjects without creating utter chaos. ......................................... Finally, you also said, “God is sovereign in a way that no mere creature can be described as sovereign.” I agree that God is sovereign beyond any mere creature, but how does that change anything. In fact, if a mere parent can allow their child to pick which slide to go down in the park without it diminishing the parent’s strenth and ability, then wouldn’t it be logical that God (who has infinately more power) could allow a human to choose whether to love Him or not without it diminishing God’s power or control? |
||||||
307 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61525 | ||
The Dollar Store ........................................ Dear John, That last post of yours covered a lot of topics, but I will try to weed through to only the ones that actually deal specifiically with the sovereignity of God WITHIN the Arminian perspective. ........................................ Therefore your comment about the razor blades is not germane. This is a question of whether God would be loving to let the child choose the bad slide. We’re not talking about whether God is loving. Your comment about the child not being able to slide down either slide or even knowing what a slide is, is also not germane. That is not an idea held WITHIN the Arminian perspective. Nor is the idea of Total Depravity which is therefore also not germane. Please remember that we are only talking about whether it is possible for God to be soverign in the Arminian perspective, thus it is not helpful to try to convince me to believe in the Calvinist perspective. ........................................ Finally at the end of your post you mention that God would not be sovereign if anything “would not be under His immediate and direct control and thus everything from that point would change everything else.” I can understand why you might think that, but let’s look at it a little closer. It is possible for a being to allow limited freedom within a system while still being in control. For instance, in our town their is a store where everything costs 1 dollar. Now a parent could go to that store and lay a dollar bill on the counter and then tell their kid to go pick out any on thing in the store and the money on the counter will pay for it. The kid then actually does have freedom to choose whatever they want, but the parent’s “prophecy” will still come true when they bring it up to be paid for and the dollar bill is already there. This is an example of a time when a subject can be given both the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make a choice while at the same time some future things will not change. ........................................ Since God is all powerful, couldn’t He do the same thing? Couldn’t He create a universe where humans have the FREEDOM and ABILITY to choose whether to love God or not, yet at the same time be able to determine several critical points along the way (including the end of time)? And if God had the ability to, at any point, take back over and dictate everything, then wouldn’t He still be completely in control? Just because God chooses not to excersize His abilitiy to dictate everything, does that make Him cease to be supremely powerful? |
||||||
308 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61540 | ||
Personal Note, Oops ..................................... Dear JRdoc, I apologize for calling you by the wrong name. I assumed that it was John Reformed who was responding to my last post, since he and I have been pretty much exclusively responding on this topic (not that others aren’t welcome, just that most others have given up all hope of reaching consensus on anything related to C and A). So again, I’m sorry for any confusion I might have caused. ..................................... Now on to your post. I will try to respond to you points one at a time. 1. I called you the wrong name. See above. 2. You want to discuss specific scripture verses to prove that Calvinism is correct. I’m not interested. You have already done that with other people on this forum, and I don’t seek redundancy. The purpose of this thread is solely to discuss whether it is possible for a person with an Arminian perspective to believe in a sovereign God. 3. You say that “It is not possible for God to be sovereign in the Arminian perspective” (but you don’t say why). Then you say that “Arminianism sees man as partly sovereign”. However, John Reformed pointed out previously and I agree that there is no such thing as “partly” sovereign. One either is supremely powerful or not. 4. You say that the child would never pick something in the store that belongs to God (and quote more scriptures supporting Calvinism). Once again this is irrelevant to the question of this thread; see above. ..................................... 5 and 6. Here you say that God would be less in control if He chooses to dictate some things that happen in the history of the universe than if He chose to dictate every single thing that has ever happened or ever will happen. Please explain why you think that. You quote a verse from Daniel that says that noone on Earth could “stay His (God’s) hand”. I interpret this to mean that noone can stop God from doing anything He chooses to do. That doesn’t tell us anything about whether God is less powerful if He chooses NOT to do something. In my thinking, a being is NOT any less powerful just because it chooses not to do something that it is capable of. ..................................... In summary, I am interested in your thoughts on points 5 and 6, but don’t particularly desire any further discussion on points 1, 2, 3, and 4. You may of course respond to them anyway, you have both the FREEDOM and the ABILITY :) |
||||||
309 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61566 | ||
Personal Note ...................................... Dear Hank and JRdoc, I would ask that neither of you continue this discussion on this thread. I forsee this only enlarging again into the whole C and A debate. I am trying very hard to maintain a laser focus in this thread to discover if there can be consensus on one very specific point, and the two of you going back and forth about all the other related issues will only muddy the waters. |
||||||
310 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61582 | ||
Personal Note ............................................... Dear John, I would prefer not to completely drop the terms “calvinism” and “arminianism” becuase they are quick ways to identify certain perspectives of Biblical interpretation. I do agree that we should continue to avoid trying to justify their respective teachings as such. I also encourage the use of scripture as long as it relates specifically to our laser focus of the sovereignity of God. Therefore, keeping all this in mind, I look forward to your response to my post number 61495. Thanks again for continuing to post to this topic with kindness towards me and focusing on the topic, I will try to do the same towards you. |
||||||
311 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61594 | ||
Dear John, Please let me clarify. You said, “You have granted that, at least fom my perspective, the Bible may indicate God's absolute control over all things. What I am interested in is what do those verse say from your perspective. “ Actually I am proposing that those verses say the say thing regardless of whether you are a C or A. I am saying that both perspectives believe that God has absolute control and is sovereign. It seems the burden of proof is on the C perspective to provide verses that show that the A perspective makes the sovereignity of God impossible. |
||||||
312 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61691 | ||
Clarification ............................................... Dear John, It appears that our thread has been restricted and will no longer appear on the general webpage. I suppose that is good if we are unable to come to consensus as everyone seems to believe, however, I think it would be a shame if we actually were able to resolve this issue and noone could see it. ............................................... It seems that you are a bit confused about my question, so I’ll try to explain it more clearly. Calvinists have one perspective on interpreting scripture. They read verses to say that God has absolute control which He excersizes at all times to dictate everything that happens. They believe that within the box, people actually have FREEDOM to make choices, but that those choices are completely controlled by the ABILITIES that God grants. Thus, they believe that God is supremely powerful and sovereign. ............................................... Arminians, on the other hand, interpret those same verses differently. The believe that God has the ability to absolutely control the universe, but that He chooses not to excersize that ability at all times. Instead, they believe that God has created humans in such a way that they have both the FREEDOM and ABILITY to choose whether to love God or not. However, since God is simply choosing not to excersize His ability to determine every choice, they believe that God is still supremely powerful and sovereign. ............................................... The interesting thing is that both perspectives claim that God is sovereign. Arminians generally understand that the Calvinist perspective, even if they disagree with it, leads to a belief in a soverign God. However, Calvinists generally are under the impression that Arminian perspective, even if they disagree with it, DOES NOT lead to a belief in a sovereign God. I propose that this impression is wrong, and I am asking that someone to explain, using scripture and reason, why Calvinists believe that. Not why they believe Arminianism is wrong, but why they believe that it is impossible for God to be sovereign in that perspective. ............................................... Thus far, I have found you to be a person who is well educated in the doctrines of Calvinism, with a firm grasp of scripture, and the rare ability to at least begin to understand Arminianism, even though you don’t agree with it. Therefore, I hope that if anyone would be able to answer this question, you might be the one to do it. Out of respect for some of my other colleagues here at the forum, I should mention that I there are others such as Reformer Joe who could fit this description. |
||||||
313 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61738 | ||
Simplification of Calvinist statement ..................................... Dear John, I’m fine with using the official statement, but would it be OK if I simplify it slightly for understanding sake. The original statement you gave was: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] “ ..................................... I propose the following simplification: ..................................... “God unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass. Yet neither is God the author of sin, nor is the will of the humans removed. Nor is the possibility of indirect causes of actions removed, but rather established.” ..................................... I have tried to change as little as possible while retaining the meaning and increasing the likelihood of understanding. Is this alright? ..................................... I read all your “proof texts”, and understand that you could easily come to the conclusion that you do based upon them. I am looking forward to your response to the rest of my previous post. |
||||||
314 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61747 | ||
Definition of Calvinist perspective ..................... Dear John, Very well, for subsequent posts, I'll try to use the following definition for your perspective: .......................................... “God unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass. Yet neither is God the author of sin, nor is the will of the humans forced. Nor is the possibility of indirect causes of actions removed, but rather established.” .......................................... So what are your thoughts on the rest of post 61691? |
||||||
315 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61838 | ||
Clarification ...................................... Dear John, You took one sentance from my post out of the context that it was in and then claimed that its meaning was unclear. Let's put it back in context and look at it. ...................................... I said, "You want to discuss specific scripture verses to prove that Calvinism is correct. I’m not interested. You have already done that with other people on this forum, and I don’t seek redundancy. The purpose of this thread is solely to discuss whether it is possible for a person with an Arminian perspective to believe in a sovereign God." ...................................... I believe that when read in context it is obvious that I my "prohibition" as you call it was very specific. I was not prohibiting all scripture from being used. Instead I was trying to maintain the focus of this thread by avoiding scriptures that merely support Calvinism in general (which would have been redundant with other threads that do that very thing). ...................................... I think that in context, my meaning was clear. However, it appears that JRdoc did misunderstand what I said, becuase he referred to me in a different thread as trying to prohibit from posting anything on this forum at all. Therefore, I did reply to him (in that thread) to clear up any misunderstanding that might have been there. |
||||||
316 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61842 | ||
I'm still waiting for your response ...................... Dear John, What are your thoughts on the rest of this post? ............................................ Arminians, on the other hand, interpret those same verses differently. The believe that God has the ability to absolutely control the universe, but that He chooses not to excersize that ability at all times. Instead, they believe that God has created humans in such a way that they have both the FREEDOM and ABILITY to choose whether to love God or not. However, since God is simply choosing not to excersize His ability to determine every choice, they believe that God is still supremely powerful and sovereign. ............................................... The interesting thing is that both perspectives claim that God is sovereign. Arminians generally understand that the Calvinist perspective, even if they disagree with it, leads to a belief in a soverign God. However, Calvinists generally are under the impression that Arminian perspective, even if they disagree with it, DOES NOT lead to a belief in a sovereign God. I propose that this impression is wrong, and I am asking that someone to explain, using scripture and reason, why Calvinists believe that. Not why they believe Arminianism is wrong, but why they believe that it is impossible for God to be sovereign in that perspective. |
||||||
317 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 61867 | ||
Personal Note ...................................... Dear John, Sounds like a good mission. There are obviously limitations to any conversation that can only be carried out with the written word. Lacking tone of voice, body language, facial expression, etc. can often make interpretation difficult. It is therefore very important that we all dilligently try to "assertain the intended meaning" of posts before responding. You make a great point. ................................................ P.S. Having started on this forum over a year ago, I am glad that I can say, "to the best of my knowledge I have never been in a hot debate with anyone here". |
||||||
318 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62291 | ||
Clarification.................................................. Dear John, I think that sounds fine, and am looking forward to your thoughts on why? |
||||||
319 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62461 | ||
Is this going somewhere? ................................ Dear John, You quoted Gen 1:1, and said that God created the universe. I agree. You then said that if God did not “foreordain all that would occur” (I assume that you mean “force to happen everything that happens”) then His creation would be “imperfect”. Why do you believe that the universe would be imperfect if God allowed somethings to happen without His direct control? Why does God have to excersize direct control of absolutely everything to keep His “eternal plan from failing”? ................................ Then you asked me to give my interpretation of Eph 1:11. In the Amplified version, that verse is translated, “In Him we also were made [God's] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will,” ................................ It seems to be saying that through Christ’s sacrifice we (Christians) have been brought into the family of God, and thus will some day receive an inheritance (heaven). It also seems to say that God has a overall plan based solely on His own desires. It also seems to say that we (Christians) are integrated into that plan, and were chosen ahead ot time to play a part in it. ................................ Maybe my lack of drinking coffee has left my mind clouded, but I don’t see where all this is leading. How does this answer the question of why God can’t be sovereign if He chooses not to excercise complete control of every situation, but rather allows people to have the ability to make real choices? | ||||||
320 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62527 | ||
A Different View Point 1 ........................................... OK, I begin to see your thoughts on this. Let’s look at them one at a time. You said, “Foreordination does not entail force. It simply means that God willed it to occur and whatever He wills to occur does inevitably occur.(God never ever forces the will of man. He did not make us to be robots). “ ........................................... Please allow me repeat an analogy that I shared previously on this forum, which no one responded to (except to compliment it). I would like to understand your thoughts on this issue. Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry. The parent, through genetic engineering, caused both of their children to be born without any legs. Then when they were both 10 years old, the parent got a set of artificial legs for Tom so that he could walk, but they did not get any legs for Jerry. Then one day the parent decides to go for a walk to the ice cream store. The parent invites both children to walk with them, but says it is their choice. Tom can’t pass up the opportunity for ice cream, and gladly accepts. Jerry however doesn’t have any legs, and so he doesn’t have the ability to go. The question is, “Does Jerry really have a choice to walk to the store if he has been born without any legs?” For that matter, “If the ice cream is truly irresistable, then does Tom have a real choice either?” |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [24] >> |