Results 381 - 400 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Lanny, What is your definition of sin? | Rom 6:2 | Sir Pent | 24205 | ||
Attempt at consensus .......................... I suspect we agree more than we disagree here Joe. If we step back from the argument and look at it, it seems to really just be about the definition of the word sin. You seem to be defining "sin" in terms of the attitude of the person. This is a valid perspective most of the time. Jesus often talked of how God looks at the heart when He judges us. From this perspective, it would seem very difficult (if not impossible) to sin accidentally. I am describing "sin" in terms of the actions themselves. This is also a valid perspective most of the time. God has commanded many actions and condemned many other actions in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, in general, actions themselves can be classified as either in line with or against the will of God. For instance, prayer to God would be in line with His will, and stealing would be against His will (sin). While both of these perspectives are valid most of the time, they do both have limitations and dangers. The first perspective (that you are supporting) comes dangerously close to relativism at times. When "sin" is defined solely based on a person's attitude (which we can never know completely), it is easy for someone to say, "well that may be wrong for you, but it is not wrong for me". Sometimes this is accurate (ie. meat sacrificed to idols), however, most often this is said by a person trying to rationalize actual sin in their life. The second perspective (that I am supporting) comes dangerously close to legalism at times. When "sin" is defined solely based on a person's actions, it is easy for a person to do the right things with the wrong motivation. Sometimes this is healthy (ie. when we feel like praising God the least is when we need to do it the most). However, if continued for a long period of time, it can lead to pure hypocracy and can rob a person of the joy of true relationship with God. If I had to pick one of these perspectives, I'd choose the second. Better to err on the side caution, and stick to close to the letter of the law, than to err on the side of folly and commit egregious sins. However, the best choice of all is not to pick between these options, but rather to balance them and live by both. That is where we probably agree. I assume that we would both see the value (and danger) in each view independantly, and therefore the wisdom in finding the balance. |
||||||
382 | knowledge of sin needed for salvation? | Rom 6:23 | Sir Pent | 113780 | ||
Personal Note.................................... Hi Makarios, I am truly intrigued and excited by your comment about starting your own family. Could you give some more information? |
||||||
383 | knowledge of sin needed for salvation? | Rom 6:23 | Sir Pent | 116329 | ||
Personal Note............................................. Nolan, I am very happy for you and Katie as you approach the next stage of your journey together. I will pray for you both, and hope to get to see you soon and meet this woman who has captured the heart of my forever friend :) |
||||||
384 | why does god require sacrafices | Rom 6:23 | Sir Pent | 117721 | ||
Personal Note......................................................... Hello Emmaus, Thanks for that great post on the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. I hadn't thought of the connection to the Egyptian false gods before. Very insightful! |
||||||
385 | can you loose your salvation | Rom 8:28 | Sir Pent | 117728 | ||
Welcome to the forum Lonnie, You have asked a good question, and one that concerns a lot of people. Please type in the number 21448 into the "Quick Search" box at the top right corner of the screen to find some comments by myself and others on this idea. |
||||||
386 | can you loose your salvation | Rom 8:28 | Sir Pent | 117730 | ||
Correction.................................................. I apologise bjh, I meant to respond to Lonnie, and accidentally responded to your post. I also copied and pasted the wrong thing. I'm sorry for any confusion. |
||||||
387 | Reconciling Rom 8:39 with Heb 10:26 | Rom 8:39 | Sir Pent | 116615 | ||
Referral to another thread.......................................... There is an excellent post by Tim Moran that gives the best (in my opinion) interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 passage that you are talking about here, regarding IMPOSSIBLE REPENTANCE. Please type in the number 25332 into the "Quick Search" box at the top right corner of the screen. |
||||||
388 | Reconciling Rom 8:39 with Heb 10:26 | Rom 8:39 | Sir Pent | 116618 | ||
Agree to disagree................................................... Hello again Kalos, I am beginning to lose track of who I have interacted with since my return to the forum. But in case you are not one of those yet, I would just like to say that it is good to see you're still here :) As for this discussion, I think that we'll have to agree to disagree. You obviously interpret the verse one way, and have quoted a couple sources that agree with you. I think that Tim Moran's interpretation is more accurate. However, you'll have to hash that out with him. I do not have the language expertise that he has, and could not defend his post nearly as well as it deserves. Read post number 25332 again and take time to think about Morant61's points. |
||||||
389 | Reconciling Rom 8:39 with Heb 10:26 | Rom 8:39 | Sir Pent | 116888 | ||
Multiple beliefs on this subject..................................... The belief that Kalos is proposing in this thread is commonly referred to as "once saved, always saved". There are large numbers of Christians who believe that it is true that a person who has truly been saved cannot ever completely turn away from God and lose their salvation. There are also large numbers of Christians who believe that it is possible for a person to become a true Christian, and then later in life to change their mind and decide to reject God and His salvation. I believe that this second option is true (search for post number 15952). Those who believe this second option are often concerned by the verses Hebrews 6:4-6, and wonder if they can ever return to God after rejecting Him. I and other Christians believe that it is still possible to return to God (see post 257332). For anyone reading these posts, please keep in mind that both perspectives are considered to be orthodox. In other words, both are reasonable interpretations of scripture and have been accepted throughout centuries of church tradition. Therefore, please try to read support for both sides before coming to your own conclusion. |
||||||
390 | is there security of the believer | Rom 8:39 | Sir Pent | 116893 | ||
Multiple beliefs on this subject..................................... The belief that Hank is proposing in this thread is commonly referred to as "once saved, always saved". There are large numbers of Christians who believe that it is true that a person who has truly been saved cannot ever completely turn away from God and lose their salvation. There are also large numbers of Christians who believe that it is possible for a person to become a true Christian, and then later in life to change their mind and decide to reject God and His salvation. I believe that this second option is true (search for post number 15952). Those who believe this second option are often concerned by the verses Hebrews 6:4-6, and wonder if they can ever return to God after rejecting Him. I and other Christians believe that it is still possible to return to God (see post 257332). For anyone reading these posts, please keep in mind that both perspectives are considered to be orthodox. In other words, both are reasonable interpretations of scripture and have been accepted throughout centuries of church tradition. Therefore, please try to read support for both sides before coming to your own conclusion. |
||||||
391 | is there security of the believer | Rom 8:39 | Sir Pent | 116964 | ||
Personal Note........................................................ Hi Hank, They will know we are Christians by our love. And they see our love when they see kindness in the midst of disagreement. Thanks for your kind words. |
||||||
392 | Just an intriguing topic | Rom 12:17 | Sir Pent | 18501 | ||
Dear KaLe, Welcome to the forum. I am glad that you have been blessed (as I have) through the thoughts that are shared here. Please feel free to add any insights that you have as you continue to fellowship with us. God bless! |
||||||
393 | IN 1Cor.3:15 Is it the person or the wor | 1 Corinthians | Sir Pent | 13769 | ||
I'm glad to be able to help. We all can benefit from the ideas of others, and often that is how God speaks to us. | ||||||
394 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60877 | ||
A Different View ....................................... Dear John, I know that your question was not addressed to me, but when I read it, I had a thought that I really wanted to share with you. The Calvinist perspective often gets hung up on the idea that if a human has to “accept” God’s free gift of salvation, then it takes away from the sovreignity of God or the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice. I do not believe that this hang up is neccessary. ....................................... Rather than seeing Christ’s sacrifice to be insufficient, and perceiving that as a bad thing, why not look at it as a grace of God instead. Here’s what I mean. God is almighty, and He COULD have made Christ’s death on the cross completely sufficient for salvation regardless of how any particular human responded to it. God could have said that because Christ died for the sins of the world then Tom over here is going to believe in Me and be saved no matter what Tom’s personal choice would have been. Meanwhile I will leave Jerry over there unable to believe in Me, and Jerry will go to hell, regardless of what his personal choice would have been. In my understanding this is the Calvinist perspective. My point is that God had the ability and COULD have set things up that way. ....................................... However, I believe that instead God chose to have Christ’s death on the cross be sufficient to take away the sins of anyone who accepted that forgiveness. This does not take away from God’s sovereignity at all. It is not that God was unable to save people without their “help” (even using the Calvinist perspective that simply accepting a gift is “help” or “work”). Instead it is that God chose to have salvation work that way. He could have set it up either way; He is in total control. Arminians just believe that He set things up to allow His creation to truly choose whether to love God and have a relationship with Him or not. |
||||||
395 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60951 | ||
Personal Note .......................................... Lionstrong my friend, It is good to be in a thread together after so long. I'm really glad that you wrote this post, not that I agree with much of it, but after all these months I finally understand why you started that whole discussion we once had on the "rationality of animals" :) |
||||||
396 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60952 | ||
A Different View ..................................... I agree with John that Scripture is and should be a higher authority than our ability to reason. However, I would suggest that the Bible is not completely clear on some subjects such as predestination and free will. In these cases, it makes the most sense to interpret the scripture with the meaning that is most logical, fits with church tradition, and our own personal experience (in that order). ..................................... I understand that my colleagues Joe, John, and Lionstrong have a way of seeing scripture that supports Calvinism. At the same time, my colleagues Mekarios, Tim Moran, and EdB have a way of seeing scripture that supports Arminanism. I don't think that any of them would say that the others are blatantly ignoring or contradicting an obvious teaching from the Bible. If it was obvious, it would not have been an issue for centuries in the church, for people smarter and closer to God than us. ..................................... So since both sides have extensive Scriptural support, it does not benefit anyone for either side to simply claim that their view is in the Bible and it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. |
||||||
397 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60957 | ||
Return To The Question ...................... Thanks for the clarification about Calvinist perspective. I don't think that I actually misunderstand it, but rather that I didn't explain my thought completely enough. I will try again. ................................... We both believe that God is sovereign and all powerful. Therefore, He could have created beings (humans) such as you have just described. They were all completely corrupted after the fall of Adam, and completely incapable of desiring relationship with God. Therefore, they would not choose God and would deserve Hell. Then God could, within that system, choose some of those beings as exceptions to that rule, and change them in such a way that they had to desire a relationship with God. Therefore, they would choose God and would deserve heaven (only by God's grace of changing them, and providing a way to salvation through Jesus). Thus everyone gets what they deserve (at least in one sense) ................................... However, it is also possible that God being sovereign and all powerful could have created beings (humans) that were actually capable of either desiring a relationship with God or not desiring it. Their nature could be partially corrupted so that they have a tendancy to choose to reject God, but still have the ability to overcome that first instinct. Then some of them would choose to love God and would deserve heaven (only by God’s grace of providing a way to salvation through Jesus). But others would choose to reject God and His salvation and would deserve Hell. Thus everyone gets what they deserve (in a greater sense). ................................... So now to the original question. How does believing the second option to be true limit the sovereignity of God? Since God could have set it up either way, He is in complete control either way. For that matter, assuming the Arminian perspective is correct, God could still change His mind at any point and remove the freedom to choose again. Although we don’t believe that God would ever do that, He could. I am not asking you to believe Arminianism is correct, I am simply trying to explain that it is a possible explanation that keeps God’s soveriegnity intact. ................................... It seems to me that it is like a parent watching their child on a playground, but letting them choose whether to go down the little slide or the big slide. The parent is bigger and stronger, and could easily bar the child from one slide or the other. But it doesn’t make the parent any less big or less strong for them to allow the child pick either one. |
||||||
398 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60969 | ||
Answer To Original Question ............................. So how can any man be saved. I think that there is actually very little disagreement on the answer to that question. Those who agree with Calvin or Wesley would both say that salvation is only possible through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. They would also both say that the only reason why anyone would accept that forgiveness is that God draws us to himself. ......................................... Therefore, the scriptures that both sides would use, would be much the same. I did a quick search on the web and found the following two websites that cover the Wesleyan perspective on this including several scriptures: http://www.imarc.cc/harted4ap.html and: http://www.revneal.org/Writings/on.htm ......................................... The only difference is that Calvin calls this drawing "predestination", and says, that it is irresistable and limited to a select group of people. Wesley calls it "prevenient grace", and says that it can be resisted, but is poured out on all people. |
||||||
399 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60975 | ||
Personal Note ......................................................... Dear John, I would appreciate a little more grace here :) I apologize if I missed an earlier post of yours that dealt with the exact same interpretation of this verse that I proposed. I admit that I haven’t read every post in this thread (of course, it is pretty long). Please let me know the post number and I will try to respond to it. ......................................................... I actually was not following this thread really closely for a while when it started, because it seemed to be just another thread in a long list of threads endlessly debating the Calvinist / Arminianist perspectives on this forum. For the most part, I have decided to just ignore those at this point. However, in this case, I thought there was a unique opportunity to try to bring some consensus between the two viewpoints. ......................................................... Thus my answer to your question that focused on the similarities rather than the differences. Then the response that I get from you is that my post doesn’t even qualify as an answer. Up to this point, I have found our discussion to be rational and gentle. As this is the first thread that we have had significant interaction with each other, and I have thus far appreciated your method of communicating ideas. I hope that this doesn’t indicate that you wish to start insulting my posts. |
||||||
400 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60978 | ||
Please Answer My Question ......................................................... Dear John, At this point I don’t think that we need further clarification. I think that you understand what I am asking. I would therefore appreciate an answer to that question. However, just in case I will clarify a little more. ......................................................... You implied that I said there was an exception to the rule that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This is not what I said or believe. The expression, “the exception to the rule” simply means that one thing is the standard outcome, and another thing (which occurs less often) is a different outcome. I was simply saying that within the Calvinist system the standard outcome is that all people deserve to go to die for their sins and go to hell. The other outcome, which occurs less often is that some people accept that Jesus died for thier sins, and they go to heaven. ......................................................... You also didn't like the word system. The word system is simply defined: plan, method, orderly arrangement. I think that it is an accurate word. You yourself called it “God’s Eternal Plan”, and it is definately the orderly arrangement of theology and biblical interpretation used by those who believe in it. I believe that I have accurately portrayed the Calvinist perspective, and said that it is possible for God to have created the universe in this way. ......................................................... Then you respond to the Arminian perspective by saying that it is impossible for God to create the universe in the way that is believed by those who agree with that tradition. I know your high view of God’s sovereignity, and am confused that you find Him incapable of doing this. Once again, I am not asking you to believe that He did, only that He could. ......................................................... I hope that this makes things clear for you, and I sincerely look forward to hearing your (and others such as Reformer Joe, Lionstrong, etc.) thoughts about my big question. Why does God’s soveriegnity have to be dimished by believing that He allows His creation to all be capable of choosing to love Him? Once again, a parent is not any less strong or big because they choose not to use their strength to keep their child from picking which slide to go down in the park. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [24] >> |