Results 401 - 420 of 495
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Aixen7z4 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Why don't you know for sure? | Eccl 11:6 | Aixen7z4 | 100200 | ||
God made man with free will, and the alternative to obedience was always there. God even made man aware of the alternative and its consequences. Read it again (Gen 2:16,17): "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Incidentally, it says what kind of tree it was. Folklore says "apple", but you have just seen what God and the Bible said. Also, it is not that man lacked knowledge. He lacked the knowledge of evil. And we ourselves should limit our knowledge of it. Please note Rom 16:19 "I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil". Knowledge, my friend, comes through experience. May God help us to limit our knowledge of evil. We should learn that which is good, from the word of God, and then put it into practice. Be encouraged. Jesus said (John 7:17)"If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching" and (John 8:31,32) "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us, but we must be sensitive to his leading through the word. |
||||||
402 | Why don't you know for sure? | Eccl 11:6 | Aixen7z4 | 100198 | ||
The passages referred to in the first post were primarily from the New Testament, with only one from the Old. The posibility of separation from God has always been there. Our foreparents chose because they had the ability to choose. Please take the time to think and to do the necessary research before telling us what we must realize. Please take your time. You do not have to have the final answer. Just share your thoughts and read what the others write. The answers will appear. |
||||||
403 | Are you quite sure about that? | Eccl 11:6 | Aixen7z4 | 100195 | ||
I am sorry to say that I have no idea what you are talking about, or how it might be related to our topic. I will read your note again when I have the time. In the meantime, you might want to read the question again and review the comments of others. God bless you as you do, and if you write on this thread again, please make sure it is related to the question, and please try to make it clear. | ||||||
404 | Are you quite sure about that? | Eccl 11:6 | Aixen7z4 | 100164 | ||
Yes, Ken, we do need a deeper understanding. That is the reason we are sharing here. Please share your insights on the topic. Also, please share something about yourself by filling out the User Profile. It will give us an idea how far you have come and why you think it is only we who need a deeper understanding. And let us not put a stumbling block in front of our weaker brethren. Let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. But can you explain how building up one another helps us to know the mind of God. Is it by getting stronger that we get closer to God? And are you quite sure about that? |
||||||
405 | Are you quite sure about that? | Eccl 11:6 | Aixen7z4 | 100144 | ||
Keyman, I am glad to see you here. If I understand correctly, God has been speaking to you for some time, and you have recently responded by committing your life to him. I trust you will continue to find encouragement in your church and also on this forum. Let me say that one-sided conversations are OK with me as long as the person is talking about the Lord or about what the Lord has said. It happens sometimes in church and we can bear with it, even enjoy it, when the preacherman is telling us “Thus saith the Lord”. I am happy that you read at least one of the passages mentioned in that post before responding. I trust that you considered the others as well. In some sense we are responding now, among ourselves, to a one-way conversation in which God has been speaking to us in the Bible. What has he been saying to us? And how have we responded? Have we even asked him to make it clear to us? We may not like one-way conversations because we think we have something important to say, I suppose. But if God is speaking, we should be willing to listen. This thread is asking us two questions. First, would we be concerned about the possibility God is not directing us and we are acting on our own? Also, when we speak for God, we would hope and like to think that the people are listening. But sometimes it seems they are not listening. Should we continue speaking anyway? God seems to be saying that there are times when he withdraws himself in order to induce us to seek him. We would not want to miss that message. First and foremost, we need him for ourselves, to guide us. He does not want us to go on without him. And when we speak, we want to speak his words, not ours. He wants us to speak when he sees fit and not in a time of our own choosing. But what if we are not listening? I think you are exactly correct in saying that God does not want a one-way conversation. He has spoken to us and he wants us to talk to him. It is not to tell him our opinion, which is often why we want our turn in the conversation, but to ask him. In other words, to pray. Sometimes it seems that God is not talking, but it may be that we are talking and not listening. Sometimes it seems that he is listening and we are not talking, to him. Even now it seems that we are talking to each other and not to him. I don’t think he likes that either, to be left out of the conversation. So, Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things. And Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. |
||||||
406 | Is baptism for salvation? (Mark 16:16) | Mark 16:16 | Aixen7z4 | 99997 | ||
Brother Emmaus: There is some comfort for you in having that authoritative voice in the Catholic church. But you also wish it could be true for all of us together, in the catholic body, on this forum. Is that not true? Is it not possible? All of the verses you quoted are in all of our Bibles. And there are others as well. I therefore beseech you that we be all reconciled, to God. Maybe we can, in a place like this. | ||||||
407 | Is baptism for salvation? (Mark 16:16) | Mark 16:16 | Aixen7z4 | 99994 | ||
Brother Hank: I think it is not envy that you feel, but regret, that such beautiful language has to be describing such an unbeautiful thing. I think you would rather wear your own hammer out on the anvil of the word, in concert with some others, hammering out the truth, the last bare bit of it, to those who need it in small pieces, not to digest it, for that would be to mix the metaphor, but to be able to handle it aright. Am I not telling the truth? I think that “sawing sawdust” is equally elegant in phraseology, and may describe an activity that you do not admire. Perhaps something better could be done with the sawdust, again to make it easier for some dear soul to handle. As it is, the ones with the best phrases use them to compete and to oppose. It leaves room for those who cannot even handle the language to their own comfort to come on and try to teach. The people do not know the difference between teacher and learner now. They think we are all looking for answers (and some will say we should accept that) and so everybody offers them. Now what you get is what you see. There are people on this forum who have obviously learned a lot and could very well teach us with some measure of authority. They could put their heads together, dig a little deeper, learn from each other, and tell the rest of us the truth. People could express their opinions, no doubt, and they should ask questions. But at some point we should arrive at the answer. Don’t you agree? Or perhaps there are those who prefer to think we should not have final answers. We should be ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth? Take the present subject of baptism. Is it necessary for salvation? I imagine the person who is asking the question really needs an answer. Or maybe they need many different answers and can then figure out the truth for themselves. If that is the case, I wish we could leave the last space in the thread for them so they can tell us what they have learned. I think some people try to do that, but the case does not rest there. The opinions continue, the threads untangle again, and future visitors have much reason to be confused. Somebody must like it this way. Some say they learn from debating. I just wonder why the Lord does not expressly encourage this. (Does he?) And why is it not exemplified and commended in Scripture. And what is the record we are leaving here? You do not enjoy thumbing through it. You find it frustrating and depressing. You have the sense that it is guiding few searchers for truth to truth. Now, the truth is that baptism is very important. So much so, it might be said that those who would refuse it are casting doubt on their salvation. Isn’t that the truth? Can we build on that by adding to it? No one has shown, or tried to show, that physical water accomplishes salvation. Yet we may get that impression. Can we clarify that so that the notion goes away? There is some ground where the ceremony of baptism (if you will) is given its rightful place of importance so that believers are not tempted to minimize it or refuse it. I dare say even the mode of administration can be clarified if we put our minds to it. The people with the beautiful phrases are obviously good men with good will. They can put aside their biases here and accept truth when the see it. This is a good place. After all, we can be here anonymously, and even the risk of ostracism from our group can be minimized, until we learn to minimize or extinguish the importance of those denominational divisions. We can answer these questions. But we must seek to do so while endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. |
||||||
408 | Is baptism for salvation? (Mark 16:16) | Mark 16:16 | Aixen7z4 | 99947 | ||
It is true. Look it up and you will find a long conversation, accusations, different opinions, and no agreement. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could come to a place like this and find an authoritative answer? Different verses seem to say different things. It would be nice if someone could give a comprehensive answer that takes all those verses into account, explaining them without explaining any of them away. But that means digging deep. And to dig deep means you have to leave family and denomination and even friends behind. Ask any miner. But that is hard to do, and it takes time. It’s taken me a long time to come to the conclusion that baptism should be embraced by anyone claiming faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. He wants to do it because his Lord did it. He wants to do it whether or not it is a part of the salvation plan. He figures (not to place a pun on the 1 Peter 3 passage) that it goes well with his profession of repentance. He has decided to give up his way for God's way. Now, if the Lord wants it, that is all that matters. Baptism is usually done when a person is newly saved. He realizes that there are so many things he does not understand. He is leading with his heart, if you will, not his head. He is trusting and not feeling; not intellectualizing either. If Jesus says do it, he’ll do it. If he refuses to do it, that is a bad sign. It does not bespeak a good conscience toward God. It is not something to debate about, he says, it something to be done, as soon as possible, because the Lord he loves desires it. There’s more to it, I’m sure, but it does take time to say it, and right now I do not have it because the next appointment calls. But if you need to be baptized, if you are saved, I trust you will have done it by the time that I get back. |
||||||
409 | What is my role in my sanctification? | NT general Archive 1 | Aixen7z4 | 99815 | ||
Emmaus: Thank you for that. With that, may I suggest it that it is better to leave sanctification alone and not entangle it with justification. They are both important in our lives, but when we are perusing our role in sanctification, it is not useful to have them thus entwined. I take it we want to make our role clear so we can play that role to the full. Justification is a legal term and refers to our responsibility before God for our sins. Sanctification is a ceremonial term, if you will, denoting our being set apart for God’s glory and service. As we have noted previously, positional sanctification is accomplished by God on our behalf when we have repented and put our faith in Christ. Practical sanctification is a continuing process in which we are actively involved in taking on the character of Christ. With that, I would like to suggest the following revision of that document: Having, therefore, been justified [1 Cor 6:11] and made the friends of God, [Col 1:21] and having become a part of his family [Eph 2:19] we advance in virtue, [2Pe 1:5] , we present our bodies, as the Apostle says, day by day, [Romans 12:1] that is, “mortifying the members” of our flesh [Col3:5], and presenting them as instruments of righteousness unto sanctification, [Rom 6:13,19] we, through the observance of the commandments of God, faith cooperating with action, operationalize that sanctification received through the grace of Christ and are thereby immersed in the process of practical sanctification, as it is written: “He that is holy, let him be holy still” [Rev 22:1]. The church, by it’s name and very nature, is a called-out people, a holy people. As individuals and as a body we seek to manifest our sanctification by encouraging ourselves and one another to be reconciled to God [2 Cor 5:20] in his will for our lives. We understand that his will for us is practical sanctification [1 Thess 4:3]. Aixen’s suggestions to The Council of Trent |
||||||
410 | What is my role in my sanctification? | NT general Archive 1 | Aixen7z4 | 99738 | ||
Dear pam: I am EdB's assistant. Therefore may I add a few words to his good advice, that there is a requirement placed upon us to walk in holiness. I trust you will not mind hearing it twice. In one sens we have been sanctified. That is something God has done for us as we trusted in Christ. That is why Paul says (2 Thess 2:13) that God has from the beginning chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Peter says (1 Peter 1:2) that we are the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit. But there is a practical side to sanctification, and we have to be actively involved in it. Paul says (Romans 13:12) The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. That is practical sanctification. He gives an example to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 4:3). This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: Practical sanctification is a process of putting off things that are unlike Christ and putting on things that are like him. Colossians 3:8ff Put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. Ephesians 4:22ff Put off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Holiness is another word for sanctification. Wherefore (Ephesians 4:25ff) putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. We are saved. Sanctified. Set apart for Christ. Paul says (2 Cor 6:11) we are washed, we are sanctified, we are justified. Positionally. In Christ. And (Rom 5:1) being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But Peter says (2 Peter 1:5) we must give all diligence to add to our faith virtue. That is practical sanctification. May the Lord give us grace to put off the things that are unlike him, and put on the things that are like him. We are to be like him. And he is holy. 1 Peter 1:14ff: As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he who has called you is holy, so be holy in every area of life; because it is written, “Be holy; for I am holy”. |
||||||
411 | What is my role in my sanctification? | Col 2:6 | Aixen7z4 | 99737 | ||
I would like to suggest that what Princess is referring to is something the theologians call positional sanctification. That has been done for us. That is why Paul says (2 Thess 2:13) that God has from the beginning chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Peter says (1 Peter 1:2) that we are the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit. But there is a practical side to sanctification, and we have to be actively involved in it. Paul says (Romans 13:12) The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. That is practical sanctification. He gives an example to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 4:3). This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: Practical sanctification is a process of putting off things that are unlike Christ and putting on things that are like him. Colossians 3:8ff Put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. Ephesians 4:22ff Put off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Holiness is another word for sanctification. Wherefore (Ephesians 4:25ff) putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. We are saved. Sanctified. Set apart for Christ. Paul says (2 Cor 6:11) we are washed, we are sanctified, we are justified. Positionally. In Christ. And (Rom 5:1) being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But Peter says (2 Peter 1:5) we must give all diligence to add to our faith virtue. That is practical sanctification. May the Lord give us grace to put off the things that are unlike him, and put on the things that are like him. We are to be like him. And he is holy. 1 Peter 1:14ff: As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he who has called you is holy, so be holy in every area of life; because it is written, “Be holy; for I am holy”. |
||||||
412 | Will we recognize loved ones in heaven? | 1 Cor 13:12 | Aixen7z4 | 99719 | ||
It's like asking whether we will remember or whether we will learn new things. It is evident that we will think differently in heaven than we think now. Here on this earth we separate "loved ones". From whom? "Hated ones"? “Ones we don't care too much about”? “Ones we don't know and don't care to know”? In heaven we will be like Jesus. That's what we are told (1 John 3:2). And Jesus had a way of asking, "Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?" If we are thinking like that in heaven, we will be saying, "All of these are my loved ones”. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother". I have wondered what it would be like when I am looking for my mother and she is looking for her mother, and she is looking for her mother, ad infinitum. What would the ultimate siciogram be like? Who would want to be with whom? The people had already asked Jesus the question, "Whose wife will she be?" What if one thought of her as their loved one" while she was thinking of another man as her "loved one"? Jesus said there would be none of that. Now, is there any comfort in these words? I think it is comfort that people are seeking when they ask the question. We seem to want the comforts we know now: to be with people who are like us; same genomes, same color, same language, same tribe, same nation, same denomination. But the things that make us similar to some people make us different from others. They divide us and make it difficult for us to relate. If it were that way in heaven, would we be divided again? Would we be having the scourge of racism all over again? I am guessing that since we shall all be like him, then we shall all be like each other. We will all be loved ones and we will all get along. I have often wondered why these discussions on the topic of knowing our loved ones in heaven do not include the possibility that we will be able to introduce ourselves to one another in heaven. If we can, then we may find that part of the joy of heaven will be in meeting new friends and renewing acquaintances with old friends, including those who were “loved ones” here below. It seems to me that both of those kinds of meetings can be equally joyful. But the greatest joy of all will be seeing him! We will meet the Lord … and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort one another with these words. Now this kind of answer may not help me to become one of your "loved ones", but I think that in heaven you will love even me. We shall all be changed. We shall all be loved ones over there. |
||||||
413 | know loved ones when I get to Heaven | 1 Cor 13:12 | Aixen7z4 | 99718 | ||
Amen! It is evident that we will think differently in heaven than we think now. Here on this earth we separate "loved ones". From whom? "Hated ones"? “Ones we don't care too much about”? “Ones we don't know and don't care to know”? In heaven we will be like Jesus. That's what we are told (1 John 3:2). And Jesus had a way of asking, "Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?" If we are thinking like that in heaven, we will be saying, "All of these are my loved ones”. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother". I have wondered what it would be like when I am looking for my mother and she is looking for her mother, and she is looking for her mother, ad infinitum. What would the ultimate siciogram be like? Who would want to be with whom? The people had already asked Jesus the question, "Whose wife will she be?" What if one thought of her as their loved one" while she was thinking of another man as her "loved one"? Jesus said there would be none of that. Now, is there any comfort in these words? I think it is comfort that people are seeking when they ask the question. We seem to want the comforts we know now: to be with people who are like us; same genomes, same color, same language, same tribe, same nation, same denomination. But the things that make us similar to some people make us different from others. They divide us and make it difficult for us to relate. If it were that way in heaven, would we be divided again? Would we be having the scourge of racism all over again? I am guessing that since we shall all be like him, then we shall all be like each other. We will all be loved ones and we will all get along. I have often wondered why these discussions on the topic of knowing our loved ones in heaven do not include the possibility that we will be able to introduce ourselves to one another in heaven. If we can, then we may find that part of the joy of heaven will be in meeting new friends and renewing acquaintances with old friends, including those who were “loved ones” here below. It seems to me that both of those kinds of meetings can be equally joyful. But the greatest joy of all will be seeing him! We will meet the Lord … and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort one another with these words. Now this kind of answer may not help me to become one of your "loved ones", but I think that in heaven you will love even me. We shall all be changed. We shall all be loved ones over there. |
||||||
414 | Why are NT epistles in that Bible order? | NT general Archive 1 | Aixen7z4 | 99716 | ||
It seems to me that the order in which the epistles are arranged is of no importance at all except, perhaps, when two or more letters have been addressed to the same recipient. The books of the Bible cannot possibly be placed in perfect chronological order and attempts to do it are not necessary except, perhaps in tracing the history of the Jews. (I will welcome a correction on that point). Some books are undated, some are contemporaneous, and some are, in a manner of speaking, just timeless. It is clear that the revelation given to us in the Bible is gradual. We need to understand that the information given in Genesis precedes what we have in, say, Malachi, and that Exodus comes before Deuteronomy. However, I see no reason to read Romans before Ephesians or Timothy before Titus. Far more important, it seems to me, is the need to understand the context of each individual book. The Bible is the book of books, a library, if you will. The writings are by individual authors and, in the case of the epistles especially, they were meant to be read as individual messages. I have been recommending that people read an entire epistle through, ignoring chapter and verse divisions, in order to really get the message. There is virtue in reading one book at a time. Obviously, there are common themes in the books of the Bible, and the epistles are no exception. Cross-referencing is a very useful idea. But neither the chapter and verse divisions nor the ordinal placement of the books are inspired things. Again, except when two or more letters are addressed to the same recipient, the order in which they are arranged in the Bible does not seem to matter. |
||||||
415 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Aixen7z4 | 99691 | ||
This is a test. I have come to believe that it really dos not matter what a person says. To some of the participants here, a chance to respond is a chance to espouse their doctrine. Now, let's say I am "labouring under the mistake notion" that that is the case. Let's see if there will be another attempt to clear up a "mis-conception" and if it will lead into another statement of the doctrine. |
||||||
416 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Aixen7z4 | 99504 | ||
Dear Joe: It was good to hear from you. When I logged in today and saw the notice, I was afraid we might have lost you. I suppose we have all seen it, to wit, "NOTICE: Pushing one's denominational bias and engaging in debates, such as Calvinism/Arminianism, are strictly forbidden on this StudyBibleForum. Failure to comply may result in revocation of your privilege to post to this Forum". It was with a desire to end the debate that I made a call for reconciliation. I do believe that it is better to try to reconcile the two positions than to doggedly stand for one extreme. The same Bible which says, “No man can come to me …” also says, “Come unto me all …” and each of us says, “The Bible does not contradict itself”. It behooves us to resolve any apparent conflict in our own minds before attempting to convince another. If we say we are not attempting to convince but to glorify God then it may be that we are only glorifying our position. Again, I do not seem to know nearly as much as I might about those who use he name “Reformed” or about the “Reformed movement”. It do not feel the need to need to study it in depth any more than I feel the need to study Mormonism or Confucianism or any of the hundreds of other isms out there in depth. For one thing, there is not the time. And yet I can understand why it is so important to some people they would change their names to reflect it. I guess they would die for the cause. I can only say again that I think we should only feel that way about Christ himself. “I do fear that those who cling so tightly to such a label should have given that kind of attention only to Christ himself. It seems to be quite important to them and I wonder whether it is the object of their faith and their hope of salvation”. I am surprised to hear that they are also champions of introspection. I do not understand how someone who believes he has been predestined to believe what he believes can know whether what he believes is the truth. Again, one cannot logically believe in determinism. He cannot help himself. Whether is locked into salvation or damnation, he cannot know. Now, if someone cannot see the logic in that statement, there is nothing more that I can say. And again, if God is either irresistible or unapproachable, then my words are also likely to be incomprehensible. Again, I was really not aware that Luther and Bunyon and Spurgeon were Calvinists. Now I find out that the list is even longer. But it really does not matter. I would only note that I do not see Peter or Paul or James or John on that list. I am surprised that Harold Camping is not on the list and I think he would be surprised as well. He certainly seems to preach the doctrine. On the other hand I think John McArthur would be surprised to find himself on it. But it may be that I have not heard him say it and I have not followed him that closely. I must say that there is something about Reformer Joe and John Reformed that really impresses me. They sound like the same person! Indeed, I had to check again to whom I am responding to, and my response to the one seems to fit both. I think it should cause us all to ask ourselves if we might all be that indistinct as Christians. Or are we different from them but similar to others for the same reason. Do we each, and all, believe what we believe for the same reason that these two men do? The BibleStudyForum is a good thing and I hope that none of us is eliminated for breaking the rules. I hope to see you there, discussing important topics such as personal salvation and Christian unity. It is my hope that the goal of each participant in each discussion would be learning, sharing, changing, reconciliation of the viewpoints and resolution of the issues. My hope is that we would be followers, not of men or isms, but of Christ. |
||||||
417 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Aixen7z4 | 99501 | ||
I think that that notice was put up specifically because of a current debate on the recurring topic of Calvinism, in which there seemed to be a certain pushing of a denominational bias, which many people were expressing the wish that there was a way to stop it. I think that was the moderator's attempt to stop it. | ||||||
418 | "objects of wrath" | Eph 2:3 | Aixen7z4 | 99394 | ||
Dear New Creature: Your name means a lot to me. If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. How marvelous! How wonderful! It was the most thrilling experience for me, to be come a new creature. It is also the most thrilling experience to see someone else become a new creature. Yep, they are both the most thrilling. It is the thing the Lord does for all who trust him. It is a miracle of love and grace. Before God changed me, I used to love competition, and winning. Now it is the idea of reconciliation that means so much to me. Thank God that we have been reconciled to God, even though it took the death of his son. Let us thank him again that he was willing to do it. And I believe he wants us to be reconciled to each other as well. It does seem to me that when we are in agreement with him we would also be in agreement with each other. So I would like to reach out to our friends who use the name “Reformed”. I hope they would consider the possibility that they are not saved and that God is locking them into that position by deceiving them into thinking that they had been chosen to be saved. Their position seems to allow for that. I hope that that fear would lead them to ask God for mercy, that it be not so, and to trust him. He will yet respond to their faith. I trust that this piece does not smell of condescension or re-ignite the debate. It is my only wish to see reconciliation, with God if necessary, and with our brethren if they are saved. I reread the entire thread today and was frankly surprised to find this admission: “Of course Reformed theology is not considered infallible by any of it's proponants (after all it is the work of fallible men) nevertheless, I have found it to be of immense value in my own pursuit of knowing God”. I was surprised but pleased to se that these men know that that “theology” is not like the word of God, infallible. It is not like the word of God the work of God. It is the work of men. We can perhaps encourage them to move from it to the word of God. And yet it is based, though imperfectly, on the word of God. I would have to agree that it is of value. I am not sure what “my own pursuit of knowing God” means. If it means that the person is still pursuing the knowledge of God and does not have it, should we not encourage him? I think so. May I say that those of us who are saved are not pursuing the knowledge of God. We have it. We know God, and we are known of him. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, should we not reach our to those who are still pursuing the knowledge of him? I think so, and I hope that they will not resent it. It is my hope that the proponents of the opposite and extreme views will seek reconciliation. I have sought to show above that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are compatible and can be reconciled. It is amazing that the love and mercy of God can be resisted, but it can. How often he would gather us but we would not. In returning and rest shall we be saved, but we would not. It is amazing that the love and power of an omnipotent God can be held in abeyance by the strong will of a puny man. But it can. God help us to seek reconciliation to him and to each other. After all, we are not satisfied with a man-made theology. We have the satisfying answer from God himself. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. |
||||||
419 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Aixen7z4 | 98796 | ||
I am glad you said that, Brother Tim, because it gives us a chance again to look at the most important point. I did not mean to say that the text need not be literally perfect. I do not know if it can be. I am not even sure what "it" is, since we have several translations, and there are variations among the oldest copies. I think the originals were perfect and the copies and translations are not. Nevertheless, I think they have remained faithful and that together they hold and transmit the word of God. My statement was meant to communicate a thought on how we should spend our time, not on whether or not the available texts are perfect. I was suggesting that we need not spend so much of our time on finding the perfect translation or on ensuring that one that is nearly perfect be made completely so. I was suggesting that we spend a greater portion of our time on obeying the word and giving out the Gospel. Now, aren't you glad that I who, am the author of that statement, am here to tell you what I meant? And so it is with the word of God, I think. It is the Holy Spirit who lives in us who tells us what he meant, the mind of God, so to speak. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. The best way I know to understand the word of God is to let him speak and for me to listen. (Try it by clicking on http://www.hishows.bizland.com/meditation.html). And I have learned, when I give out the word of God, that it speaks to people beyond my ability to explain it. It is alive and powerful. It is the power of God, etc. Isn’t it good to remember that the Holy Spirit knows the heart of the man we are talking to and can use the word in our mouth to reach them? But he also shows us how to apply it to our own lives. And is that not what the word is for? If we can live by it and preach the Gospel part of it, I think the whole purpose is fulfilled. The purpose of the revelation is obedience (Deuteronomy 29:29). I read the word of God is with a minimum of human commentary. But I do use cross-referencing quite extensively. I am so glad for the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and other such tools that allow us to compare Scripture with Scripture. (Get it free at http://www.e-sword.net). In that way, when I am reading 1 John 5, even in a version where is no verse 7, I may read about the agreement among the Father, Son and Spirit, from some other passage. So it does not matter to me if someone added it there. |
||||||
420 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Aixen7z4 | 98742 | ||
Brother Tim: It is so good to have your input. And I do agree. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21). We believe that the original writers wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, every word. But we do not have those original writings. What if the copiers here and there inserted something that they knew were elsewhere clearly stated in the original writings. Are they then adding to the word of God? I was struck to see that the movie JESUS, which is supposed to be based entirely on the record Luke wrote, begins with a quotation of John 3:16. Were they therefore adding something? I think not. Likewise, it seems to me, some copiers felt moved (not to say inspired) to add a word here and there, or to leave out one, in the interest of getting the pure message across. I am not supporting what they did, not am I accusing them. I am saying that is what they did. I say their job is difficult, and they apparently thought they were more than mere mechanical copiers. They seemed to see themselves as a part of the process of transmitting the word of God. The case for the translators seems even clearer to me. For what is translation? Is it not using words in one language to convey the thought expressed in another? Word for word does not do it. Try translating one sentence to another language and back again. Now if the translators claim to be translators and not copiers, they admit they may make mistakes. They may seek to keep in line by keeping in mind not only the passage they are working on but also all of Scripture. I am afraid I fail to see what harm is done if Scripture is added to Scripture. So enough of that from me. I agree with your last statement also, that the more one knows, the better one is equipped to act. The question seems to me how to divide the time between equipping and urging action. Should I wait until I have an entire Bible to give before giving the Gospel of John? Should we wait till we have a perfect church before reaching out to bring others in? Should we focus on achieving a perfect translation of the Bible while so many are waiting to hear the first verse? Even if John did not write what they said he wrote, I still rejoice that others wrote it. And now, it is time to propagate it. The fact that Paul plagiarizes Moses does not bother me, even if he fails to give credit. I thank God there is nothing contrary to the Bible in the Bible. It seems God did not give us any perfect translations; he gave us many translations so we can use them all and give the world the message. He did not give us any complete rendering of the life of Christ; he gave us four, and it seems he wants us to use them all and believe and preach the message. The fact that Luke says something because Matthew said it does not bother me. In fact, it reassures me as I give out the message. The big point seems to me to focus on the big picture, on the message of the entire Bible, rather than to focus on a few words here and there. If I understand the message, then I think I should give it, even if I use a hodgepodge from the various holy writers. The Holy Spirit seems to bring them all together to give one message to the hearer. This I say: The time is short. It remains therefore that we concentrate on giving out what we have received, not on making it literally perfect. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [25] >> |