Results 401 - 420 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60979 | ||
Please Answer My Question .................................................... Dear John, Instead of answering why God’s sovereignity is diminished by letting humans all have the ability to choose whether to lover him or not, you switched the discussion to whether that would be loving or not. I agree that at first glance it would seem that any loving parent would not let their child go down a slide into hell. That is a seperate issue though, and one that we could talk about in a different thread, because I think that I disagree with you. .................................................... However, the question that I want you to answer is not whether God would be less loving to allow that kind of choice, but whether He would be less sovereign. Would He be less powerful, or have less control of the universe. I am proposing that He would not. Calvinists would usually say yes. I am simply asking why do they think that? .................................................... P.S. Don’t worry about being a pest, I’ve got a younger sister (married and moved away now), and have a life of experience learning patience from dealing with pestiness :) |
||||||
402 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61186 | ||
Does Part 2 Answer The Question? ................... Dear John, OK so you quoted a lot of verses that talk about how the sinful nature of man is stinky. I agree, but that doesn't answer my question about God's sovereignity. ......................................................... I assume that since you headed this post with "part 1" that there must be a "part 2". Are you going to share that? ......................................................... I am a bit surprised that although I posted this question many days ago, I have gotten so little response. I would appreciate it if the resident Calvinists on the forum could either explain why the Arminian perspective decreases the sovereignity of God, or admit that the Arminian perspective of God's sovereignity is not neccessarily less than that of the Calvinists. Once again, I am not asking anyone to believe either Calvinism or Arminianism, only to believe that both can have equally high views of God's sovereignity. |
||||||
403 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61202 | ||
A Different Analogy ................................ My friends EdB and John, I believe that I know what EdB is trying to communicate, and why John might be confused, and therefore suggest an alternate analogy to get the idea across. ................................... 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?” ................................... I hope that this helps to clarify the discussion between you, and that something good actually comes out of it. |
||||||
404 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61209 | ||
Why don't you answer my question ................................ Dear John, I understand that you are overwhelmed right now, you do seem to have a lot on your plate forum wise. If you don’t have time to answer my question right now, that’s OK; I can wait. However, please don’t just keep asking me more questions without ever answering mine. ................................... It is not relevant to my question whether God does 100 percent of salvation, or if God does 99 percent and man does 1 percent. God could have set up salvation to work however He wanted. After all, He’s God. My question is simply, “Is God less sovereign (powerful, in control, etc.) if He chooses to set up a universe in such a way that all people can choose to accept God’s love and return it or not?” ................................... I hope that when you get the chance you will have the opportunity to explain how this possibility (even if you don’t believe in it) diminishes God’s sovereign nature. |
||||||
405 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61251 | ||
A Different View ................................... Dear John, First I want to thank you for sharing your answer to my question. Hopefully, we can examine it together and come to some sort of consensus. You begin by pointing out that being sovereign is an all or nothing state, and not one that can be qualified. Point well taken. I looked it up in the dictionary, and it said “supreme in power”. Therefore, I agree with you that one either is supreme (the most powerful, in control, etc.) or one is not. ................................... Therefore, let me rephrase my question (your rephrasing of it was a little confusing to me). So my new question is, “Would it negate God’s sovereignity to build a universe that included a means of salvation (Christ’s sacrifice on the cross) that was available to everyone, and then populated it with human beings, who God created with the CAPABILITY to choose to accept or reject that salvation?” If God created the universe this way would He cease to be the most powerful? If a person chooses to not excersize their ability to control others does that mean that their ability to control ceases to exist? ................................... Once again, let’s not get into other issues like foreknowledge, etc. I am strictly interested in determining, if either perspective was correct, would it be possible for God to be sovereign. |
||||||
406 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61276 | ||
We’re making progress ..................................... Dear John, Thank you again for your response. I think that we may be very close to agreement after all. You agree with me that no matter how God created the universe, He does not change so He would be just as powerful. You also agree with me that a person’s control does not cease to exist when they choose not to use it. Therefore, I am led to conclude that IF the Arminian perspective was correct (that God created the universe in a way that allowed people to rebel, by not using His ability to control everything completely), that He would still be sovereign. ..................................... It does appear that you believe this would not make sense. After all a king who is all powerful would not allow his subjects to rebel so why would God? This is a perfectly valid question, and one that those who hold to Arminian perspective must deal with. However, as you have said earlier in another post, if something is in scripture, then it must be believed whether it makes sense or not. And since Arminians believe that their perspective is supported in scripture, I assume that you would understand where they are coming from. ..................................... So it seems like we are in agreement that whether a person agrees with Calvin or Arminius, there are some things that don’t make sense, but it is possible to interpret scripture in a way that supports the belief, and that both systems can be consistent with a SOVEREIGN God. I’m sure you’ll let me know if you disagree with any of this, but it seems to me that perhaps we have reached a consensus point across this great theological divide :) |
||||||
407 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 61350 | ||
Actually, I think we do agree ..................................... Dear John, I agree that consensus is a sweet thing, and is extremely rare in these discussions of Calvinism and Arminianism. Therefore, I saw this specific topic as one area where it could be reached, and decided to try to work towards it. Thankfully, you have been able to understand where I was coming from and work from the opposite direction to get to the what seems like same place. ..................................... You said that you do not agree with my conclusion, but I fail to see where the disagreement lies. We seem to both agree that IF Arminian perspective is correct then God would still be sovereign. That is my only conclusion that I am discussing at this point. So it seems like you do agree with my conclusion. I understand that you disagree with the assumption. You do not agree that Arminian perspective is correct, but that is not the conclusion, that is the premise. And you do agree that a person who did have an Arminian perspective would still be believing in a sovereign God. Do I understand what you are saying correctly? ..................................... You also asked how this all gets us closer to the truth. I believe that most Calvinists have a misperception that Arminians do not and cannot believe in a sovereign God. Similarly, most Arminians have some misperceptions about Calvinists. Therefore, I believe that it is important for each side to gain a more accurate understanding of the other sides belief. By being able to clearly see both sides, I think that we are all much more likely to come to the real truth. ..................................... P.S. You also mentioned that you wanted people to answer your question on 1 Cor 2:14. I tried that once and you said I needed to respond to another of your former posts. I requested that you let me know which one, and never heard back from you. I assume my request just got lost in the shuffle as you’ve been so busy answering so many posts lately. It’s no problem, but if you really want me to respond to it just let me know where to find it. |
||||||
408 | "All things belong to you" means what? | 1 Cor 3:21 | Sir Pent | 127778 | ||
Looking for more information.......................................... Hi CountryGirl, You are relatively new to the forum, but have already been prolific with your postings here. Welcome, and I have enjoyed reading many of the posts that you have contributed. Your answer to my question seems to be that the Paul is referring to the Corinthians wealth (ie. developments), sin, and controversies. I am confused how you get that idea from the context of the passage. Could you explain why you think that is what Paul means when he says "all things belong to you"? Or does anyone else have any ideas? |
||||||
409 | What can we learn from the Pentecostals? | 1 Cor 3:22 | Sir Pent | 127771 | ||
Correction (reference to website)..................................... I just came across this old thread and wanted to make a correction due to some research that I did. According to the "United Pentecostal Church's" official website, "The UPCI emerged out of the Pentecostal movement that began in Topeka, Kansas in 1901. It traces its organizational roots to October 1916, when a large group of ministers withdrew from the Assemblies of God over the doctrinal issues of the oneness of God and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ." This information came from the following website "http://www.upci.org/about/index.asp#history" |
||||||
410 | Threatens to leave if believer attends | 1 Cor 7:15 | Sir Pent | 117280 | ||
Still need more information.......................................... Hello Huron, You still have not said whether you are in a country where the believer's church attendance could threaten the life of the unbelieving spouse. Assuming that is not the case, it still doesn't make sense that the unbeliever would threaten to leave. You said that they threaten to leave over issues of cooperation and communication. However, the believer could go to church by themself (not requiring cooperation), and not talk about it with the spouse (eliminating communication). So then what would be the problem? It seems like there is much more to this story than you are sharing. Is this "believer" you? I still think the best course of action is to talk to a local pastor, trusted friend, or counselor. |
||||||
411 | Threatens to leave if believer attends | 1 Cor 7:15 | Sir Pent | 117722 | ||
My minimally educated guess........................................... Hi again Huron, Based on the very limited information you have given, I would say that the believer should indeed go to church. God commands us to not stop meeting together with other believers (Hebrews 10:23-25), and disobeying God will hurt the believer's relationship with God. The believer's relationship with God is even more important than the believer's relationship with their spouse. I'm also glad that you like the idea of talking with a counselor, which should be able to give a more complete answer. |
||||||
412 | Why would we be undone? | 1 Cor 11:30 | Sir Pent | 120426 | ||
Attempt at consensus.................................................. Hi everybody, I don't think there is as much disagreement here as you all seem to think that there is. That being said, I would like to add my two cents. We all agree that only God has the power and authority to justify us. Don't we all agree that God giving us this privaledge of salvation that we do not deserve is grace? Don't we all agree that if we accept this free gift of God and become Christians, there is a change in who we are? Don't we all agree that after who we are is changed, that our life will change as well. Our actions will align more and more with the will of God? Don't we all agree that there are people who continually live in a way that is offensive to God and they do not even try to please Him? The fruit of these people indicate that they have never been changed on the inside regardless of their claims. Therefore, it is true that salvation comes by faith alone. However, it is also true that a person's life is one evidence of whether they truly have faith or not. |
||||||
413 | what does this mean to us? | 1 Cor 11:32 | Sir Pent | 62676 | ||
Clarification ............................................. Good afternoon to you Meredith, I am not saying that God will always make people who treat the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist, etc.) irreverantly, sick. However, it appears that Paul does attribute the specific sickness that the people were experiencing, in the passage you asked about, to the judgement of God. ............................................. As for what we could learn from this passage, I think it shows that we should take seriously both the sacrifice that Jesus made for us and also our witness to the world around us. |
||||||
414 | Can anyone speak in tonges | 1 Cor 13:1 | Sir Pent | 116411 | ||
Personal Note........................................................ Hello Searcher56, Wow, what an excellent post. It is very complete and biblically based. It is also well organized and easy to read. If you don't mind, I think that I'll start referring people to this post when they have questions on this subject. |
||||||
415 | General Admonition (dealing with Casiv) | 1 Cor 14:26 | Sir Pent | 20377 | ||
General Admonition ............................... Dear Forumites, Recently Charis mentioned to me that it only takes "a few unruly persons to bring out the worst in us". I commented that this did not have to be the case. I said that even if a person made a post that was not constructive, we were still responsible for how we responded to that person. I said that we could maintain self-control (fruit of the Spirit), and wisdom in our responses. Unfortunately, I have observed over the past two weeks that Charis has been more correct than I have been. I am referring specifically to the interactions of practically everyone on this forum with the person known as "Casiv". I want to be clear that I am not defending the statements which Casiv has made and believes. In fact, I have thus far disagreed with the vast majority of his interpretations from scripture. However, I do believe that Casiv has not been treated with the respect and kindness, which anyone should be able to expect from a Christian community. This has not been an isolated problem, but has come from a large number of otherwise distinguished members of our forum. In no particular order: Schwartzkm has referred to his posts as "nonsense". Many members (such as Debbie, Hank, Tim Moran, and Searcher56) have mocked his posts by talking about the game of Clue. He has been called names; for example Jensen called him "Miss Cleo". Others such as Retxar and Bill Mc, have mocked his use of numerics by using phrases with 11 letters in them such as "Bunch of Bull". And most recently, Radioman told him that, "Each and every one of your postings shows your ignorance, arrogance and abrasiveness." Once again, I want you all to understand that I know how the ideas that Casiv supports are very inflamatory. I also know that the style, which Casiv uses to communicate is very frustrating. However, I think that we all need to be much more careful to focus our criticism on his content and style, as opposed to personal attacks. We also need to make sure that our responses are CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and not just ones that make fun of ideas. A good example of this would be a post where Charis responded, "I find your tone arrogant and offensive." Then Charis went on to answer his questions regarding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. I hope that as you all think about these things that you will redouble your efforts to not curse the darkness, but be a light in it. Also for those of you who the Holy Spirit convicts, I hope that you will be able to humble yourselves and apologize to anyone whom you have wronged. |
||||||
416 | General Admonition (dealing with Casiv) | 1 Cor 14:26 | Sir Pent | 20682 | ||
Response to Criticism .......................... Dear Forumites, I would like to first thank Tim Moran for his willingness to earnestly search his heart and listen to the Holy Spirit's conviction. I also appreciate the support of EdB and completely agree with his position that we should be tolerant of people themselves, while not being tolerant of false doctrine. Secondly, I would like to respond to some criticisms brought forward by Hank and seconded by Kalos. It seems to me that I have offended you by admonishing the elder statesmen, so to speak, of the forum. I want to first say that I have great respect for many of these "dedicated and intelligent members of this forum". It is actually because of the high regard that I have for all of those who I mentioned in my post, that I expect Christ-like behavior from them. The statement was also made that, "Every reasonable effort has been made to deal with this user", as if this was a defense for the responses that were given. I would say that when reasonable efforts have been exhausted, that the proper action is not be become unreasonable, but rather to cease striving. If a user is completely unable to be dealt with using scripture, logic, experience, etc, then do not stoop to name calling and insults. Instead, shake the dust off your feet and stop responding to that thread. Finally, it was mentioned that the responses were not personally attacking Casiv at all. Let me quote once more from one member, "Each and every one of your postings shows your ignorance, arrogance and abrasiveness." This is not saying that the content of Casiv's posts are ignorant or arrogant or abrasive, which they sometimes are. It is saying that Casiv, himself, is those things. That is exactly the type of thing, which I believe we as Christians ought not do. In the end, it is the Holy Spirit's job to bring conviction to our hearts. I am a bit surprised how few people have responded in any way to this thread, considering how many people were involved in all of this. |
||||||
417 | a friend passed away. | 2 Cor 1:4 | Sir Pent | 113412 | ||
My answer............................................. Hello Gianna, I apologise for taking so long to respond, but I had a hard time thinking of a good answer to your question. Based on the additional information that you gave I would point you towards Luke 23:43. It says, "And He (Jesus) said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." This is something that Jesus tells to a man who is dying right next to him when Jesus is on the cross. This man next to him was actually a thief throughout his life and was being executed for it. However, at the very end of his life, this thief decided to believe in Jesus and worship Him. This shows that Jesus was willing to welcome into paradise a man who spent his life as a thief and turned around at the very end. How much more would he welcome your boss (who according to you was a great person) if your boss decided to believe in Jesus at the very end. I hope that encourages you to have hope for your boss, and also to examine your own life to see whether Jesus is still waiting for you to believe in Him so that you can join all the people in Heaven someday :) |
||||||
418 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Sir Pent | 22492 | ||
Word of Warning .................................. I just want to throw in that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) teach that for a person to be saved, they HAVE to be Baptised by immersion and the laying on of "Apostle's hands". I am not necessarily saying that Tim Sheasby is a Mormon. I just want to point out to the forum that this is a very dangerous and unscriptural teaching. |
||||||
419 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Sir Pent | 22507 | ||
Clarification ................................ Dear Tim S, I am glad that you are not a Mormon, and as I said in my post, I did not necessarily think that you were. I was just pointing out that religion's beliefs on the matter, which are somewhat close to yours. As for the placing of Apostle's hands, you said in one post, that, "miraculous gifts are given by the laying on of Apostle's hands." In that post you seemed to be saying that these "gifts" were signs of being saved, and that they normally occur only with Baptism (with the special case exceptions of Cornelius, etc.) This is slightly different than Mormon belief, but it was close enough that I wanted to point out the similarity. I did not intend to attack you personally. |
||||||
420 | Simple analogy to understand the Trinity | 2 Cor 13:14 | Sir Pent | 120478 | ||
My analogy of the Trinity............................................. Many people have asked me over the years about how to understand the idea of the Trinity of God. With my background in science, I have found the best example to be one of the most common molecules on Earth...H2O! Everyone is familiar with H2O, it can be a solid (ice), a liquid (water), or a gas (steam). They all three have different properties, but are still the same molecule. For instance, some forms are easier to see or touch than others. They also have different primary purposes, but are still all the same molecule. Ice keeps things cold, Water quenches our thirst, and Steam can power an engine. Similarly, the Father determines the will of the entire Trinity, Jesus restores our relationship with God, and the Holy Spirit guides and comforts us in our daily lives. Finally, they can all be in the same place at the same time. In science there is a phenomenon called the "triple point". At a certain temperature and pressure, a pure substance can be in all three forms at the same time. For scriptural and scientific support of the ideas in this post please read the first response to it (which can be found at the bottom of the screen). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [24] >> |