Results 41 - 44 of 44
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Pam D Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | ?self effort 2 B holy now vs befor saved | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100241 | ||
Dear Joe My response to you has to be posted in two parts because it is too long. Part I: First, I appologize for typing the question in wrong. You were correct in the assumption that you made of what the question was. I should have typed: “Whats the difference between my self effort to be holy now that I am saved and my self effort to be good when I was unsaved?" But I would like to give you some additional background in why I asked that question. My original question that led to the above question was “What is My role in my practical / experiential sanctification?” I was caught up in the Keswick understanding of sanctification. I think that by some of Kens statements in the discussion you were having, he is caught up in a Keswick understanding of sanctification, too. I could not seem to figure out how to make the Keswick model of sanctification work. The reason why is because the Keswick understanding of experiential sanctification seems to be unbiblical, as an article on bible.org pointed out to me. To see the article go to the bible.org website, select "Advanced Studies" on the left. Scroll down to pheumatology (the Holy Spirit). Then select "Wesleyan and Keswick models of sanctification". (I highly recommend that you read the article for a full understanding of what I am talking about.) Points from this article that really jumped out at me that I had falsely believed to be true were: 1. Keswick wrongly teaches sanctification comes by faith, and not in any other way! 2. Keswick explicitly disavows eradication of the sin nature. If one walks in the Spirit, the Spirit carries the burden of Sin. If one sins, the Spirit no longer counteracts the tencency to sin and the believer is caught in a spiral of sin. He has no more help in overcoming sin than the unbeliever. 3. Keswick sees the old nature as something which is not subject to transformation, but retains its full force throughout ones life. This contradicts Paul which speaks of the progressive transformation of the believer into the likeness of Jesus (2Cor 3:18; Rom 12:2). 4. Keswick redefines sin by limiting it to volitional acts of rebellion (at least with reference to ones ongoing fellowship with God), which leaves the result that they believe that an individual may at any point in time be described as sinless. 5. Keswick believes it is the believers duty to take leave of his own personality so that Jesus can make all the decisions. The Keswick concept of the filling of the Spirit is akin to demon possession. The New Testament never uses the terminology of control (uses leading) to describe believers relationship to the Spirit. The truth is that a result of the Spirits ministry on our lives is self-control. This would hardly seem posssible if the regenerate self were still totally evil as Keswick claims. 6. Keswick offers spiritual victory through the means of a formula. The Truth is, the test of ones spirituality is not whether one has by faith fulfilled the conditions of a formula, but rather the fruit of the spirit in ones life. 7. Keswick says holiness is freedom from sin, not conformity to Gods character. 8. Instead of a relationship with God producing holiness, Keswick demands holiness before communion. 9. Christ is our Sanctification. If we wish to make any progress in holiness, we have to give up belief in the value of self-effort in holiness. For the rest of my response to this information, Go to part II |
||||||
42 | What is my role in my sanctification? | NT general Archive 1 | Pam D | 99863 | ||
I found the answer on Bible.org. Many thanks to all who responded to my questions and for all the work and thought I know each of you put into it. While each of you was helpful in what you wrote, I found the answers to my question on sanctification on the web site Bible.org. It is an awesome web site that I know each of you will enjoy! To see the article that helped me out, go to the Bible.org website, select "Advanced Studies" on the left. Scroll down to pheumatology (the Holy Spirit). Then select "Wesleyan and Keswick models of sanctification". Awesome article. I think you will all enjoy it and learn from it, too. Also scroll down to "Soteriology (Salvation)" and select "Regeneration, Justification, and Sanctification." Another very interesting article. Please let me know what you think of the Bible.org web site and the "Wesleyan and Keswick Models of Sanctification" article. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
43 | Why are NT epistles in that Bible order? | NT general Archive 1 | Pam D | 99587 | ||
Dear EdB, Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my question. I know you are correct in the Categories you outlined in your answer, but I am still wondering: 1. Why aren't the Pauline epistles listed in the order they were written? According to the Life Application Bible notes: Galatians was probably written in 49AD, making it the first of Paul's epistles. Why wasn't Galatians placed 1st in the Pauline epistles? 1st and 2nd Thessonians were written in AD51 and Romans was written in AD57. Both were written from Corinth by Paul. And yet 1st and 2nd Thess are listed last in the Pauline epistles, just before the pastoral epistles. Why weren't they placed before Romans? The rest of the Pauline epistles seem to be generally listed in the order they were written except Philemon. 1Cor AD 55-56; 2Cor AD 55-57; Eph AD 60-62; Phil AD 61-62; Col AD 60-61; 1Tim AD 62-64; 2Tim AD 66-67; Titus AD 63-64; Philemon AD 60-62 2. I am also wondering why the General epistles were put in that order. The only one that seems out of order according to the date it was written is Jude AD 65-80. If the date they were written is not the criteria for why they were placed in that order, why didn't they group the epistles from the Lord's brothers (James and Jude) together? Or at least put Jude before 1st John and keep all the epistles John wrote together which includes Revelation? I would appreciate any comments on these questions that you may have. Blessings, Pam D |
||||||
44 | did God harden Pharoah's heart for etern | Ex 4:21 | Pam D | 99512 | ||
I do not think that God hardened Pharoahs heart against salvation. Exodus 4:21 says that God hardened his heart against letting his people go. Why? Why did not God SOFTEN Pharaohs heart so Pharaoh would let Israel go? Or why did not God just kill Pharaoh and any other ruling Egyptian who refused to set Israel free? Because that was not Gods ultimate goal. What was Gods ultimate goal? God wanted the people of Egypt and the whole world to know that there is only ONE TRUE God. And the way God was going to make that known was by showing Egypts gods to be false gods with no power. The Egyptians believed in about 80 different gods and goddesses. Each of the 10 plagues was designed by God to discredit one or more of the Egyptian's false gods. You can find a list of the possible Egyptian gods and goddesses attacked by the plagues in the Bible Knowledge Commentary edited by John Walvoord and Roy Zuck. My point is that God had a purpose in sending each of the plagues. God hardened the Pharoahs heart against letting his people go halfway through the plagues because if Pharoah had let them go after discrediting only half of Egypts false gods the Egyptians would have thought that their other false gods were still worthy of worship. And God would not have communicated his ultimate goal, that He is the ONLY TRUE God. Please read the following scriptures which repeatedly state God's purpose for the plagues. (Ex 7:3,5,17; 8:22; 10:1-2; 14:4,18) Ro 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,For this very purpose I raised you up (to be Pharoah), to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] |