Results 41 - 44 of 44
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Pam D Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Is the sin nature substance or mind set? | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100571 | ||
Dear Tim, I was hoping you might jump in at some point. I have read some of your old postings and it is evident you have insightful comments on many subjects. I just ordered 2 books by an author you suggested in one of your past posts on election, Robert Shank. I came out of atheism in 1988 into a Baptist church in which the pastor was a Calvinist. I received some of the same Calvinist arguments when I pointed out the Scriptures that say God is not partial and wants all to come to salvation. I enjoyed reading your insightful posts where you shared your views with Reformer Joe and others who disagreed. I thought you always had great answers to their ojections. I was also so surprised to read your take on Romans 9-11 as I had studied Romans 9 with my friend Deb and we came to the same conclusions you did! We also did not think it was talking about the individual salvations of Jacob, Esau, or Pharoah, but rather about God’s sovereign right to use them to further his purposes on earth. Heb 12:16 says Esau was godless and therefore God foreknew that he could not have given Esau the birthright - which I understood included the spiritual welfare of the family. It would have damaged God’s purposes to do that. And I think that God did not harden Pharoah’s heart against salvation, but against letting his people go. If Gods main purpose in the plagues was to get Pharoah to let his people go why didn’t he just soften Pharoahs heart or kill Pharoah off ! I think the reason God hardened Pharoahs heart is because all the plagues were against Egypt’s false gods and if Pharoah let the Israelites go halfway through the plagues before he had discredited ALL of Egypts false gods then the Egyptians may have just added Jehovah to the rest of their gods that had not been discredited. Over and over it states in Exodus that God did these signs so they would know he is the ONE true God. I read with interest that you said you would be posting some detailed examinations of chapters 9-11 from an Arminian perspective soon. I’m not sure if you have done that yet - I will do a search after I send this to you and read it eagerly. If there is a book that you could recommend on Romans from an Arminian perspective I would be most interested in it. But I am rambling on! Let me get back to your current post to me with regard to the sin nature. First, thank you for your answer. I was asking Reformer Joe specific questions based on previous postings from him. He understood the background of why I was asking those specific questions. I had been mixed up in a Keswick understanding of practical /experiential sanctification which I have recently discovered to be wrong by reading an article on Bible.org about it. To view 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 would highly recommend that you read this article. It is quite excellent. Perhaps you can address this subject in the article you posted in 2 parts on sanctification. I’m thinking that Reformer Joe has the right answers on practical/experiental sanctification. I think you may also benefit from reading his postings to me on that subject and perhaps you can address that view in your article on sanctification too! The next question I am posting about 2Peter 1:4 I am asking with that background in mind. I would be thrilled if you would respond to it also. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
42 | Is the sin nature substance or mind set? | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100939 | ||
Dear Tim, I posted this first on Saturday and just read on ID 93586 that you had a virus on your computer for the last few days so I thought I would send it again. Here is what I posted over the weekend. "I was hoping you might jump in at some point. I have read some of your old postings and it is evident you have insightful comments on many subjects. I just ordered 2 books by an author you suggested in one of your past posts on election, Robert Shank. I came out of atheism in 1988 into a Baptist church in which the pastor was a Calvinist. I received some of the same Calvinist arguments when I pointed out the Scriptures that say God is not partial and wants all to come to salvation. I enjoyed reading your insightful posts where you shared your views with Reformer Joe and others who disagreed. I thought you always had great answers to their ojections. I was also so surprised to read your take on Romans 9-11 as I had studied Romans 9 with my friend Deb and we came to the same conclusions you did! We also did not think it was talking about the individual salvations of Jacob, Esau, or Pharoah, but rather about God’s sovereign right to use them to further his purposes on earth. Heb 12:16 says Esau was godless and therefore God foreknew that he could not have given Esau the birthright - which I understood included the spiritual welfare of the family. It would have damaged God’s purposes to do that. And I think that God did not harden Pharoah’s heart against salvation, but against letting his people go. If Gods main purpose in the plagues was to get Pharoah to let his people go why didn’t he just soften Pharoahs heart or kill Pharoah off ! I think the reason God hardened Pharoahs heart is because all the plagues were against Egypt’s false gods and if Pharoah let the Israelites go halfway through the plagues before he had discredited ALL of Egypts false gods then the Egyptians may have just added Jehovah to the rest of their gods that had not been discredited. Over and over it states in Exodus that God did these signs so they would know he is the ONE true God. I read with interest that you said you would be posting some detailed examinations of chapters 9-11 from an Arminian perspective soon. I’m not sure if you have done that yet - I will do a search after I send this to you and read it eagerly. If there is a book that you could recommend on Romans from an Arminian perspective I would be most interested in it. But I am rambling on! Let me get back to your current post to me with regard to the sin nature. First, thank you for your answer. I was asking Reformer Joe specific questions based on previous postings from him. He understood the background of why I was asking those specific questions. I had been mixed up in a Keswick understanding of practical /experiential sanctification which I have recently discovered to be wrong by reading an article on Bible.org about it. To view 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 would highly recommend that you read this article. It is quite excellent. Perhaps you can address this subject in the article you posted in 2 parts on sanctification. I’m thinking that Reformer Joe has the right answers on practical/experiental sanctification. I think you may also benefit from reading his postings to me on that subject and perhaps you can address that view in your article on sanctification too! The next question I am posting about 2Peter 1:4 I am asking with that background in mind. I would be thrilled if you would respond to it also." Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
43 | Biblical - women preachers/teachers??? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Pam D | 123699 | ||
2scholarly websites - different conclusions Dear Searcher, A very scholarly debate has been going on in the last several years regarding the equality of women in marriage, in teaching men, and whether the Bible teaches that woman can become pastors. Egalitarians believe that the bible teaches that marriage is mutual submission of the husband and wife to each other. They believe that woman can teach men, and that woman can be pastors. Their website is: www.CBEInternational.org Commplementarians believe that the bible teaches that woman are to be subject to their husbands, should NOT teach men, or become pastors. Their website is: www.cbmw.org. As a woman, I would really, really, REALLY like the Egalitarians to be right. Many of their arguments sound so convincing. They sound so fair. They agree with our current culture in this country regarding the equality of women. (In fact I’m sincerely hoping you or anyone reading this can show me that they are right) Unfortunately, I’m thinking that their interpretation of God’s word is incorrect. Of course there are many articles to read on both websites, each stating their own views and refuting the other's views. But one article kind of summed it up for me. May I suggest you read the article on www.cbmw.org titled “An Open Letter to Egalitarians” by Wayne Grudem in the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Click on “Journal”, then click on “Browse the Journal Archives”, Scroll down to Vol 3 No.1 to read the article. I was surprised to find (after I did a search) that no one has mentioned either of these two websites or their organizations on this forum before. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
44 | Biblical - women preachers/teachers??? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Pam D | 123952 | ||
Dear Ed, I’ve been pondering your very thoughtful answer. Having been a Sunday School teacher, I was touched that your Sunday School teacher impacted your life more than any pastor had. I hope I have impacted the kids I have taught as much as yours did for you. And I suppose that Satan has deceptively maneuvered the issue of women teaching men or becoming pastors to become an issue of fairness. But I don’t think it is a question of ability. Your argument follows as long as women have not been given the ability to teach or preach. But I don’t think that Scripture says that. Consider the following: Both men and women are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26),both men and women are born-again the same way (Jn 3:16), both men and women are new creations in Christ (2Cor 5:17), both men and women now have the mind of Christ (1Cor 2:16), both men and women have the Holy Spirit to teach and direct them (Jn 16:3,Ro 8:9-11), Both men and women are priests (1Pe 2:4-10), both men and women are ambassadors for Christ (2Cor 5:20), both men and women are “sons” of God (Gal 3:26), both men and women are the “Bride” of Christ (Rev 21:9), both men and women were created to rule the earth (Gen 1:26), both men and women will rule and rein with Christ in the Millenium (2Ti 2:12, Rev 20:6), both men and women receive the same kinds of spiritual gifts (1Cor 12, Eph 4:8-11). So I don’t think it is a question of ability. I have been thinking that God has chosen men to be preachers for a different reason. From experience as a Sunday School Administrator who directed male teachers and small group leaders, I think it might have to do with the physical make up of men and how some men who are living by the old nature act towards women. (One of the male small group leaders, who was in a bad marriage, and who was much bigger than me, made subtle sexual advances toward me. I think if I had been the pastor, I would have had a very difficult time counseling him or trying to teach him anything. He eventually divorced his wife and left the church.) What do you think Ed? Do you think perhaps God has chosen men to be the preachers for this reason? Blessings, Pam |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] |