Results 421 - 440 of 500
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | Again, "decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13835 | ||
Bob: I didn't say decree didn't mean "allow." What I had said before that it is MORE than simply allowing something. Here's the way I explained it in the context of God's sovereign will at a teen camp this summer: God's sovereign will includes everything that He either actively engages in or actively permits to occur. Both fall under the category of "decree," and both were ordained from eternity past. Also, both play an active role in God's overall plan to glorify Himself. While He is not the author of sin, he directs the sinful hearts of men in such a way that His purposes are accomplished. Again, we still have a "problem" to resolve from either point of view, because God created those who would later sin, so in a way I suppose that we could say that sin exists because of God (in the sense that if He had not created anything, sin would be nonexistent), but He didn't create it Himself. He created the creators of sin would be the best way to put it. That is something every Christian would agree with. --Joe! |
||||||
422 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13720 | ||
Bob: Don't worry about coming across as anagonistic. Healthy discussion and debate is like dessert to me! :) I find you framing Chapter III of the Westminster Confession as a contradiction a little difficult to work with, and that is why I asked for your view. You see, all believers in the Bible have to reconcile an omipotent, omniscient God with the fact that He created beings who would rebel against Him (Satan and his angels and human beings). The way, I see it, there are three options in explaining why he would do such a thing: 1. He did not know they would sin against Him when he created them. 2. He did know that they would sin when He created them, but decided to "work around" that to glorify Himself anyway. 3. He did know that they would sin when He created them, and fully intended to work through their rebellion to glorify Himself. I hold (1) to be a denial of God knowing the future, and I reject that as unbiblical. The Scriptures I stated in my previous posts repudiate (2) by showing that God indeed intends the sin of humans and Satan to be used directly for His glory, in spite of the efforst of those who fight Him. Therefore, I embrace (3) as being the biblical answer. Whether Calvinist or Arminian, the fact still remains that God created beings who would become rebels against Him. To say that it was a mistake on God's part would deny His infinite wisdom, so there must have been a purpose to it. In any case, also note that God did not CREATE them in a state of sinfulness; both Satan and Adam were created in a state in which they were sinless, but corruptible. The Reformed view does not hold that God encouraged them to sin or entrapped them in some situation that they could not get out of, for that, too would violate Scripture: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." --James 1:13-15 So while God did not MAKE Satan rebel or Adam sin (Chapter III of WCF states "nor was violence offered to the will of the creatures"), He created them will full knowledge that they would rebel. Therefore, the sin was theirs, but God had purpose in creating those who would become sinners. It would seem to deny some of God's revealed attributes to say otherwise. It is always a daunting task to ever attempt to even get the slightest grasp of God's soverign will over existence. We in our, finite, temporal bodies try to understand how no matter what we do, that God's purposes will be accomplished. It goes beyond some "cosmic chess match" where God compensates for "our moves." Every move that we make by our own free will, whether pleasing to God or dishonoring to Him, has already been incorporated into His sovereign decree from eternity past and will ultimately result in his glory. God created beings who would become vile, sinful creatures; it was His decree. God permitted them to sin; it was His decree. He permits us to be born in a state of rebellion against Him; that is His decree. He chooses some to be regenerated and dwell with Him for eternity to demonstrate His mercy and love and grace, and others to remain in their rebellious, sinful state and suffer His justice and wrath for THEIR sinfulness. Again, it is all part of His plan, not loose ends that he has to tie up after all is said and done. I see nothing in your comments that presents a more particular problem for Calvinists than it does for Arminians who must also explain that God created sinners, and is not the author of sin. --Joe! |
||||||
423 | So God is the cause of sin then | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13602 | ||
Bob: In order to be more clear, I am going to quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith, one of the important documents reflecting the Reformed view. This is the first section of Chapter III, entitled "Of God's Eternal Decree": "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." So we see two important things right away: 1. ALL things are ordained by God. 2. God is NOT the author of sin. God not only foreknows sin; he allows sin to exist and uses it ultimately for His glory. You would agree that nothing happens without God allowing it, correct? I guess what differentiates the Reformed view from others is that rather than merely saying God's ultimate purposes are accomplished DESPITE the sinful rebellion of His creation, the Reformed theologian will state emphatically that God weaves the rebellion of man in the tapestry of His overall plan. However, man is the CAUSE of man's sin, not God. Regarding the human will, permit me to quote again from the WCF, from Chapter IX, "Of Free Will": ************************ II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it. III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. ************************ Therefore the Reformed view agrees with Scripture that while man was created with the ability to please God, that was lost in the Fall for Adam and all of his natural descendants. Romans 8:7-9 demonstrates that the unregenerate human is completely incapable of pleasing God. God did not cause this sinfulness, either; it proceeds from the curse which resulted from Adam's sin (Genesis 3). Another place where we can see this illustrated is the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis. After his entire ordeal from being sold into slavery, to being framed for sexual assault, to spending years in prison unjustly, to rising to the top of the political ladder in Egypt, he had this to say to his brothers: "Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his household and ruler over all the land of Egypt." --Genesis 45:8 Joseph says that GOD sent him to Egypt, but it was by means of the sinful actions of his brothers. This mans that God ordained it to happen, but didn't author the sin. How would you interpret this verse otherwise? Man's sin was part of God's decree. Joseph repeats the same idea again in the last chapter: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." --Genesis 50:20 There is no mistaking that God MEANT it to happen, not merely that he allowed it to occur and "cleaned up the mess" for His glory and His purposes. Again, he did not cause the sinful attitudes of the brothers, but since the original intent was to kill Joseph, it isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that God redirected that motive through Reuben. On last thing: You wrote, "If God has pre-determined every infitessimal detail of history, which must obviously include sin, then how can those individuals who commit those predetermined sins be held responsible for them?" Rather than answer myself, I will let the apostle Paul do the talking: "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Romans 9:19-21 Just out of curiosity, how would you work the verses here and in my other posts into another framework. Where do you stand on the reconciliation of God's sovereignty and man's sin? --Joe! |
||||||
424 | "Decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13563 | ||
Bob: I guess the hardest part about the Reformed view to accept from our finite perspective is the idea that God pre-determined that sin would (temporarily) be a part of His grand design. It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth by virtue of His creation of Lucifer and a human couple he knew would succumb to Satan's treachery. Another very good example is the crucifixion. Was that a part of God's plan? In other words, did he intentionally send His Son to the earth for the express purpose of being murdered unjustly? I think that most Bible believers will admit that He did just that. What Reformers would argue is that He also orchestrated events so that there would be a party of Jewish leaders called Pharisees would emerge and eventually become hypocritical "whitewashed tombs" that would be His instrument in the death of Jesus Christ. Now the sticky point comes from this question: did God cause the unjust death of His Son? I hold that the answer is "yes," and I think Scripture supports that as well: "But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." --Isaiah 53:10 Here we read that God "was pleased" to actively participate in the crucifixion. However, we also see that the guilt of actually killing Jesus rests on the Pharisees, not on God: "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become." --Acts 7:52 We have a seeming paradox here. God orchestrated events so that Christ would die; it was no accident, and it was far more than a case of "a necessary contingency to insure optimal design." As I stated before, this is "Plan A." On the other hand, it is the Pharisees who bear the blame for the actual murder of Jesus, through which people who are guilty of rebelling against our Holy creator are saved. Now the question you seem to be interested in is, "Did God MAKE the Pharisees sin?" The Pharisees were born sinners, so the answer to that is "no." On the other hand, God directed their innate sinfulness through circumstance and withholding repentance so that the very act he decreed (the atonement) would take place. We see the same thing in the case of the Pharaoh. Pharaoh was already a sinner, but God hardened his heart so that he would not be "saved," so to speak, so that God would be glorified through the Exodus. Could God have changed Pharaoh's heart so that he would "let His people go"? Absolutely, but he chose rather to utilize the Egyptian's innate sinfulness for His purposes. Does that mean that Pharaoh was not responsible for his actions? No; he was not willingly cooperating with God, although in God's sovereign decree he did just that. Same holds true for Satan. Satan chooses to be evil, but we see in Job 1 where God most actively directs that evil in a particular direction (Job-ward). So we see from Scripture that God brings into existence evil people (after all, isn't that exactly how you and I started out?) for His purposes. Some He doesn't save. Some He does. Both are responsible for their own sins. God shows mercy to the latter, but both groups of people God decreed would exist and both serve his purposes. Romans 9 gives a much more lucid argument than I have here regarding "vessels of mercy" and "vessels of wrath" (imagine that: the Holy Spirit explaining it better than me!). It is undoubtedly a hard issue to wrestle with from a finite, human perspective, but the bottom line is that on a certain level God intends that sin exist for now and that it work for His purposes. Just as he brings Moses and Paul into existence for His purposes, so he brings Pharaohs and Pharisees into existence for His purposes as well. Our roles are decreed, and yet we are guilty of our own sin, not God. Complicated? Yes, but also very biblical! Feel free to respond, Bob. I don't mind wrestling throught his issue with you at all! --Joe! |
||||||
425 | Spurgeon's calvanistic contradiction? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13554 | ||
Bob: Well, I hold a strongly Calvinistic point of view, so I hope I can shed some light on it for you! I don't know if Spurgeon made this statement himself, but it does reflect the viewpoint of Reformed theology quite well. The understanding of it hinges on grasping the meaning of the word "decree." To decree something is to simply declare that that thing shall happen. In the case of God's sovereign decree, the decreed event can either come from God causing it directly, or by God allowing it to happen. Sin falls into the latter category. From eternity past, God knew that His creation would rebel against Him. Therefore, He created Adam and Eve already knowing that the serpent (which He also created, knowing from eternity past that he would be His chief adversary) would be successful in leading them into sin. This was not some "mistake" or "fluke" on the part of a non-omniscient God. God, by creating the agents involved and allowing them to sin on their own, decreed what would come to pass. he then in turn used it, is using it, and will use it to glorify Himself. Sending Jesus was not "Plan B" to make up for what man had done. We read in Ephesians 1:4-5 that God had chosen and predestined the elect "from the foundation of the world." Therefore, God the Son had already consented to be the Savior before man was even formed out of the dust. This is what is known in Reformed theology as the "covenant of redemption," made among the three Persons of the Trinity in eternity past. Agin, God did not CAUSE the sin, but in His infinite sovereignty He declared that it would occur. We also see evidence of God intending to use man-originated sin for His purposes as well. In fact, Scripture is replete with such situations. His hardening of Pharaoh's heart (Pharaoh was the sinner; God just didn't bring him to repentance) in the book of Exodus is a famous example. God used Pharaoh's stubborn rebellion against Him to glorify Himself and His chosen people. Another excellent example is found in the book of Judges, when God's purposes for the sinful neighbors of Israel is spelled out in no uncertain terms: "So the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He said, 'Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to My voice, I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk in it as their fathers did, or not.' So the LORD allowed those nations to remain, not driving them out quickly; and He did not give them into the hand of Joshua." --Judges 2:20-23 We see that God refuses to keep driving out the enemies of Israel for a very specific purpose (i.e to test them). God allows these idolatrous, sinful nations to remain; he decrees that these nations which rebel against the true God will continue in the presence of His people and will continue in their sin. Does this mean that God causes the sin? Of course not. Similarly we can see all other "sinful events, such as Satan's temptation of Jesus (led out by the Spirit for that purpose -- Matthew 4:1) and the Babylonian captivity in that light. While the perpetrators of the events were clearly in opposition to God, God without a doubt decreed that these individuals would flourish in their sin for a season, so that in the end His glory would be known. The simple fact is that God is in control of every infinitessimal detail of His creation. Nothing happens unless He ultimately allows it, and in His omniscience and omipotence nothing happens that takes Him by surprise or falls outside of His ability to control. Factor in that He is perfect and incapable of sin, and what we have is a basis for the statement you attributed to Spurgeon. The thing that must be remembered in all of this is that God uses all of this for His own glory, all things together for good for us who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure" --Isaiah 46:9-10 --Joe! |
||||||
426 | Thank you - and where should I look | 1 Tim 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 13494 | ||
I would do a "quick search" for the thread "what does bible teach on election," where you will see a whole host of posts by me and those who disagree with me. --Joe! |
||||||
427 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 13464 | ||
Limited atonement has been addressed on other spots on this forum. Let's debate it thoroughly, but on threads which already are devoted to that issue. --Joe! |
||||||
428 | Why didn't tHe relent from His anger? | 2 Kin 23:26 | Reformer Joe | 13391 | ||
Because God had already decreed what he was going to do, and had let everyone know through His prophets. God chose not to show mercy to Judah (Romans 9:18): Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, "Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 'I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 'I will abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they will become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.'" --2 Kings 21:15 --Joe! |
||||||
429 | What is "the Law" and grace about? | Rom 7:12 | Reformer Joe | 13390 | ||
Law (big "L"): Usually refers to the Mosaic Covenant, with its moral commandments, ceremonial rituals, and procedures of sacrifices for atonement. Often, "law" (little "l") refers to simply those moral commandments made by God that he intends man to follow. That includes everything from God's first commandment to Adam to every instruction we read in the epistles. Since man is depraved and cannot submit himself to God's law (Romans 8:7-8), God in his mercy extended grace (His favor, which none of us deserve in the slightest) to those who put their trust in Christ. Those who are believers in Christ, therefore, are indeed "under grace" (i.e. justified) and also are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, equipped to follow God's moral will for their lives (Romans 8:9). --Joe! |
||||||
430 | What is the Apocrapha and its history? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13251 | ||
The Apocrypha was only recognized as canon by the Catholic Church in 1566, after the Council of Trent. The inclusion of these seven books is clearly a move of the Counter-Reformation in the 16th century. The Apocryphal books were included under the "Apocrypha" section of the 1611 KJV. However, they were not included in the Hebrew canon of Scripture (although the Septuagint has them). The OT canon had pretty much been set before Jesus was born, so this is why the early church councils never gave them too much consideration as inspired canon (despite their belief that they were useful books for study---they just don't have the tradition and authority that the 39 included OT books do). In addition, we see no quotes or references to the events in these books from the New Testament writers, which of course is an argument from silence; but history tells us that the Jewish people did not regard them as inspired, so neither do we. --Joe! |
||||||
431 | What is God doing in Rom 1:24, 26? | Rom 1:24 | Reformer Joe | 13151 | ||
Steve: Since it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates the sinful heart, "giving them over" carries the idea of not restraining them and letting their sinfulness run its full course. Does God call some of them to Himself (I don't use back in the case of individuals because they never really were with Him in the first place)? Yes, just like he calls malicious murderers and greedy gossips into a relationship with Him (like those mentioned in 1:29) Notice that this has occurred after the sinful man has already rejected God, exchanging His truth clearly revealed in nature for a lie, which is what all of us did in our hearts before the Lord called us. Paul is referring to the excesssive pagan practices here that clearly demonstrate just what lengths man goes to in his rejection of Him. And From the thrust of Romans 1-3, my understanding is that Romans 1:24-32 is merely a non-exhaustive list of examples of how our universal depravity manifests itself. --Joe! |
||||||
432 | I'm sorry, Readers, and Reformer Joe | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12980 | ||
No offense taken, Bill. What I would like to know is that if I have interpreted Scripture erroneously, what is your interpretation of the Scriptures I presented? I especially refer to those which are in answer to your statement that "God does not want us to be righteous." I am always open to correction, but you need to be detailed in showing me just how I have misapplied the list of Scriptures I gave in my post, rather than just implying that I am pulling something out of thin air in my use of them. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
433 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12912 | ||
And if you continue to insist that God is not concerned with righteousness, you are going to have to stop ignoring verses like these (all of which are given to those who are already believers in Christ) and explain them in light of your theology. Note that not one of them suggests that we are passive on the road to holiness, and all of them stress the importance God places on righteous living of the believer: "...so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification [sanctification is a RESULT here for those who already believe]." --Romans 6:19b "For this is the will of God, your sanctification [but aren't we already 100 percent sanctified in every sense?]; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification [note: the PURPOSE for believers is sanctification]. So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you." --1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 "Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." --1 Peter 1:13-16 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." --John 14:15 "But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness." --1 Timothy 6:11 "Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." --2 Timothy 2:22 God doesn't want human righteousness? Scripture seems to disagree, Bill. I could go on, but if I am mistaken in my interpretation of these passages, I would love to hear your take on them. One more, which relates to our discussion on the value of law for a Christian not under the Mosaic Covenant: "All Scripture [which includes ALL of the Old Testament] is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS [emphasis mine]; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." --2 Timothy 3:16 All of the Bible, including the Law, has a place for our training in righteousness. --Joe! (not Steve) |
||||||
434 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12910 | ||
Bill: What is "hogwash" is your understanding of the three aspects of sancification. In addition, I think it is arrogance to assume that here in the twenty-first century you have figured something out that every major figure in church history DENIES. Sanctification means simply "to be set apart." The verses you quoted in your first paragraph all support the truth that when we were regenerated, we were spiritually set apart from those who were perishing, for a specific purpose (1 Peter 2:8-9). Again, this happens at our conversion, when we are justified. Sanctification and justification, however, are different things. However, as I noted in my other post, while Christ did indeed secure my salvation 2000 years ago at Calvary, in a practical sense, I am not holy in all my behavior. If this were already a PRACTICAL truth for Christians, then Peter would not have had to write to believers to "be holy yoursleves in all your behavior." (1 Peter 1:15). The words "holy" and "sanctified" are the same in Greek. Would you say that you are holy in all your behavior? I sure wouldn't say that about myself. Neither would Paul. In Philippians 3 he expresses the idea that even though he has been called and set apart for eternal life, that in this life he has not achieved holiness in practice: "Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained." --Philippians 3:12-16 There we have it: the fact that Christ has attained it for us, but the paradoxical statement that Paul is pressing on to attain what Christ has attained for him. We also see that paradox in 2:12-13 (we work, and yet God works). Therefore, in one sense Christ's righteousness has been imputed to our account and we have been declared righteous (rather than the "infused" righteousness of Roman Catholicism), but another sense in which that spiritual reality is to be lived out in our day-to-day existence, with a goal in mind and by the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul concludes chapter 3 with a verse which shows that we still have perfecting to look forward to, which is in keeping with the final moral perfection we will attain when God does away with this body of death and all vestiges of our sinfulness. On a side note, your comparison of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with that of Babe Ruth's smacks of animism and Eastern mysticism. We are not to "turn everything off" and let God operate our bodily shells as if we were robots. Look at Philippians 2;12-13 again. Our wills are definitely involved in our conforming to the image of Christ. "Let go and let God" is NOT Scriptural. The "let God" part is, but nowhere are we commanded to divorce ourselves from our sanctification. --Joe (not Steve) |
||||||
435 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12904 | ||
Why don't you try addressing the Scriptures I presented rather than dodging my very cogent arguments? The idea of God's law having different dimensions is not my own, but has been held by the majority of Christians throughout church history. That includes Catholics and Protestants, Reformed and Dispensationalists, etc. What you are promoting is a heresy called antinomianism (i.e. "lawlessness") which has been condemned time and again throughout the history of the church. But I assume you presume to know more about the Bible than Calvin and Luther and Augustine and Edwards and Spurgeon and all of the others who have condemned your view. The very reason that the sacrifices have ceased is because Christ is our ultimate sacrifice. Most of the ceremonial aspects of the Law were shadows of the ministry of Jesus to come. Obviously, they have been fulfilled as well in the person of Christ. He even fulfilled the moral requirements of the Law, which the Jew could not do. However, Paul makes quite clear in Romans 4:9-25 and Galatians 4:17 that the covenant of grace both pre-dates the law and replaces the larger covenant of works that God established with Adam and his descendants. But God still very much cares how we conduct ourselves, even as believers. That comes from the Scriptures, including the Ten Commandments. Jesus makes that so very plain in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, which you continually fail to address when I bring it up. You constantly refer to Galatians, which is not an attack upon God's moral requirements (which are present in the Law), but rather a refutation of the idea that the Galatians must even enter into the Mosaic Covenant in the first place! Remember, that these are not people who had been subjects of the Law of Moses at any time (they were uncircumsized). Therefore, they were never under Mosaic Law, but they still were subject to the righteous demands of God which are found in the Law. Our trust in Christ's substitutionary death and resurrection does not mean that God just nods and smiles when we violate the Ten Commandments. Otherwise, every moral command in the New Testament is rendered completely meaningless. He is very much interested in purifying us in our daily lives and the way we live them, and it is all for His glory. As far as sanctification is concerned, the three dimensions of sanctification are doctrine that has been held by the majority of Christians throughout church history. That includes Catholics and Protestants, Reformed and Dispensationalists, etc. The fact is that even though Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us (i.e. been put on our account), we are not 100 percent righteous now in practice. Do you sin, Bill? That is unrighteousness, and clear evidence that the work in us in not completed. Our final perfection (ultimate sanctification) has not occurred and will not until we pass from this life to the next. Looking at Romans 5:19, you should pay attention to tense: "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." The first clause is past tense (WERE made), and the second is future tense (WILL BE made). The very verse you quote as "support" for antinomianism belies your view. We are already sinners. We will be made completely righteous in the future. You seem to stress that the Christian life is one solely of "resting," Bill. Why do Christ and the apostles speak of it as "pressing on," (Philippians 3:12-18 -- incontrovertible passage on the fact that we are still a "work in progress"), "striving," (Luke 13:24; Romans 15:30; 1 Timothy 4:10; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 1:29; Hebrews 12:4) "labor," (1 Timothy 4:10), and "suffering" (Philippians 1:29, 1 Peter 3, 2 Timothy 3:12, etc.)? Don't get me wrong, salvation is assured for those whom God has set apart (which is what "sanctified" literally means). However, that is not the end of the ball game, for God has called us to righteous living as His ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) and to glorify Him through righteous works (Ephesians 2:10) which the Spirit enables us to do (Romans 8:7-9) as he conforms us to the image of His Son (Romans 12:1-2) in accordance with his moral law (his righteous demands which reflect his character and are pointed out in the Law of Moses -- Romans 7:7-12). Therefore, your last sentence is a false one. You are still a sinner in practice, not a righteous, perfect person. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." --1 John 1:8 --Joe! |
||||||
436 | Do spirits travel during sexual sins. | Matt 26:41 | Reformer Joe | 12893 | ||
What is the Scripture reference that brings about this question? --Joe! |
||||||
437 | Is the Christian under Law? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12855 | ||
On with the show! You wrote: "God doesn't want a moral people. The Pharisees were very moral. God wants a people who have Christ living through them. This goes beyond morality to miraculous. We don't need to eat from the morality Tree (of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, right and wrong), we need to eat from the Tree of Life, Jesus Christ." I think the "tree" exegesis is a stretch, Bill. Show me that one from Scripture. In any case, God wants righteousness from His people, which includes moral living (John 14:15, 1 Peter 1:14-16; Philippians 2:12-13; 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8 and on and on and on). Secondly, the Pharisees were not moral. They were hypocrites, "whitewashed tombs", "sons of the devil." Their so-called "morality" was a prideful attempt at self-glorification, not a God-honoring righteousness. Jesus repeatedly told them that their devotion to external obedience without a proper grasp of the spirit of the Law was their downfall. The Father places commands upon His followers; so does Christ; all of them are in accordance with the moral law. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us, reminds us of them, and enables the believer to follow them (Romans 8:7-14). You wrote: "We live out our sanctification. We do nothing to obtain it. Our spirits are 100 percent sanctified at conversion and we have the privelege of seeing that 'worked out' through our souls and bodies as we trust in Christ as our sufficiency and grow in His love. See Titus 2:11 - God's GRACE, not the Law, teaches us to live righteously and godly lives." You, like many Christians today, are confusing justification with sanctification. Justification is totally a work of God; we do nothing to obtain it. Our spirits however, are not 100 percent SANCTIFIED at conversion. There are three dimensions to our sanctification as revealed in Scripture: initial, progressive, and final. Initial sanctification occurs when we become believers, and in that sense we are "set apart" from those who are perishing, for a holy purpose (1 Peter 2:9, 10; Ephesians 2:10). Progessive sanctification is the Lord's work in a believer from conversion until death, in which we are gradually conformed to the image of Christ in this life, bearing spiritual fruit. While it is the Holy Spirit who brings about this change, there is a clear cooperative dimension on our parts, involving our wills and yes, our WORKS (Philippians 2:13). These works are not the basis of our justification, but are a component and result of our sancification. Final justification occurs when the believer enters God's presence, and is made perfect in righteousness. Titus 2:11-12 does not contradict the role that God's moral demands in the Law have in revealing to us what God's will is. As I stated before, the Holy Spirit does not work in a vaccum, but rather utilizes His word (his moral commandments) in our sanctification as well. Lastly, Hebrews 10:14b is most likely rendered best in a progressive sense ("those who are being sanctified", as we see in the NKJV, NIV, and as an alternate rendering in the footnote in the NASB). This is in keeping with the idea of "progressive sanctification" that we see above. We may positionally be seated with Christ, but I think you would agree that that is practically not the case in our lives as we now live them. Bill, Paul himself cites God's moral law as something that should be practiced by the Christian, quoting from the Ten Commandments in Ephesians 6:1-3. If Paul and Christ and John and James all testify to the value of law in holy living of believers, why can't you? --Joe! |
||||||
438 | Is the Christian under Law? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12854 | ||
Bill: Okay...guess this has to be a two-parter! First of all, you didn't address my complete quotation from Matthew 5, the very words of Christ Himself. We have to understand Paul's teaching on law by reconciling it to Christ's claim that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The Law still exists in a moral sense. It is the sacrificial and ceremonial aspects of the law which were fulfilled in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. God's morality still exists as a standard for believers to attain to. The fact is not that the law has disappeared, but that Christ fulfilled all the requirements of God's moral law in himself. Those who are not in Christ are still under the requirements of God's morality (and still fall short -- Romans 3:23). I never argued that we are saved (i.e. justified) by law. No one ever was (Romans 3:20,28-30). What I am arguing is that the holiness exemplified by the moral aspects of the Law is definitely is the goal of our progressive sanctification. Let me address each of the points you made (and by the way, the three contentions are not mine, but those of John Calvin): You wrote: "The Holy Spirit now convicts the believer of sin and points us to Christ as sufficient - not the Law." Yes, the Holy Spirit convicts the believer of sin, but the Holy Spirit acts in concert with His revealed word. Therefore, the Holy Spirit employs Scripture (i.e. law) that He inspired to convict people of sin, just as he did at our coversion (Romans 3:20). Note that I am not saying that the ceremonial aspects of the Law are needed today, but God's moral commandments are still in effect and reveal the holy character of God and what righteousness is. (Romans 7:12). The fact that we cannot keep them without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit does not mean that God doesn't care whether we are moral or not. More in the next episode... --Joe! |
||||||
439 | Old T. and New T. | Matt 10:5 | Reformer Joe | 12758 | ||
People who think there are two different Gods represented in the Bible need to study their Bibles more! I think the problem arises from people trating God's attributes as some kind of smorgasbord from which they can pick and choose the quialities they like and push the rest aside. The fact is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal the nature of God. For example, the Psalms give us a rich picture of God's lovingkindness and mercy, as does the fact that He doesn't utterly destroy Israel despite their constant and depraved rebellion against Him. The fact that he spares and even delivers Israel time and again demonstrates his grace and patience with humans (Judges is a very good example of that). Likewise, one doesn't have to read very far in the New Testament to get a clear picture of God's justice and wrath. From whose lips to we get our most thorough education on Hell? From those of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, it distresses me that the gospels are so often dismissed in favor of the Pauline epistles alone simply because the things that Jesus says are so incredibly uncomfortable to those who claim to be followers of him and are not being sanctified. However, God's wrath is clearly demonstrated through Paul in Scripture as well (Romans 2, Ephesians 2), as well as his justice (Galatians 6:7). God will be infinitely and justly hard on those who die in their sins. Likewise, He demonstrated his mercy and grace upon His chosen people in the Old Testament. And it was those people through whom he demonstrated His hatred of sin, His wrath, and His justice toward the nations who rejected Him. The God of the Bible does not have multiple personalities. It just seems that way sometimes because we gloss over the uncomfortable parts in the NT, thinking that the Christian life should be one of ease and comfort rather than the taking up of the CROSS that it is. --Joe! |
||||||
440 | what's the difference in these two | Matt 10:5 | Reformer Joe | 12659 | ||
I think that this is our first interaction, Mr. Chumley! My opinion on the matter is that the Bible must be read with common sense. Obviously, Jesus was not speaking to all individuals in Matthew 10, but rather he was giving specific instructions to the Twelve. However, the instructions were recorded in the Bible for the purpose of us reading them and learning from them. Verse 16 is an example of something he said to the diciples directly, but also could be considered a general truth for us as well. In other words, it is good advice for all followers of Christ, not only the ones to whom He was directly speaking at the time. We know that God does not forbid us from interacting with the Gentiles. Why? Because God has regenerated me and millions of other Gentiles throughout history, because so much of the New Testament (Acts, Romans, Galatians) makes it clear that the gospel is for Jews and Gentiles, and because verse 18 in this very chapter alludes to the fact that their persecution will be a testimony to the Gentiles as well. Therefore, discerning general truths from Scripture rather than applying specific situational instructions to our lives, and letting Scripture interpret Scripture are both excellent tools in wise interpretation and application of the word of God. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [25] >> |