Results 501 - 520 of 701
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | Amyraldianism, a 3rd choice or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20325 | ||
I have recently been introduced to a new perspective regarding salvation and free will. It is called the "Amyraldian" perspective, and a good description of it can be found at http://members.aol.com/briangord/amyrad.htm It sounds like the basic idea is that Arminias was theoretically right and Calvin was practically right. A summary quote would be that "Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect." My question is how is this possible? The word "sufficient" means "enough to meet the needs". Therefore, if Christ's sacrifice was enough to meet the needs of sinners to gain salvation, then nothing more could be required. Conversely, if salvation requires both Christ's sacrifice AND being elected, then the sacrifice alone is not sufficient. It seems that this belief has an inherrant contradiction within itself. Does anyone have any ideas on this? |
||||||
502 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20324 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear Joe, Let me just examine your answer to question 4 since you said that is the most significant practical difference between C and A perspecitves. You "see the decretive will of God in all things." I think that Arminians would also see the general plan of God being revealed throughout all of scripture. You see "all of the Biblical narrative as HIS story." I think that Arminians would also agree that the Bible is God's Word, not ours. They would also describe the Bible as being God's written account of His relationship to mankind in the past and His desired relationship with mankind in the present. They would agree the God is the main character of the Bible. You read the Bible believing God "will glorify HIMSELF through redeeming the elect." Arminians also read the Bible believing that God glorifies Himself through His redemption plan. They would just say that the plan includes more people. You see "all things in the Bible working for the chief end of glorifying God above all." Arminians would also agree that the purpose of everything in the universe (including everything in the Bible) is to glorify God. It is interesting that on this "most significant" difference between the C and A camps, I don't really see much disagreement at all. |
||||||
503 | The Plan of God in an Arminian Nutshell | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20317 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture ........................ Dear Dan K, You do bring up a good example of where God went to extraordinary means (swallowing a person with a fish) to change Jonah's will to match God's plan. However, this type of action by God is the exception not the rule. In the garden of Eden, it was God's plan for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit. God did not make the fruit look disgusting so that they would not "want" to eat it. Instead it looked good. Throughout scripture the vast majority of the times that humans went against the will of God, He did not stop them or change their minds. Another example would be when Israel desired a king. That was against God's plan, and God even told them that through his prophet Sammuel. However, God did not change their minds, but allowed them to freely choose the wrong thing. |
||||||
504 | What is a good bible version for study? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20243 | ||
Please do a search ............................. Dear Myra, I am excited for you that you are beginning to study the Bible and fellowship with other Christians again. God has so many important things that He is looking forward to sharing with you if you let Him. The short answer to your question is that the NIV (New International Version) is a good Bible to start out with if you're looking for one that is accurate and easy to read. If on the other hand you are looking for a Bible for deeper study, I would recommend the NAS (New American Standard). It is also not difficult to understand. Also, this question has been asked before many times. Therefore, if you would like a much longer and in depth answer, just do a search (in the top right corner) for "best translation". |
||||||
505 | Sir Pent, are you C or A? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20228 | ||
Question Answered .............................. Dear Bill Mc, You caught me :) I actually left off my particular leaning on purpose to see whether my responses indicated one way or the other to people. This was another way to tell if it really made any difference to the Christian life. However, since you asked me specifically, I'm glad to let you know. I consider myself to be a Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness Christian. I would point out that that description is in the order importance that I would rank those from least to most. |
||||||
506 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20227 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Steve, I had never heard of an "Amyraldian" before, however, I just finished reading about it at the following webpage. http://members.aol.com/briangord/amyrad.htm I thought it was very informative. It sounds like the basic idea is that Arminias was theoretically right and Calvin was practically right. It gave the quote that "Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect." Does this website present an accurate perception of your beliefs? |
||||||
507 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20210 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear CDBJ, I was hoping that you would respond to my post (10-24-01) on this subject. Do you have any thoughts? Also as for the coal, pitch idea. Just because it is organic doesn't mean that it was once alive. As others have pointed out, if we found Adam or Eve's skeleton, we would assume that they were once children and then grew to be adults. However, God just created them at the adult stage of life. Similarly, God could have just created the Earth with those organic materials (pitch, etc.) already there. The presence of tar doesn't prove that the Earth is ancient, and the Gap theory doesn't make sense (see note 10-24-01). |
||||||
508 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20205 | ||
Questions Answered, Part 2 ...................... Dear Forumites, Here's the rest of my answers. 7. What efforts to disciple? I have a leadership role in my church's ministry to college students. I think that more people leave the Church and Christianity at this period of life than any other. Thus I feel this is a critical time for me to try to make a difference in their lives, with God's help. I also less formally am often consulted by my friends on spiritual issues and life decisions. Therefore, I also use that as an opportunity to disciple. 8. What fellowship with other believers? I am actively involved in my local church, and besides services, also regularly attend fellowship opportunities. These are with many groups including my Sunday school class, our church leadership team, small groups at times, and just having a meal with another family. 9. What involvement in church? I lead Sunday school, attend morning service, assist with Children's church 2nd service, attend evening service, occasionally serve as an usher, and often participate in sharing testimonies at a service. I also participate in discussion during congregational meetings about the church's plans for the future. 10. What involvement in missions? I pray for many friends who are missionaries around the world. I support many of them financially both personally and through my local church, which has a significant percentage of the annual budget designated for missions. I also strive to be a missionary to non-Christians around me in my own life. 11. What manifestations of the Spirit? I do not think that I have ever exhibited those that I know of. I have not spoken in toungues, prophecied, or been "slain". 12. What Fruit of the Spirit? I consistently express many fruit of the Spirit, including: love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. I sometimes exhibit patience and gentleness. So that answers all the questions from one perspective of the C and A debate. Are there significant differences in the lives of anyone on the other side of the issue. |
||||||
509 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20204 | ||
Questions Answered .............................. Dear Forumites, I will try to help this discussion by answering the questions from one perspective so that those from the other perspective will have something to compare and contrast to. 1. My personal relationship with God? I view him as my Savior and Lord of my life. We communicate through prayer, scripture, and the words of those He has put in my life. I am confident that God has my best interest at heart. 2. How accepted by God? I feel completely accepted by God. This is not because I deserve to be, but because God relates to me through the cleansing power of Jesus sacrifice for my sins. 3. How is prayer life? My prayer life is mainly conversational during times when I am alone and quiet. However, I also sometimes participate in public prayer. I do this at church, Sunday school, and before meals. 4. How is Bible study? I most often gain insight from scripture when searching it as a result of conversations with other believers. Sometimes checking a pastors sermon, or responding to a post on this forum :) 5. How to worship God? I worship God by singing praises to Him, praying to Him, and trying to live a life that is pleasing to Him. 6. How do I share the gospel with others? I try to live as a good example of Christ around them. I also at times will talk with them about how Christ has made a difference in my life. I also participate in evangelistic activities with my church in order to show God's love to the Lost. There are several more questions, but I'll answer those in the next post. What are your thoughts so far. Does anything stick out as being specifically different? |
||||||
510 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 20201 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Kalos and Hank, I did not suggest simply another thread on the C and A subject, which has been covered so much on this forum. Instead, I suggested a thread on a specific and limited part of that discussion, which has not been adequately talked about to my knowledge. I understand your frustrations with redundancy. In fact, as you both know, I am striving to diminish this and other problems that we consistently run into here. However, I do not find it helpful for you both to post messages that are purely sarcastic and mocking in tone and content. |
||||||
511 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20197 | ||
Support ......................................... Dear Charis, Thanks for your continued input on this subject. I appreciate that you also agree with the "literal until proven figurative by another scripture" guidline. It seems like this may end up being part of the consensus of this thread. At the same time, I understand your researvation about it only taking "a few unruly persons to bring out the worst in us". However, I would disagree with your implication that this is inevitable. "It takes two to tango", as the expression goes. Therefore, if one person posts in a manner that is not constructive, we are still responsible for our choice of how to respond. There have been times when there have been some pretty negative posts directed towards me. But thus far, I believe and hope that I have always responded with self-control and wisdom (to go along with my user id). If I can do it, then I'm sure that it can be done by anyone. |
||||||
512 | i need notes on all verses | Ephesians | Sir Pent | 20114 | ||
duplicate post | ||||||
513 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20113 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, Matthew 10:16 is a passage where Jesus, Himself instructs His disciples to be "shrewd as snakes" or "wise as serpents". Using these words according to their standard definitions (in the dictionary), this is saying that animals can think. Shrewd is defined as clever, which is defined as smart, which is defined as intellegent, which is defined as the ability to learn. 99 percent of people ages 5 and up would say that these are all synonomous with "thinking" and being "rational". I assume you must be using the word "rational" with some specific meaning that it ordinarily doesn't have. Perhaps if you explain how you define the word, it would help us to proceed. I don't want to be rude, but I am truly confused by your ideas on this issue. |
||||||
514 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 20107 | ||
Support ........................................ Dear Bill Mc, You said you do have the labels, "child of God, a son, a saint, a new creation, a citizen of heaven, an heir of God". I say, "Amen brother!" I support all of those and am glad that you claim them :) |
||||||
515 | Is there a 3rd option to Calvin/Arminian | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20106 | ||
This tread could be deleted ..................... I meant for this to be a question, however, Tim Moran posed the same question at the same time. Therefore, I encourage everyone to answer his question and not duplicate things by responding here. |
||||||
516 | Is there a 3rd option to Calvin/Arminian | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20105 | ||
Is there a third possibility in the Calvinism/Arminianism discussion? Could it be that neither one is entirely correct and that it is wrong for the Church to be divided because of them? If one gets past the initial disagreements on general issues, does it really lead to significant differences in application? Or do an Arminian like Tim Moran and a Calvinist like Reformer Joe have significantly different relationships with God as a result of their beliefs on this subject? If the answers are no, then possibly these discussions are really not that important. If the answers are yes, then what are these significant differences? |
||||||
517 | is naked picture of your spouse wrong | Phil 4:8 | Sir Pent | 20103 | ||
Yes, it is wrong ................. Dear Raychel, Welcome, I don't think I have spoken with you before. I do think that it is wrong to send a naked picture of yourself to someone for 3 reasons. 1. When you take a picture of yourself, it must be developed before you can send it to someone. Therefore, your husband would not be the only person seeing the picture, but also people involved in the development process. 2. Also, by having a permanent record of yourself naked, there is always the chance (and it is probably a significant chance) that it will at some point get into the wrong hands, and could cause someone else to sin. 3. Finally, I think it is a bad idea, because it focuses too much on the physical aspect of love. If a man is to be apart from his wife for a long period of time, I think that the wisest way for him to remember her is for their commitment and close friendship that they have together. These things can be maintained across distance. However, the physical side cannot be maintained when apart. Therefore, I think that it would only be frustrating to concentrate on that part of the relationship. Over time this could also possibly lead to temptation to sin. Therefore, for all three of these reasons, I think that the wisest course of action would be to not take such a picture. |
||||||
518 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 20094 | ||
This is also off topic ......................... Dear Bill Mc, Tim, and Reformer Joe, I'm not sure that there is anyway to bring consensus amoung you three Forum leaders on this issue. Reformer Joe is our resident expert defender of Calvinism. Tim is our resident expert defender of Arminianism. And Bill Mc is our resident expert defender of not claiming any labels whatsoever. However, I have appreciated posts from all three of you relating to this discussion in the past. I would recommend that a new thread be started to deal with the issues brought up by the website Bill Mc referred to. I think the overall point was that debating the issue of Calvinism/Arminianism divides the church where no division is needed. I think that this could make for an interesting new thread that could even cover some new ground on this subject (which hasn't been done for a while). For instance, if one gets past the initial disagreements on general issues, does it really lead to significant differences in application? Or do Tim and Reformer Joe have significantly different relationships with God as a result of their beliefs on this subject? If the answers are no, then possibly the guy on the website has a good point. If the answers are yes, then what are these significant differences? To sum up, this could be very interesting, but is not staying on the original topic of this thread, and so deserves it's own seperate one. |
||||||
519 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20091 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear CDBJ, I have never been to the ICR website before, and after your post regarding what you found there, I checked it out myself. I did come across the idea that you mentioned about it not making sense for God to create using evolution because of all the suffering required and the inefficiency of it all. I agree with you that this is not the best reasoning against the "Gap Theory". However, I also came across the point that I'll quote below. I think that it, on the other hand, is very good. It talks about the "Gap Theory"s acceptance of the ancient age of the Earth (assumed due to the geologic record), followed by the re-creation narrative in the rest of Genesis 1. "Thus, acceptance or the geologic ages implicitly involves acceptance of the whole evolutionary package. Most of the fossil forms preserved in the sedimentary rocks have obvious relatives in the present world, so that the "re-creation" concept involves the Creator in "re-creating" in six days of the same animals and plants which had been previously developed slowly over long ages, only to perish violently in a great pre-Adamic cataclysm. The gap theory, therefore, really does not face the evolution issue at all, but merely pigeon-holes it in an imaginary gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It leaves unanswered the serious problem as to why God would use the method of slow evolution over long ages in the primeval world, then destroy it, and then use the method of special creation it to re-create the same forms He had just destroyed." |
||||||
520 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20063 | ||
Clarification, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, I do not think that we actually disagree with each other on this matter. Instead, I think that we are talking about two different things. You are talking about a spiritual rationality and I am speaking of a physical rationality. I assume that we both agree that both of these exist. The Bible clearly seperates Godly wisdom from earthly wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). It also talks about how one could "see without seeing" and "hear without understanding" (Matthew 13:13). It seems clear that human reason and spiritual understanding are two distinct abilities. You seem to be making the case that only humans (due to being in the image of God) have the ability to have "spiritual understanding". I agree completely. I am making the case that animals and humans both have the ability to have earthly "reasoning" (as defined in the dictionary). I think that you would agree as well. I would mention that even in this kind of rationality, there is a matter of degree (1 Corinthians 13:11), and a human has much greater reasoning than an animal. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Next > Last [36] >> |