Results 581 - 600 of 701
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
581 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Sir Pent | 60978 | ||
Please Answer My Question ......................................................... Dear John, At this point I don’t think that we need further clarification. I think that you understand what I am asking. I would therefore appreciate an answer to that question. However, just in case I will clarify a little more. ......................................................... You implied that I said there was an exception to the rule that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This is not what I said or believe. The expression, “the exception to the rule” simply means that one thing is the standard outcome, and another thing (which occurs less often) is a different outcome. I was simply saying that within the Calvinist system the standard outcome is that all people deserve to go to die for their sins and go to hell. The other outcome, which occurs less often is that some people accept that Jesus died for thier sins, and they go to heaven. ......................................................... You also didn't like the word system. The word system is simply defined: plan, method, orderly arrangement. I think that it is an accurate word. You yourself called it “God’s Eternal Plan”, and it is definately the orderly arrangement of theology and biblical interpretation used by those who believe in it. I believe that I have accurately portrayed the Calvinist perspective, and said that it is possible for God to have created the universe in this way. ......................................................... Then you respond to the Arminian perspective by saying that it is impossible for God to create the universe in the way that is believed by those who agree with that tradition. I know your high view of God’s sovereignity, and am confused that you find Him incapable of doing this. Once again, I am not asking you to believe that He did, only that He could. ......................................................... I hope that this makes things clear for you, and I sincerely look forward to hearing your (and others such as Reformer Joe, Lionstrong, etc.) thoughts about my big question. Why does God’s soveriegnity have to be dimished by believing that He allows His creation to all be capable of choosing to love Him? Once again, a parent is not any less strong or big because they choose not to use their strength to keep their child from picking which slide to go down in the park. |
||||||
582 | 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 :) |
||||||
583 | 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. |
||||||
584 | 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. |
||||||
585 | 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. |
||||||
586 | 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. |
||||||
587 | 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 :) |
||||||
588 | 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. |
||||||
589 | "All things belong to you" means what? | 1 Cor 3:21 | Sir Pent | 127772 | ||
In this verse and the next, Paul says that "all things belong to you". He seems to be refering to the Corinthian church. What does he mean by all things belong to the Corinthian church? | ||||||
590 | "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? |
||||||
591 | 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" |
||||||
592 | Premarital relations? | 1 Cor 7:9 | Sir Pent | 120484 | ||
Referral to another thread............................................ Hi Yates, You have already received a couple of great answers to your question, but I'll just throw in two more cents. In the Bible if a person had pre-marital sex, they were either stoned or forced to get married immediately depending on the circumstances. In either case, it was a very serious decision and not to be taken lightly or jumped into just because a person lacks self-control (which is a fruit of the Holy Spirit). Please type the number 114024 into the "Quick Search" box at the top right corner of the screen for several different perspectives on this issue. |
||||||
593 | Threatens to leave if believer attends | 1 Cor 7:15 | Sir Pent | 117161 | ||
More information necessary.......................................... Hello Huron, There are a lot of possibilities in the situation you described that would lead to different answers. For instance, when you say "someone" threatens to leave, do you mean a spouse? I find it unusual that a person who is married to someone and loves them would leave just because they went to a church service for an hour once a week. Even if the spouse is not a believer, then it would only seem like a waste of time to them. But perhaps you live in another country where going to church is illegal. Perhaps if you are caught then your family will be killed. Therefore, the spouse might make this threat due to their own life being endangered by something they don't believe. As you can see, more information is neccessary before giving any kind of good advice. And as Hank always says, the best place to find advice is not on this forum, but from a local pastor or trusted friend and counselor. |
||||||
594 | 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. |
||||||
595 | 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. |
||||||
596 | What does the bible say about separation | 1 Cor 7:39 | Sir Pent | 59229 | ||
When I read this question, I couldn't help but wonder if there were other more important questions that you should be asking. It sounds like you are in a very difficult situation, but it also sounds like you knew that when you entered it. The question is why? Why would you say yes to a proposal that was only "about what you could give him"? Why would you be "wife #4" to a person who had led a "real bad life"? Why is a marriage falling apart, yet everything is presented as his fault alone. Why is there a 12 year old child who will be drastically impacted by the decisions you make, and yet virtually nothing is mentioned about them. It seems like there are root problems here that need to be resolved. I would like to understand where you are comming from better, but perhaps the best answer would be to spend some significant time talking to the pastor of your home church. If these root issues are not addressed and resolved, then moving on to date someone else (before or after the divorce) will likely just lead to more pain and sufferring. |
||||||
597 | Is it ok to have communion and also eat | 1 Cor 11:20 | Sir Pent | 59240 | ||
duplicate post | ||||||
598 | Is it ok to have communion and also eat | 1 Cor 11:20 | Sir Pent | 59241 | ||
duplicate post | ||||||
599 | Old Testament rituals/feast | 1 Cor 11:25 | Sir Pent | 112867 | ||
My answer........................................ Hello Imunderconstruction, You are correct that we no longer are required to celebrate certain holidays (which in the Jewish tradition were called feasts). Please read Galations 4:9-10. Paul here is encoraging the believers to not be enslaved in having to keep doing these things. However, just because we don't HAVE to do something doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea. Jesus did command us to remember him when taking what we now call "communion", or "the Lord's Supper", or "eucharist", etc. These "sacraments" are perfect opportunities to remember Christ's sacrifice for our sins. As such, we should want to participate in them. We should want to take time to celebrate these with other Christians to be thankful to God as the Christian community. How often you do it is less important than the spirit that you do it in. Check your heart not your calendar :) |
||||||
600 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ] Next > Last [36] >> |