Results 61 - 80 of 97
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: JibbyJee Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88516 | ||
Hi gracefull! Hope you had a safe 4th! I tried my best to blow the tips of my fingers off! I won't be lighting firecrackers off in my hands anymore, that's for sure! Thank you for answering the question honestly, and not dodging the issue like many people seem to do. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God is not one that is popular amongst modern Christians, and for the most part, I believe this stems from a lack of correct Biblical understanding of God and from prevelant erroneous teaching within the church itself. Also, I think the two are in a vicious cycle that continuosly feed each other through the generations. Back to the discussion itself, I want to first off recommend a book for your consideration on this issue. CHOSEN BY GOD by RC Sproul is an outstanding book on the nature of salvation. Dr. Sproul does a much better explaining things with clarity and humility than I could ever hope to do. But nevertheless, I will continue to offer my beliefs for you to consider in regard to Scripture. 1. Do you think your faith is something that you muster up within yourself, or a gift given to you by God? (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:5-7; Eph. 2:8-9) The Bible frequently shows us that all one has to do to be saved is to believe in God and the One he has sent. And I would totally agree. But in none of those verses does it tell us HOW the belief came about within us. The Bible does say that we are enemies of God (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 5:10; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:15-16; Col. 1:21; James 4:4) before being saved. So I still don't understand how you can claim that your CHOICE is the difference between you and the next guy. Prior to regeneration, what virtue was in you but not in the unbelieving one? Basically, you are saying "All that guy has to do is believe. Simple as that". Now the "believe" part I agree with. But it's not that simple. Jesus elaborates on this point. Let's take a closer look: Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God. Please compare this to salvation (indeed it is directly connected already) and the context of our discussion. Notice Jesus didn't say "He that is of God hears the words of God. If you want to be of God, then all you have to do is hear." That would be putting the cart before the horse. Jesus simply tells it like it is. Those who are of God (regenerated) will hear Him and those who aren't won't. So how does this connect to our discussion? I believe regeneration precedes faith. God must give each of us "ears to hear" so to speak BEFORE we can believe. The example of John 8:47 supports this, as does John 6:65 and many other verses. So we're back to square one. Does God give everyone ears to hear? If so, then what was Jesus talking about in John 8:47? If not, then could it be that ALL of salvation is to the glory of God and NONE of it belongs to man? In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
62 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88367 | ||
Hi Tim! Good to see you back. Hope the move went smoothly for ya. Although your response gave me a hearty chuckle, I must admit it was only because I have come to expect a bit more from you. My concluding paragraph about the Trinity was actually a rhetorical question that had very little to do with the meat of my post, yet you chose it to reply it instead of some of the other questions that I asked about Arminianism. I know you've heard all the arguments against the Arminian interpretation of verses that teach that Christ died to make salvation possible for "ALL", so I won't go there with you again. But please, with sugar on top, answer some of the other questions I asked, these specifically: 1. Did Christ INTEND to save ALL men on the Cross? 2. If Christ paid for ALL sins of ALL men throughout ALL the Earth, on what basis are we judged? 3. (Regarding #2) Is unbelief a sin? 4. What was in you that caused you to believe, that wasn't in those who "reject" the Gospel? If I don't talk to you later tonight, have a safe 4th!! Your brother in Christ, Jibbs |
||||||
63 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88270 | ||
Dear gracefull: Thank you for your response. I really appreciate the Bible verses and not just mere opinion in support of your theology, even if I disagree with your interpretation in the context of all of Scripture. We could continue to discuss this issue (which is hard to do considering it hits on soooo many other side-issues and makes us prone to distraction) but first I want to pinpoint one aspect of your last post. This one sentence, I believe, hits the nail on the head. Here it is: "You seem to be saying we believe after this renewal..however I believe we are renewed or regenerated/born again after we BELIEVE and ACCEPT Jesus." Herein we have a conundrum. I believe the Bible clearly teaches about our inability to come to God on our own. We simply can't do it (John 6:65). He must first give us the gift of faith (Eph 2:8-9). Natural man doesn't even understand he NEEDS a savior, because he cannot see himself for who he really is (Rom. 3:10-11; 1 Cor. 2:14). Keep in mind that because of this depravity and rejection of God, man is guilty and the sin deserves to be punished in order for God to remain just. With these things in mind, please consider why I believe God doesn't merely stop at making salvation "possible" for everyone, but actually SAVES all whom He chooses to save(Rom. 9:15). Salvation is dependent upon nothing else but the mercy of God (Rom. 9:11-16) who works all things to guarantee not one of His chosen people will be lost (Eph. 1:11; Eph. 3:11-12; Rom. 8:28-30; John 10:28-29). No one is suddenly condemned because they "reject" the Gospel, but rather they are under condemnation whether they hear it or not, let alone reject it (John 3:18)! The Gospel SAVES, it does not CONDEMN!!! Please consider this example I've posted before and give me your answer. Imagine you are standing before the throne of God standing next to a man who is not a follower of Christ. What is it that differentiates the two of you? If God did for the man next to you everything that He did to save you, then the only difference is that you believed. But here's the kicker--WHAT WAS IN YOU THAT MADE YOU BELIEVE, THAT THE GUY NEXT TO YOU WAS LACKING? That IS the question we all must answer before our Holy Lord. In Christ, Jibbs |
||||||
64 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88263 | ||
Hi Doug! Welcome to the Forum! In #88006, I gave those same verses (with the exception of Heb 9:28) to Tim but he didn't give any response to the Reformed doctrine of particular atonement. Our good friend Hank, however, let us all hear his opinion. In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
65 | Help with Hosea???? | Hos 13:14 | JibbyJee | 88226 | ||
Greetings Slide! While I cannot give you a direct answer, I would love to point you in the direction of a great apologetic website for use with atheists. Here's the link: http://www.tektonics.org/ You might find something there if you dig around long enough. And certainly there is a goldmine of other stuff to use with atheists. My guess is the Hosea passage is just the tip of the iceberg with that lady. So take out the icepick and chip away, my friend. It can be done! Brothers in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
66 | Who does the Father draw to Christ? | John 6:44 | JibbyJee | 88225 | ||
Dear Slide: Not only does that view run contrary to TULIP, but it also runs contrary to consistent Biblical interpretation. ;) But as I can see, you are aware of that. Under the Arminian veiw, the Blood of Christ has absolutely NO redemptive value in and of itself, because even when it's shed and applied to someone, it can't cleanse, redeem, or save them. They "must" exercise their "free will" to empower the Blood and make it efficacious. Using 2 Peter 3:9 to support that view is grossly out of context. Believers are the elect "before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4) and don't make themselves elect at their own whim (Rom 9:16; John 1:13). We cannot believe because we don't desire to until God regenerates our heart so that we can understand our own condition (Titus 3:5; 1 Cor. 2:14). That should give you a starting point into the Doctrines of Grace. Blessings in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
67 | Willing to believe? | John 6:44 | JibbyJee | 88224 | ||
Greetings Elizabeth! While I may possibly be simply misunderstanding you, I wanted to clarify that God doesn't draw Christians to Him through Jesus Christ, but rather He draws sinners to Him throught Jesus Christ, thereby making them "Christians" (Romans 5:8). May only be semantics, but to me it's a huge doctrinal issue. Peace and Love, JibbyJee |
||||||
68 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88221 | ||
Greetings gracefull! As you have probably ascertained, I am a Calvinist (aka Reformed) in my theology. I want to thank my friend Tim for his brief and for the most part accurate synopsis of the differences between the two. The grand issue between the two sides is the issue of "free will". Now, respectfully, I must tell you that by reading your post I have gathered that you are already biased against Reformed theology. Have you studied this issue before, using the Bible, or have you been influenced by other people's opinions? I ask that because it seems like you already have some faulty preconceptions about what Calvinist's (that's me) believe. Please allow me to elaborate: You said: "Calvinist believe only certain ones are called and the rest were born without any hope of salvation. Choice is a nonissue." I will try to explain in as simple terms as I can what we really believe the Bible teaches. Please remember that we don't believe anything that we can't prove exegetically from the Bible. So please listen with an open heart and mind to what our interpretation of the Bible says even if you disagree with it. Okay. Looking at the above quote that you gave, I want you to stop for a few seconds and think about what you've said. "without any hope of salvation". Is this a truly Biblical statement? What I mean is-and this is vitally important--does God OWE them salvation (Rom. 6:23)??? Your words make man out to be an innocent victim of an unjust God! Don't you realize that all men, you and I included, are at enmity with God prior to being saved (Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:15-16) nor can we desire to be saved in our sinful (natural) condition (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 9:16; John 1:13; John 3:5-8). Don't you understand that NO ONE deserves to be saved?? I hope you will honestly consider those facts in light of your statement. The humble heart does not say "well if God didn't predestinate every man to salvation then He's not fair", but it DOES say "Lord!! Why did you save me, a wretched sinner??" Let us not forget for a moment that had God not regenerated our hearts so that we could believe (Titus 3:5) we, too, would still be in our sins and remain His enemy. And we wouldn't want it any other way because of our sin nature (Romans 1). The ONLY people who desire to know God and choose Him are those whom He has called according to His divine will and purpose. In short, Calvinists DO believe we have a choice to make, however, where we differ from Arminians is on how that choice comes to fruition. In Christ, Jibbs |
||||||
69 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88217 | ||
Dear Joe: Thanks for the resource list. I've already got www.whatloveisthis.com bookmarked (what love indeed!). I'm also dedicated to mining AOMIN at least 2 times a day, so James White is very familiar to me (it was his ministry that did me in last December). A friend of mine put White's 9 part rebuttal of Geisler's CBF from The Dividing Line on CD's which I keep in my car. Which reminds me, my car speakers haven't heard music for a long, long time..... Sincerely, your Hymn-singin', Doctrine lovin', Bible totin' Jesus Freak Reformed friend, JibbyJee |
||||||
70 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88108 | ||
Dear Hank Prior to Dec. 2002, I had never even heard of John Calvin. Even since then I've only read a few scattered paragraphs of his writings for the INSTITUTES, and those were all quoted in passing within other books I've read. So I'm sorry if what you see me posting is "CALVINISM" to you, but to me it is NOTHING BUT THE GOSPEL. I am always more than happy to discuss differing interpretations and, if need be, correct my own understanding. Surely I'm not infallible. You've made it clear that you hate "ism's", and for the most part I agree with you. But don't be so obtuse as to forget to include "free willism" into the mix of "manmade" dogma! Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Tit 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, Tit 3:5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, Sincerely in the mercy of Christ, Jibbs |
||||||
71 | What is this "active force"? | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88062 | ||
What do you mean "active force"? TF, the Holy Spirit is no mere "active force" like gravity or rushing water. The Bible clearly teaches the PERSONAGE of the Holy Spirit. Consider the following: Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: Mar 3:29 but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: Mar 13:11 And when they lead you to judgment, and deliver you up, be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit. Luk 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. Luk 12:12 for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. Act 13:2 And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Eph 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption. Heb 3:7 Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit saith, To-day if ye shall hear his voice, Heb 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, Hope that sheds some light on the fact that the Holy Spirit is a HE and not an IT. In Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit, Jibbs |
||||||
72 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 88006 | ||
Tim, happy weekend greetings! Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to chat with me. I do appreciate it! I'm going to try to answer your post one paragraph at a time. Not sure if I'll finish, though. 1. This goes back to the Christian belief that God saves (Isaiah 63:5). The supposition that God intends to save all yet manages to lose some cannot be defined by any other word but failure. The very definition of failure is the inability to accomplish that which you set out to do. So the question really is: Did Jesus intend to save every man on Earth or not? 2. While I think you have given what you sincerely believe to be the definitive answer to my question, please allow me to give reasons why I disagree with your conclusions. Bear with me while I explain: It's my belief that all men everywhere are sinners and therefore under condemnation whether they hear the Gospel or not (John 3:18,36; Rom. 3:10-11; Eph. 2:3). Because of this natural corruption of man (1 Cor. 2:14), we cannot save ourselves (or even desire to) nor is God under any obligation to redeem any of us. This means none of us can demand salvation from Him. Furthermore, if God only decided to save 5 people on Earth and let the rest go on to Hell (where apart from grace, their desires will take them) He is still perfectly just. Do you see my point? If God only made atonement for those He intended to save, there is nothing unjust at all about that. So the question is not "How can God not try and save so-and-so?" but rather "Why does God save ANYONE?". So again, my friend, I ask you to seriously consider the scope of the atonement in relation the the nature of God's wrath. If Jesus paid for all the sins of every man, on what basis is anyone judged??? I know it may sound trivial, but the answer is the key, in my opinion, to better understanding Jesus' redeeming purpose on Earth. 3. In this paragraph you've given an either/or proposition which I think can be reduced to a simpler argument: Either God saves without the assistance of man or God needs man's cooperation in order to save them. My first question here is "do you or do you not believe God COULD save all?" I certainly believe He could if He chose to, but the Bible reveals not only that He doesn't do so, but also the reasons why (Romans 9:21-24). The central aspect I've gathered from this paragraph is the value you've assigned to human choice. I absolutely agree with you that we must choose to be saved, but where we disagree is on how that choice comes to fruition. The Bible says no one seeks God (as natural men)(Rom. 3:10-11) and that we are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). Were you saved by something you did or by something God did? Here's something that humbled me a great deal (after many sleepless nights!!) when I was first compelled to consider these things: Imagine for a moment yourself standing next to an unbeliever before the throne of God. What differentiates the two of you? How did you gain the attire in which your dressed? Were you smarter than the person next to you? Were you more spiritually inclined? What was in you that caused you to believe that wasn't in the wretched sinner at your side? Please allow me to humbly let you know how difficult these things are to consider honestly. I experienced it for myself. But I believe the truth put things into perspective for me. I (we) are rotten sinners who don't deserve Christ any more than the next guy. Our belief doesn't make us righteous. Christ and Christ alone made us righteous when He bore all our inequities on the Cross. Our coming to Him in belief is the proof of that victory over the ghastly grips of sin upon us. You've said that under my understanding, everyone COULD not be saved. Actually, I believe everyone WILL not be saved. There's a significant difference. Not that everyone COULDN'T be, but rather that God has chosen not to according to His own will and purpose (Eph 1:4). But I don't limit God. I don't know who He will save. So I concentrate on my own walk with Jesus so that I cause no one to stumble, and this for the sake of the elect. 4. First, we could debate the usage of verses like 1 Tim. 2:4 or 2 Pet. 3:9 as they are used in their own context to show that the verses are talking about all Christ died for (the believing ones). Here are some verses that speak of a particular redemption that you asked for. Please read them: Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Eze. 34:10-11; John 10:11; John 10:15 Now as far as a verse that specifically uses the exact phrase you demand, you're right is saying it doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean the doctrine is not implied by the whole text of Scripture. For example, the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. Do you believe in the Trinity? Why? Coram Deo, Jibbs |
||||||
73 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87982 | ||
Hi John! Greetings in Christ! Thanks for the kind words. I hope all discussions here are done in a manner pleasing to the Lord. Prayerfully, the Lord will give us all gentleness and respect. I know you know what I'm talking about. 1 Peter 3:15; Gal. 5:22-23. Alive in Christ, Jibbs |
||||||
74 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87909 | ||
Hi Tim! It must be about 4pm your time right now and I am on my lunch hour. I would be complaining that you're almost off work right now until I found out your 9-5 is on the opposite end of the clock. Ouch!! The night shift can be a mean one! According to your interpretation of John 6, the grace of God draws all men. If we are saved by grace, then I assume you also believe grace must also fail to save, unless you believe everyone will be saved. If I understand the implications of your interpretation, you are saying God applies the same grace to the Apostle Paul and Hitler alike. Under your view, God doesn't do anything for those who come to believe on Him that He doesn't also do for the perishing. Therefore, God in and of Himself, plays NO active role in the salvation of anyone specifically( compare Isa. 63:5). The will of man is the ultimate deciding factor in salvation (compare Rom. 9:16; John 1:13). Your understanding is that God desires all people everywhere to be saved but that His will is impotent when dealing with "autonomous" free will decisions of men. I don't want to misrepresent you here. It's hard to be super-accurate given the time and space constraints. If this is not an accurate portrait of your beliefs, please clarify so I can better understand your position and clearly discuss them with you. As for the simplicity of "all" issue, tell me what you think of this: Matt. 4:8--Is there really a mountain where ALL the literal world can be seen? Is this even possible? John 1:29--Does Jesus literally take the sin of the ALL the world upon Himself? I think you would agree that the reason Jesus took sin upon Himself was to bear the punishment for it in our place. If He took a sin to the cross, then He took the wrath of God for it. His atoning work is completed. With that said, how, then, does God justly punish anyone? If all sins have been paid for, then what is the basis for eternal punishment? In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
75 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87799 | ||
Hello again Tim! Congrats on your ordination in the Church of the Nazarene. The Church of the Nazarene was my first denomination after being saved in 1997. My pastor was Dr. Les Parrott in Puyallup Washington. He's been all over the U.S. so I'm sure you'll hear about his legacy in the denomination if you haven't already. (I think he also was the first President of Olivet University but I'm not certain on that.) Anyway, he was a great pastor and his son Les Jr. and his wife have a very successful worldwide family ministry that is based here in the Northwest. Regarding your post: To start, Tim, I need to say something in love to you. I think as Christians are obligated to be certain that we are not sacrificing truth for the sake of "simplicity". I understand your desire to read what the text "simply" says, but that doesn't always guarantee that we understand the full implications of our interpretation. Sometimes the Bible is not expressly clear and requires such implicity to be explained by more explicit verses. I do believe it is dangerous to make the verses more complex than need be, but at the same time, it is equally dangerous to define truth by how "simple" it is to understand. With that said, I hope we can come to some agreements that resolve what may seem like contradictions in the Word. ((The subject is 'no one'. The main clause is 'No one can come to me'. The next clause explains how anyone can come, only if God draws. The last clause says, 'and I will raise him up at the last day.' Who is the 'he'? The one who comes.)) Respectfully, I don't understand how you can divorce the latter half of verse 44 from the first half. Jesus is clearly saying the no one CAN come (inability) without being drawn. That clearly establishes the "drawing" as the force behind the coming. Jesus identifies his role in relation to verse 40 in the words "and I will raise him up on the last day." He directly links the drawing to the coming so that the two are inseparable. Think about it for a second. What does verse 44 say about the one who doesn't come? Are they drawn? I believe the goal of the "drawing" is salvation--the Father giving to the Son. Are you saying He draws all but that drawing fails to save some?? Isn't this basically saying the God makes salvation possible but doesn't actually save anyone? In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
76 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87795 | ||
Greetings Radioman! Thanks for the info, brother! For the most part I'm well aware of JW literature and teachings. As Solomon said "there's nothing new under the sun. (Eccl. 1:9)" JW is nothing more than Arianism with a printing press and a crystal ball. In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
77 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87793 | ||
Howdy TF Okay, well if you aren't going to admit to being a JW then at least purge your deceived mind of all the doctrinal filth you have been brainwashed by. It's not a joke. Hell is just around the corner. Don't wait until it's too late. 7000 errors, huh? Tell you what... list 10 for me and show me their "utmost importance"! And here's one last thought for you to chew on: Joh 10:29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one. Joh 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Why did the Jews want to kill Jesus?? In Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
78 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87754 | ||
I urge you to get out of the Watchtower while you still can! Tell me, why is it that you folks always do your work while crawling around in the dark? Why don't you just come out and tell everyone you're a JW? Why all the secrecy? Anyway, back to your post. I'm below the amateur level of Greek translation ability so I will defer to a real Greek Scholar. (Your list of 'scholars' is hysterical!! JOHANNES GREBER?!?!? LOL) Here's what Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (www.aomin.org for the complete essay) has to say about the JW/Arian translation of John 1:1--- The third clause of this verse has occasioned great debate and controversy, mainly due to the fact that the Greek word for God, theos, does not have the definite article ("the") before it. Some pseudo-Christian or Arian groups have said that this means that the Word was a "god" or a god-like being like an angel (Jehovah's Witnesses). But is this the case? Actually, the answer to the whole question seems fairly obvious, even to a first-year Greek student. The third clause of 1.1 is a copulative sentence - that is, it follows the form "The (noun) is (predicate nominative)". In Greek, one distinguishes the subject of a copulative sentence by which noun has an article in front of it. For example, in 1 John 4:8 we have the last clause reading "God is love." Now, in Greek this is ho theos agape estin. There are two nominative nouns in this sentence - God (theos) and love (agape). However, the first noun, God, has the article ho before it. This indicates that "God" is the subject of the sentence, and love is the predicate nominative. It would be wrong, then, to translate 1 John 4:8 as "Love is God." The only way to make the two nouns interchangeable is to either put the article with both nouns, or to not put the article there at all. As long as one has the article and the other does not, one is definitely the subject and the other the predicate. Hence, 1 John 4:8 does not teach that all love is God, nor that God and love are interchangeable things. Rather, the term "love" tells us something about God - it functions almost as an adjective, describing the noun (God) that it modifies. We have the same situation in 1.1c. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase "and God was the Word" for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term "God" is the predicate nominative, and it functions just as "love" did in 1 John 4:8 - it tells us something about the Logos - and that is, that the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term "God" by placing it first in the clause - this is not just a "divine nature" as in something like the angels have - rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as "Deity"). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, "And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity." Before summing up the verse, then, let the reader note that when groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses quote from Dr. Philip Harner's article on the nature of anarthrous (without the article) predicate nominatives, they don't understand what they are talking about. Harner accurately pointed out that the anarthrous predicate nominative functions as a descriptive term rather than a specific or definite term. Problem is, the Jehovah's Witnesses make "God" in John 1.1 just as definite as the translations they attack! Rendering it "a god" misses the whole point - the word "God" is functioning to describe the Logos - translating it as "a god" means a definite god is in mind, rather than following the actual sense of Harner's article and making the term describe the being of the Logos. The point Harner is making is that it is not the definite "God" that is in view, far less the JW translation of "a god" (both are definite) but rather the nature of the Logos that is important. Hence, 1.1 tells us some immensely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John's mind - the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God. These items will be important for a proper understanding of many of the statements made by our Lord in this book. It seems to me that John felt it was vitally important that we understand the majesty of the Person of Jesus Christ right from the start. We cab see these concepts played out through the rest of the Gospel of John. What do you think TF? JibbyJee |
||||||
79 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | JibbyJee | 87753 | ||
Greetings Tim! Where you moving to/from? It's a great time to take advantage of interest rates and upgrade to a bigger home or refinance your mortgage, that's for sure. Lots of people selling their homes these days. My wife and I are considering doing just that as well. Anyway, Joseph3 gave some very solid arguments to each one of the verses you listed, something I didn't have time to do myself. But I completely agree with him. His posts are almost verbatim what I would have written. So now you know where I stand. You asked the question "does Christ draw all men or not?". You also listed John 12:32 and John 6:44. From John 6:44 we see a key distinction that is omitted from John 12:32. "AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP ON THE LAST DAY". So the question "does Christ draw all men or not?" by nature begs the question "Are all men raised at the last day?" You could say that all men will be raised up for judgment on the Last Day, and I would agree with you. But I deny that it fits this passage of Scripture. Directly in the context of John 6 in verse 40 Jesus clearly ties being "raised up" with being given eternal life. So that rules out unbelievers from being "raised up" as spoken of here. It's clearly speaking of salvation and to that I'm certain you would agree. So I think both questions are answered. Jesus draws all men to Himself in the sense that He is both Judge and Savior. No man escapes His Sovereign authority. Futhermore, if we continue to the logical conclusion of tying John 6:44 to John 12:32, then in order to remain consistent, we are forced to say that all men will be raised up to eternal life on the Last Day (John 6:40). In short, we are forced to be Universalists. IF John 12:32 and John 6:44 mean the same thing, then everyone will be saved and no one will go to Hell. I hope that explains why I don't believe the two verses are speaking of the same thing. John 6 is speaking directly of the powerful Sovereignty and Grace of God in Salvation. To me, it's the greatest passage of Scripture in the Bible (if there could be such a thing!)... Sincerely in Christ, JibbyJee |
||||||
80 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | JibbyJee | 87687 | ||
Truth"finder": John 1:1 "a god"???? Could you please expain this nonsensical NWT interpretation?? Thanks, Jibbs |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |