Results 61 - 80 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6345 | ||
Part 1 to Nolan, If I may be allowed to step into this discussion I would like to ask you a few questions in regards to your statements concerning your view of an age old Calvinistic opinion. Your statement, “…a person who is not 'elected' to salvation has no hope to repent and conversely the person who's election is predestined has no need to repent” is fraught with error and a lack of understanding of both the Bible and Calvinism. The doctrine of election is not a Calvinistic opinion, it is God’s holy word. Ephesians 1:3-6; "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Election and Predestination are not inventions of men and they are not left to the notions or opinions of man’s will to determine or alter what God has stated to be true. If one rejects and denies these to Biblical doctrines then that person rejects and denies the truth of God’s holy word. To say that God is obligated to save anyone is false and greatly dishonors God and exalts one’s opinion above the holy word of God. If you are attempting to force your opinion of God being obligated to save anyone by Acts 10:34-43 then you have both failed to do so and have accomplished the reverse. These verse do not say anything at all about God’s obligation to man, it only states that all who believe receive the forgiveness of sins. To say that God is obligated in any way whatsoever to do anything at all for man, is to deny the sovereignty of God and to exalt the will of man above the throne of God. Perhaps you can produce a verse that actually states God has obligated Himself to save anyone and without forcing an opinion onto the text? To your statement; “Due to God's pure nature He cannot go back on His Word” I agree and so does Isa. 55:11; “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (NASB). “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereunto I sent it” (KJV). If God’s will, which is His Word, goes forth from His mouth to save all humans without exception, then God cannot go back on His Word and all humans must be saved since God’s Word will successfully accomplish the purpose for which God sent it, which is salvation. Notice Nolan that it is God who said He saves on the basis of pleasing Himself and not because He is obligated to sinful man. Do you agree or disagree that Isa. 55:11 is true and that God’s Word will always be successful in the matter in which God sent it? You are correct in that God is not a respector of persons, however, how you are attempting to use this term has nothing to do with what you call “free-will”, in fact, it states quite the opposite. Nolan, the very words you are using refute your own claim that God is obligated. If God is obligated, then He is a respector of persons for he owes something to us. However, John 1:13 clearly states in regard to salvation that man’s will has absolutely nothing to do with whom God saves. To your statement, “Is God just being "nice" by offering salvation or is that his plan for mankind?. First of all, God does not offer salvation as a choice to be made by the unbeliever who is still dead in his sins and I challenge you to produce any verses of holy scripture that actually make that claim. In addition, God states in Eph. 1:5; “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (KJV) and He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will (NASB). Again, God predestined us to salvation according to the pleasure (kindness) of His own will and not ours. Sam Hughey Part 2 to follow: |
||||||
62 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6346 | ||
Part 2 to Nolan, To your statements; “Grace refers to salvation, kindness is a different thing” and “…you have to maintain that grace is universally available”, well, it is but that does not mean that all grace is universally salvific in nature. God’s grace bestows mercy on the godless as well as the godly just as He bestows wrath on the godly just as He does on the godless. You have erred in forcing the word “grace” to have reference only to salvation. John 1:14 states that Jesus was full of grace but that hardly refers to Jesus needing salvation, does it Nolan? Don’t force words to have only the meaning you want them to have. This is wrongly dividing the Word of God. Nolan, perhaps you need to heed your own adivce by your following statements to Reformer Joe; “Another missed point, you really must get back to context on Romans! Paul wrote Romans to those that were already saved. His references to 'elect' are to those who have FOLLOWED the 'Roman's road' to salvation”. Actually Nolan, what you call “Romans road” did not exist when Paul wrote this epistle. Don’t you think both God and Paul knew what they were writing? Since when do you think God needs 20th century slogans to save those whom He calls? In fact, the actual contextual recipients of Romans are those to whom God has called to receive salvation (v. 6,7). And, if Isa. 55:11 can escape your inclusionary opinions, then God means what He says and not what you want Him to be saying. If God calls an individual to receive salvation (which, by the way, no person can come to Christ unless they are called by the Father, John 6:44), then according to Isa. 55:11 God’s intent to save that person by calling him to receive salvation will be successfully accomplished. So, your statement, “God intends to save everyone but the failure is not His but belongs to the individual” is also false. If God’s intention is to save everyone, then everyone must be called by the Father for the purpose of receiving salvation according to Isa. 55:11 and John 6:44. John also states that whomever the Fathers calls, the Son will raise him up on the last day which refers to the eternal resurrection of those who are found in the Lamb’s book of life. There is absolutey nothing at all in either Isaiah or John that says anything at all about man choosing or the fault is man’s for not being saved. This is clearly an Arminian inclusion or insertion onto the text in order to self-justify a man-centered doctrine of a false gospel. If anyone preaches a gospel other than what John clearly and unambiguously states in verses 44, then one is preaching a false gospel. To your statement to Reformer Joe; “I hope that you can answer some of these flaws that I have shown about your Calvinistic beliefs”, perhaps Nolan, you would spend your time gaining a more correct understanding of Holy Scripture and Calvinistic theology. Reformer Joe has not consulted with me and he doesn’t need to. He merely relies on what God states without embellishing God’s word. Sam Hughey |
||||||
63 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6362 | ||
Nolan, I'm sorry to see you no longer desire to defend your beliefs or to refute Calvinism. I realize you won't respond to this but I would be less than honorable if I fail to respond to more of your false claims. Perhaps you did not understand anything I wrote or you just simply chose to ignore everything I wrote, but nowhere did I ever misquote you and after having believed what you believe for 9 years prior to my conversion to Reformed theology, I know quite well both how and why you view salvation as you do. I advise you to look again at both the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) and Eph. 4:25,29. Making light of your accusations and God's holy word will have consequences that will follow you in all that you say and do on this forum and elsewhere. It is a sin to falsley accuse someone and dishonorable to ridicule someone's biblical belief while refusing to acknowledge the plain and simple truth in God's holy word. I pray you at least reconsider your actions even if you no longer desire to discuss this issue. Sam Hughey |
||||||
64 | God's gospel or Man's gospel? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 6537 | ||
melchizedekau, What scripture do you use to support the view that all humans were written into the Lamb's book of life before creation? Where does scripture say we are predestined to be conformed to His image only if we surrender? Why do you say "no matter what happens you will end up at your fate" and also say we choose our destiny? If nothing we say or do matters (as you stated) then why would any choice or decison matter since fate controls our destiny? And most importantly, where did you find the following quote from scripture; "You have been Predestined to live with me for eternity as the Bride of my Son which makes you and my Son one. It is your choice, i have chosen the path for you, although you some times seem afar off. Your decisions for me and your choice to change ,will bring you to my arms. In which i have predestined you to be. SAYS THE LORD"? Sam Hughey |
||||||
65 | Care to Claim what you Proclaim? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 7864 | ||
melchizedekau, You would be surprised to know what I understand. If you truly want to live up to Luke 4:18, then why don't you answer my questions and recover sight to the blind? Sam Hughey |
||||||
66 | God's gospel or Man's gospel? | Rom 5:6 | reformedreader | 7865 | ||
JVH0212, Thanks. Sometimes the silence speaks more than words. Sam Hughey |
||||||
67 | double predestination con | Rom 5:12 | reformedreader | 3047 | ||
CHESTYFIRE, Actually, the term "double-predestination" is more mistunderstood than understood. For the most part it refers to God predetermining who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. The "double" take on this is that God intentionally purposed some men to spend eternity in hell. As a Calvinist, I do not accept double-predestination as it has been erroneously taught by other Calvinists. They are wrong and I have stated so many times. Romans 5:12 clearly states that "ALL" men have sinned and have acquired the death penalty for Adam's likeness. We are all predestined to spend eternity in hell because of the fall unless we are saved by God's grace before our physical death. I do, however, believe that God elected a chosen race before the foundation of the world who would be called to receive salvation in the process of human time and history who would be shown His mercy and grace while not calling others. This does not negate their deserving hell anymore or less than those who are not called. All men are guilty and have sinned and fail to glorify God. All men are deserving eternal punishment and it is only by God's grace that any are saved. |
||||||
68 | FOR JACOB I LOVED AND ESUA I HATED | Rom 9:11 | reformedreader | 2867 | ||
There are basically two ways to approach scripture. 1. I can read into scripture whatever I want to be there. 2. I can receive from scripture whatever is already there. Our motives judge our hearts and depending upon how we study scripture, much can be revealed about ourselves and our relatonship with God. Since God said He loved Jacob, and I believe that to be true, why then when God said He hated Esau would I "not" believe that to be true? Sam Hughey |
||||||
69 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | reformedreader | 3857 | ||
Ric, Pharaoh was born in the image of Adam no differently than you or myself. Romans 3:23;5:12 conclude "all" have sinned, therefore, "none" are excused. There is no such thing as an "innocent" sinner who is born in the image of Adam, be it an embryo or a 100 year old man. The issue of sin is not the sins we commit that condemn us but, rather, the sin in which we are conceived. Sam Hughey |
||||||
70 | Will all of Israel be saved? | Rom 11:26 | reformedreader | 7405 | ||
Steve, This obviously does not refer to each and every individual Jew simply because many are already dead who died in unbelief. It also cannot be refering to Israel as a nation since that nation is also comprised of those same individuals already dead in unbelief. In the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as God's elect. But do not forget what Paul stated in Rom. 9:6; "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel". Not all Jews are Israelites simply because they physically descended from Jacob (Israel). Paul states precisely who true Israelites are in verse 8; "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants". So, when salvation is used in conjunction with Israel, God is referring to any individual who is a child of God according to the spirit (not the flesh). Paul states in Galatians 6:15,16 that neither circumcision (physical Israelites) nor uncircumcision (physical Gentiles) is anything. It is the new creation that refers to salvation and Paul relates the new creation with being the Israel of God in verse 16. It is the elect Israel of God who will be saved because God has chosen them to be in Christ since before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12;2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10) Sam Hughey |
||||||
71 | Is Interracial marriage Bible supported? | 2 Corinthians | reformedreader | 3705 | ||
Nolan, This is an excellent question that has caused many Christians to create great harm to others with unbiblical advice. The only forbidding we have from God in regards to marriage is found in 2 Cor.6:14. We are not to marry unbelievers and I think it could also be proven that we should avoid marrying those with major theological differences than our own. God does not forbid us from marrying anyone on the basis of race. Sam Hughey |
||||||
72 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3265 | ||
dpettway22, Galatians 3:28 is referencing superiority standing within the realm of salvation which none have. We are all saved equally and have an equal standing in the Kingdom of God. A Jew does not have any greater position simply because he is a Jew. The same goes for Gentiles over Jews, men over women or women over men. It does not reference either a right or forbidding for women to be involved with a ministry. There are other scriptures that clearly cover that isse. Sam Hughey |
||||||
73 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3266 | ||
Elijah, In reference to your statement; "These scriptures have been change in every Bible that I know of, but one, they were change to look as though they were speaking of Jerusalem. This was done through Satins religions as an attempt to keep the women from knowing what they must do and what has to take place just before the end", could you tell me what the original statements were and who precisely changed them and in what translations/documents were they changed? Thanks, Sam Hughey |
||||||
74 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3460 | ||
Elijah, You have twice not answered my question about the source of the alleged changes you claim to have been made in the Bible. So, I will suppose you do not have an answer and the accusation is false. Do you understand the seriousness of such an accusation? Also, I never said anything at all about God not using women in ministry and you should discover much more about Aimee Semple McPherson before you associate the name Christian with her. Sam Hughey |
||||||
75 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3509 | ||
JVH0212, I agree and I realize some might think of this as trivial, but if one is a Christian then one must take seriously the accusations they make (Ex. 20:16;Eph. 4:25). It seems to me that many Christians today want to be "Bible-Believers" but not "Bible-Doers". I would be more than willing to discuss this at length with Elijah, but only on the grounds of true statements or at least statements he would be willing to say he truly doesn't understand, as with any believer. Sam Hughey |
||||||
76 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3617 | ||
Hank, It would greatly depend upon what the difference actually is and, like you said, opinion or heavily skewed sectarian bias might cause one to see a particular translation as suspect when it really isn't. Sam Hughey |
||||||
77 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3625 | ||
Thanks Hank, I will agree that the lone translation, standing in stark contradiction to a widely trusted and accepted orthodox translation by reputable and unquestionable translators would be considered suspect of error. I would also say that vague and ambiguous dialogue concerning non-specific error can be equally suspect. So, could you be a little more specific as to what you are talking about? By the way, George Washington was not the first President the US had. He was the first President of the US under the Constitution. There were several other Presidents over the colonies which would become the US and were considered the US by many even prior to the Constitution. Is this the type of "suspect" error to which you were referring? Sam Hughey |
||||||
78 | Can a deacon drink wine with dinner? | 1 Tim 3:3 | reformedreader | 2961 | ||
rwash, The qualifications for a Deacon in 1 Tim. 3:3 do not forbid him from drinking wine, it only disqualifies him if he is an abuser (addicted) to wine. "When" one has a glass of wine I think to be irrelavent. "Why" one desires a glass of wine I think to be very relavent. I would also think that any church who raises its standards above that of the clear and unambiguous testimony of Holy Scripture has more with which to be concerned than a Deacon who has an occassional glass of wine. Keeping the law is not the same as re-creating the law, which is what the Pharisees did and for what Christ condemned them. Sam Hughey |
||||||
79 | Can a deacon drink wine with dinner? | 1 Tim 3:3 | reformedreader | 2979 | ||
rwash, Thanks for responding but I think somehting has been missed in our communication. I merely presented what 1 Timothy 3:3 correctly states about the qualification for a Deacon and the consumption of wine. I also stated that churches have no authority from God to create standards not already created in Holy Scripture. I don't understand your response about a contradiction between what Jesus taught and what God wanted for His people. Perhaps you could explain that and also what you meant by "Grace supplanted(?) work as the answer to finding favor with God." Thanks, Sam Hughey |
||||||
80 | do churches need to be founded by an apo | 2 Timothy | reformedreader | 3023 | ||
bro bob, In reference to "what fellowhsip does light have with darkness", I would ask if you believe light refers to those who are the redeemed of the Lord and dark refers to those who are not. If you believe this (and I certainly hope you do), then the comparison is intimate fellowship believers have with unbelievers to the point believers are influenced by unbelievers into thinking and acting like unbelievers. Scripture nowhere forbids Christians from having fellowship with other Christians except in the case Paul mentions in the Corinthian church. If one thinks they should be exhibiting the actions of the Apostles, then I would also demand them to raise the dead since the Apostle did that also. Have you done this? JohnnyRay49423 is correct in placing our emphases on Jesus instead of ourselves. Signs and Wonders we do (or fake doing) are not the gospel and nowhere did the Apostles teach such. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |