Results 6721 - 6740 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6721 | Calvanism -vs- Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6567 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Thanks for the reply! Let me respond to each of your paragraphs for organizational purposes. 1) I really don't want to speak for anyone else, so I'll deal with my understanding of Arminianism. I really can't agree that Arminianism is any-kind-of-Pelagianism. Calvanism and Arminianism have much more in common than Pelagianism and Arminianism. Pelagianism did not believe: a) Depravity. b) Original Sin. c) Salvation by Grace alone. While Calvanism and Arminianism disagree on several major points, they do both teach that man is born a sinner, that man is born guilty, and that salvation is provided and obtained through God's grace alone. 2) Let me take a stab at your challenge. The following statements are very broad statements, but I think they illustrate the primary differene between Calvanism and Arminianism. a) Calvanism teaches that salvation is wholly a work of God. The only receipents of this salvation are those whom God has sovereignly elected to salvation. b) Arminianism teaches that salvation is whollly a work of God. The only receipents of that salvation are those who respond to God's sovereign offer of salvation. This salvation is a free gift offered to all alike and based entirely upon the death of Christ. Therefore, man adds nothing to salvation. God has simply sovereignly allowed man an option: accept or reject. However, acceptance or rejection does not add to or take away from the objective and accomplished fact of the atonement. Our choice only determines whether or not we get to receive the benefit of God's free gift. 3) I did a major paper (60 pages - Whew!) on Romans 9-11 in college. I also think that it clinches the argument (sorry, but I see Arminianism :-)). If you have any particulars that you would care to discuss or debate, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. It would probably require another thread. 4) Great majors! I didn't plan on taking any philosophy (or at least as little as possible) when I was in college. However, I ended up with enough to almost major in it. If you have been studying philosophy, you might have read one of my professors - Dr. William Hasker. Keep up the good (I'm assuming) work! Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6722 | When is the World not the World? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6564 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I have to disagree with your first point. Theology and doctrine should be based upon sound exegesis of Scripture. While you definitely need to look at all of Scripture to formulate doctrine, you must understand the individual verses first. I think this is where so many people go wrong. They start quoting a bunch of verses without ever really dealing with what the verses are actuall saying. In terms of the extent of the atonement, I do believe that this is a decisive verse. It does not deal with everything relating to the atonement, but it does deal with the extent of the atonement. Allow me to briefly touch upon your points. 1) Does "world" refer to every individal? There is a comparison here. John is comparing the sins of us (obviously the Christians to who he is writing) and the sins of the whole world (the sins of everyone else). He doesn't say all Christians everywhere. He specifically says the sins of the world and then qualifies that further with the word 'whole.' If you are going to interpret this phrase in some other way, you must provide a rational to do so. There is no mention in 1 John of Jews and Gentiles, so that won't work either. Other than your doctrine, do you have contextual reasons to interpret the 'sins of the whole world' to mean something other than the sins of the whole world? 2) Hyperbole? Vague? It sounds clear to me! Hyperbole would definitely be a legitimate linguistic device, but what evidence is there that hyperbole is being used here? Simply listing three or four possible options without providing any evidence does not eliminate the plain reading (the most natural reading) of the text. 3) Your third point is only a problem if you hold to a Calvanistic viewpoint of Sovereignty and free will. From my standpoint, the atonement is an accompished fact for every individual. However, only those who receive the gift of salvation partake in the benefits of it. From a Calvanistic standpoint, Christ cannot have died for everyone, or everyone would be 'saved' simply because Calvin never allowed for any human freedom. 4) The unforgivable sin is more a problem for Calvanist than for Arminians. This is a good illustration of why we need to deal with individual passages. If Christ died for the 'sins of the whole world,' then the doctrine of the limited atonement cannot be Biblical. So, this key verse must be dealt with. |
||||||
6723 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6540 | ||
Greetings Y'all: There have been several threads deaing with the extent of the atonment. Rather than rehasing all of those discussions, I would like to propose something different. A limited discussion on 1 John 2:2. Personally, I think the best way to debate an issue like this is to deal with a limited number of verses. Since I proposed this, I will start first. Here is my take on 1 John 2:2. The question concerning the extent of the atonement is simply this: Did Christ atone for all or only the elect? Many verses, which seem to indicate that Christ died for all, can be interpreted in such a way as to limit the extent of the word 'all.' However, 1 John 2:2 seems to be perfectly clear. There is a contrast here between believers (our sins) and unbelievers (the whole world). Christ is the propitation for all sin. Now, what does it mean that Christ is the propitation for all sin? The word 'hilasmos' is only used twice in the New Testament (Here and in 1 John 4:10). It signifies a turning a way of God's wrath by an offering. The entire ministry of Christ is signified by this word in 1 John 4:10. The gift of salvation in Romans 3:25 is described using a related word 'hilasterion.' This same word ('hilasterion') is used in Heb. 2:17 to refer to the priestly ministry of Christ. In my opinion, this verse is decisive. Christ died for the sins of everyone. The Cross is the one and only act of atonement for all men and for all sin. I don't see anyway, in light of this verse, that one can argue that Christ only died for the elect. p.s. - A note for all those who respond. Unless one is dealing with heresy, I view debate as an opportunity to sharpen our understanding of Scripture. By interacting with one another, we can see how others view Scripture, consider other points of view, and sharpen our ability to deal with objections to our viewpoints. We may never agree with each other, but I can live with that! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6724 | Arminianism: Another Gospel? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6536 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Like Nolan, I approach the question of the extent of the atonement from an Arminian perspective. As such, I feel that your characterization of Nolan's view is inaccurate. Arminian's hold to the doctrine of unlimited Atonement. As such, the atonement is not just potential. It is actual. Christ atoned for the sins of the world. 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse, and many others, make it clear that everyone's sins have been atoned for. Calvanists and Arminians agree that not everyone will be saved. One point we disagree on is how the distintion is made between the saved and the lost. We may never agree on this point. However, I don't feel that it is fair to make Arminianism 'another Gospel' as you did in one of your earlier posts. Galatians is comparing the Gospel of Grace with the Gospel of Works. Calvanism and Arminianism, while differing at several points, both fall well into the boundarys of orthodoxy. I love to debate with Calvanists, but I don't consider them heretics! p.s. - I checked out your profile. How is your schooling going? What year are you in? Enjoy your schooling while it lasts. It will be over before you know it. I'm hoping to get back to school one of these days, but it is difficult when you have four kids. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6725 | What is your take on Isa 28:10? | Isaiah | Morant61 | 6533 | ||
Greetings Jim! One source I consulted suggested that the religious leaders were mocking Isaiah's words. They felt like they were being lectured, like little children. So either they were using nonsensical words to mock Isaiah's message or they were simply imitating an adult lecturing a child. The phrase "a little here, a little there" referred to a method of teaching children. So, in vv. 11ff, Isaiah tells them that if they would not listen to his words, then they would be "lectured" by a conquring nation instead. Any other thoughts? Tim Moran |
||||||
6726 | What is the extent of Rom. 5:18? | 1 Pet 3:20 | Morant61 | 6474 | ||
Greetings Joe! Let me begin by stating how much I enjoy reading your postings. I haven't read all of the threads on this subject, but I would like to get involved. There is so much involved in this debate, but it seems that most people are focusing on the extent of the atonement. So, that is where I will begin. Please consider Romans 5:17-20. Here we have a text that deals exlicitly with both the extent and the efficacy of the atonement. Romans 5:18 makes a direct comparison between the act of Adam (the fall) and the act of Christ (the Cross). In both cases, the extent is universal. Adam's sin bring condemnation on all. Christ's death brings life for all men. Now immediately we ask ourselves, if this is the case then everyone would be saved, right? Not according to the text. Romans 5:17 again makes a comparison between Adam and Christ. Only this time the issue is efficacy, not extent. According to Romans 5:17, death reigned through Adam's sin. However, the gift of righteousness only reigns in those who receive God's grace. Based on this passage, and many others, my understanding of the extent and efficacy of the atonement is as follows: 1) Concerning the extent of the atonement, Christ died for all men. 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." There is no way to limit the extent of this verse. He atoned for our (Christians) sins, and for the sins of the world (non-Christians). The passages you list do not rule out an unlimited atonement in terms of extent (in my opinion.) I don't want to blow them off, so if there is any particular point you want to discuss, I would be more than happy to dialogue with you. 2) Concerning the efficacy of the atonement, only those who receive God's grace are included in it's benefit. The "whosoever will's" are the only ones who receive the benefit of the atonement. Like you, I have studied this topic a lot over the years. I am conviced that in many ways, both sides of the debate are saying the same thing, only with a few different presuppsitons. The end result is the same under both scemes of thought, only some (the elect or those who respond) are saved. Have you ever read anything by Robert Shank? I would be curious to see what you think about his argument. He covers his thoughts in two full books, so I can't deal with all of it, but a good summary is that election is corporate, not individual. When someone responds to God's grace, he becomes a part of the elect body, the Church. He or she, then becomes a participant in all of the blessings are promises made to the elect. I'd better go, I don't want to post too long of a message. Keep up the good posts! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6727 | Did you have a particular source? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6405 | ||
Greetins EdB! Great point! Did you have a source in mind for Luke's word. I found one reference to it being a surgecial (spelling?) needle, but most of my references and dictionaries simply list it as a needle! Either way, I think the point of the saying is clear! Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
6728 | How does the wall theory soften? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6387 | ||
Greetings, I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear. I've been up all night (work)! Basically, the passage is simply saying that with man it is impossible, just as it is impossibe for a camel to go through an eye of a needle. If we change the meaning from impossible to simply difficult, we have softened the meaning of the text. I think we also miss out on Jesus' sense of humor. The disciples understood what Jesus was saying, as is clear from their response, "Who then can be saved?" God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6729 | What is the "eye of the needle"? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6384 | ||
Greetings, To the best of my knowledge, the belief that the eye of the needle referred to a small gate is an attempt to negate the clear message of the passage. It was believed that "with alms man purchases his salvation." Therefore, when Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the disciples were stunned. "Who then can be saved," they asked. The whole point of this passage is that it is impossible for anyone to earn salvation. Not even the rich can buy their way in to Heaven. However, God can provide salvation to anyone. Many have tried to water the passage down by downgrading the meaning. Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
6730 | What is 'justification'? | Rom 3:24 | Morant61 | 6317 | ||
Hi Nolan! This a great question because it forces us to examine what Scripture says about our salvation. Justification is the translation of the word 'dikaioo.' It basically means 'to show or declare righteous.' It is sometimes used to refer to someone being proven right. However, most of the time, in the New Testament, it is used in the sense of a believer being declared righteous by God. Gal 2:16 says, "...know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (NIV) This is a good summary to explain the doctrine of justification. The question which the doctrine of justification deals with is how do we obtain a right standing before God? Do we earn it by keeping the Law? Scripture says this is impossible. Rather, Scripture affirms over and over that we are justified (or declared righteous) through faith, grace, and the blood of Christ. The best modern illustration to use when explaining justification is that of a pardon. When a pardon is granted to someone they are declared free of all penalty. It does not say that they did not commit the crime. It does not say that they are a good person. It only says that there will be no penalty attached to the crime. This is what justification does for us. Because of what Christ did for us on the Cross, we do not have to pay the penalty. Justification does not make us righteous, it only declares us righteous. Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit which actually transforms us over time and makes us righteous. I'm looking forward to see other responses to this question. Tim Moran |
||||||
6731 | Did God create evil? | 3 John 1:11 | Morant61 | 5333 | ||
Greetings, This is a tough question. My short answer would be this: Evil is not a thing that can be created. Rather, evil is the choice to disobey God's law. Evil is a natural possibility where choices are really available. Tim Moran |
||||||
6732 | How many daughters did Lot have? | Gen 19:14 | Morant61 | 5243 | ||
Greetings, I believe Lot only had two daughters. In Jewish culture, you were considered married if you were bethrothed. Remember the case of Mary and Joseph! So the virgin daughers of Gen. 19:8 are the same 'married or bethrothed' daughers of Gen. 19:14. The fiances did not believe Lot and were left behind. The NIV actually translates Gen. 19:14 as "pledged to marry." I hope this helps. Tim Moran |
||||||
6733 | Elohim instead of God | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 5241 | ||
Hi, 'Elohim' is used in the Old Testament 2,606 times. In most of those occurances, it is translated 'God.' I don't know the exact number of times it is used to refer to God as opposed to an occasional other usage. In Gen. 1:1, 'Elohim' is the word that is translated 'God.' Tim Moran |
||||||
6734 | Jesus Himself said, I AM | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 5069 | ||
Greetings, I agree with your point. Most of these verses would have been better translated as simply "I am." I don't think the translators are wrong. I just think that they didn't choose the best option. If you don't like the NASB, KJV, and NKJV, you should really check out the NIV. I usually like the NIV, but they translate most of these verses, "If you don't believe I am who I claim to be." The one verse where I think the translators choose correctly is the John 18:5-8 passage. Here they asked if He was Jesus and He replied, "I am." In English, it makes sense in this case to add the "...He." I feel for translators. They do not have an easy job. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6735 | Trinity vs. Modalism | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5068 | ||
Hi Sharp! Thanks for your response and thanks for a very polite debate. I agree with you that Modalism and Trinitarinism can never be reconciled. However, I am concerned that Modalists cannot seem to accept the definition of trinity actually used by those who believe the doctrine. Saying that we believe in three gods, would be like me saying you don't believe that Jesus is God. This ruins the possibility of a productive debate, simply because we are not even debating the same thing. I have enjoyed our debate, but I think we are at an impasse. So, I think now would be a good time to conclude this thread. If you come up with something in the future, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. And, I'm sure that we will be interacting on other threads. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6736 | Trinity vs. Modalism | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5032 | ||
Hey Sharp! Thanks for the response! I still think that we are not on the same wavelength about our definitions. In your response, you wrote: "His prayers were not empty in any way however I cannot see one God praying to another God. By the word omnipotent only one can be omnipotent,if one has all power, all means all." Trinitarians absolutely do not believe in multiple Gods. I don't see one God praying to another God. I see God the Son praying to God the Father, but there is only one God. We are almost saying the same thing, except with one important difference. That difference is why modalism was declared a heresy by the early church councils. The difference simply is this: There is only one God eternally existent is Three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.) Modalism deinies the reality of the three Persons and turns them into modes only. But, we agree on the point that there is only one God. I don't have any problem with God the Son praying to God the Father, because God the Son was temporarily subordinate to God the Father during the incarnation (Phil. 2:5-11). Concerning your last point about receiving more than one Spirit, the doctrine of the Trinity says that the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. If you are filled with the Spirit, you have all Three, since They are One. P.S. - Can I get a little personal? It seems to me that Modalist really don't believe that Trinitarians only believe in one God. Most of the response I have gotten seem to spend most of the time trying to convince me that there is only one God. I already believe there is only one God. The point of debate is does the Trinity or Modalism best explain what we know about the nature of that one God. By the way, can you clarify this statement for me: "If Jesus was fully God and fully man, which he was, would not that flesh have to submit to the Spirit?" I'm not sure I understand your point. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6737 | Modes or Persons? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5031 | ||
Hi Jim: I checked 1 Tim. 3:16. The KJV translates the word 'phaneroo' as manifested. The NIV translates the word as appeared. It basically just means revealed in the flesh. The words 'mode' and 'persons' are theologicals terms used to describe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Modalists explain the unity of the Godhead by saying that there is only one God, who manifests Himself in three modes. Trinitarians explain the unity of the Godhead by saying that there is only one God, who eternally exists in three distinct 'Persons' within the Godhead. 'Persons' is not a great term, but no one has been able to come up with anything better. Have a great day! Tim Moran |
||||||
6738 | Human and Divine Natures in Conflict? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5007 | ||
Greetings Sharp! I just finished responding to RevC about this topic, so it is fresh in my mind. First of all, let me state again that you and I agree that there is only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity never has stated that there are three Gods. So, everything you quote in your response, I agree with. The only difference we have is whether or not the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit refer to real distinctions within the Godhead or only modes. This is an important distinction because trinitarians believe that anything that can be said about the Father's nature (omnipotent, all-knowing, eternal, ect...) can also be said about the Son's nature, since He is fully God. The doctrine of the Trinity says that all three members of the Godhead are co-equal and co-eternal. However, the point that I think best addresses our differences is your last few statements. You wrote: "Jesus prayed not my will but thine be done, would not that be in referance to the flesh, complete human nature, or two wills in the Godhead?" If I am understanding your position correctly, you believe that the human nature of Christ was unaware of the Divine nature. Therefore, when He prayed, he was just acting like any human, not realizing that He was actually God. Therefore, the prayers were meaningless and unreal. I believe, that during the incarnation, Jesus was fully aware of both of His natures. He was fully man and fully God, and He knew it. However, He was temporarily subordinate to the Father (Jn. 14:28, Phil. 2:5-11). Thus, His prayers were real. The incarnate, 2nd Person of the Godhead, was praying to the 1st Person of the Godhead. What do you think? God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6739 | Did One Mode Send the Other? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5006 | ||
Greetings RevC: I tried to send this yesterday, but my computer crashed! So, here we go again! You quote several passages here that say the same thing about the Father and the Son. I'm not going to go indepth into these passage, simply because we already agree about these passages. Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods. Therefore, anything that can be said about the nature of the Father (eternal, all-knowing, all-present, ect...) can also be said about the nature of Christ, since He is fully God. However, I would like to address the John 10 passage. This is an excellent passage regarding the debate that we are having. I agree with you that we should not press the neuter 'hen' too much. Most commentators believe that there is an indication here (based upon the neuter gender) that Jesus is talking about essential unity, not numerical unity. However, there is not enough linguistic evidence to press the point too much! However, I believe that the entire context of the passage illustrates my belief that the Father and the Son are co-equal members of the Trinity. Obviously, the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. They say so in John 10:33. However, there are also distinctions made between Christ and the Father in this passage. For instance, in John 10:36, Jesus says, "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" If Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only refer to offices or modes of operation within the Godhead, how can the Father set apart and send the Son? Then, notice in John 10:38 that Jesus wants them to "...know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." If modalism is true, how can the Father be 'in' the Son, and the Son 'in' the Father? 'In' is a preposition refering to location. I look forward to you response! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6740 | Conflict between the two natures? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 5005 | ||
Thank you for a thoughtful response! When I discuss or debate with someone, I am sincerely interested in interacting with them. Too often, those with differing views are unwilling to deal with the questions that others raise, and simply pile on more questions, without ever dealing with the issues that have been raised. We may never agree with one another, but we can share our reasons for our beliefs. The issue of prayer in an important one when it comes to understanding the differences between trinitarinism and modalism. You said, "By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray. If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God." Yet, in the incarnation, wasn't Jesus temporarily subordinate to the Father. In John 14:28, Jesus says that "...the Father is greater than I." Those who reject the Diety of Christ try to use this verse to deny that Jesus was fully God. We both agree that He was and is God. However, trinitarians believe that during the incarnation, Jesus was, as man, subordinate to the Father. Hence, it was legitimate for the Son to pray to the Father, while He was in the flesh. This fact does not deny the Deity of Christ, it only affirms both the fact of the incarnation and the reality of the prayer. Later, you wrote: "The choice is simple. Either Jesus as God prayed to the Father or Jesus as man prayed to the Father. If the former were true, then we have a form of subordinationism or Arianism in which one person in the Godhead is inferior to, not co-equal with, another person in the Godhead. This contradicts the biblical concept of one God, the full deity of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God. If the second alternative is correct, and we believe that it is, then no distinction of persons in the Godhead exists. The only distinction is between humanity and divinity, not between God and God." In your first alternative, I disagree with your definition of Arianism. Affirming that Jesus was subordinate to the Father during the incarnation is not the same as Arianism. Arianism taught that in terms of His essential essence, Christ was subordinate to the Father. Though we disagree, I appreciate a well thought out answer. My biggest problem with your response concerns the battle between the human and Divine wills of Christ. In my understanding of the nature of Christ, He was always fully aware of who He was. He was fully God and fully man. I don't see any evidence in Scripture that there ever was any kind of division or battle between these wills. Therefore, I don't accept that Jesus was praying to the Father, only as a human, not as God. Can you supply any evidence from Scripture that there was such a division between His nature's? I look forward to your reply! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 ] Next > Last [339] >> |