Results 81 - 100 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13548 | ||
It was I that asked the question of you. Please forgive me. Being quite unfamiliar with this forum, or even how to find my way around in it, I did not know that this was such a sore point for you and several others. I knew that my question was off the topic of the verse to which this thread is attached, but I did not know that it would raise such an immediate flurry of responses. I think I have found where I can "catch up" on some the discussion that has already gone on and perhaps even ask another question or two. Again, please accept my apologies. I certainly did not intend for all of this. Bob |
||||||
82 | Spurgeon's calvanistic contradiction? | Not Specified | RWC | 13545 | ||
I know this subject has been raised already, (see the thread started with the question "Is God responsible for evil? 02/27/01), but it seems to me that it was not sufficiently answered by those holding to a strong calvanistic point of view. So, if I may, I would like to raise the question again in slightly different form. C.H. Spurgeon wrote in his "Sum of Saving Knowledge," at least as I have had it quoted to me, "In eternity past, God did most wisely decree, for his own glory, whatever comes to pass in time: and in a most holy and infallible manner executes all his decrees, without being author of the sin of any creature." How can both of his assertions be true? How could God predetermine (that is, "in eternity past... decree")that "whatever comes to pass in time" (which must therefore included sin, since sin has come to pass in time), "without being author of the sin?" If God decreed that it must exist before before it existed, that would, by definition, make him the author of sin, would it not? Bob |
||||||
83 | Spurgeon's calvanistic contradiction? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13553 | ||
I know this subject has been raised already, (see the thread started with the question "Is God responsible for evil? 02/27/01), but it seems to me that it was not sufficiently answered by those holding to a strong calvanistic point of view. So, if I may, I would like to raise the question again in slightly different form. C.H. Spurgeon wrote in his "Sum of Saving Knowledge," at least as I have had it quoted to me, "In eternity past, God did most wisely decree, for his own glory, whatever comes to pass in time: and in a most holy and infallible manner executes all his decrees, without being author of the sin of any creature." How can both of his assertions be true? How could God predetermine (that is, "in eternity past... decree")that "whatever comes to pass in time" (which must therefore included sin, since sin has come to pass in time), "without being author of the sin?" If God decreed that it must exist before before it existed, that would, by definition, make him the author of sin, would it not? Bob |
||||||
84 | Thank you - and where should I look | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13488 | ||
Thank you sir! As I said in my original post, I wondered if my question my start a subject that did not fit with the verse to which it was attached, and that really was not my intent. But I did not expect such a flurry of respenses as it has generated either. Being rather unfamiliar with the vast majority of threads of discussion in this forum and the tools for finding my way around in here, and no doubt there are (and will be!) many more people in my position, perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to some of those discussions. Are there perhaps a couple of general questions that have discussed this or are they mostly linked to particular verses? Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Bob |
||||||
85 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13444 | ||
This question could start a totally different subject that has nothing to do with this verse, and that is not really my intent. But I need to ask you just the same. When you wrote, "Additionally, God judged in Christ all the sins of his elect people," are you really intending to imply that Jesus died _only_ for the elect? I understand that's not quite what you said, but it sounds as though that may be what you are thinking. If so, I would have some further questions for you. |
||||||
86 | What is your understanding of this? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13440 | ||
I would certainly like to know your thoughts on this. Please see my question "But what does it mean?" in response to the same message that you were replying to here. | ||||||
87 | But what does it mean? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13438 | ||
Please explain. You wrote: "The false teaching seems to have had something to do with the relationship between husbands and wives." How does their misunderstanding of this relationship (however misguided that may have been) culminate into women being saved or healed (NASB: preserved?) (Gk: from the word sozo) through or by (Gk: dia) bearing children? What is Paul meaning here? Surely he is not saying that the bearing of children plays any part in spiritual salvation for women, is he??!! Certainly I don't think that many believers (if any) would suggest that. But what is this verse talking about?? |
||||||
88 | Popular opinion? or Scripture? | 1 Tim 2:12 | RWC | 13428 | ||
You asked: "Do you have any scripture to defend a woman having authority over a man?", but in the context you were talking specifically about women in the office of deacon. You then quoted four verses from 1Tim. ch.3 (8, 10, 12, and 13). But you neglected to quote v.11. 1 Tim 3:11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. This verse is surrounded on both sides by Paul's discussion of the character qualifications for the office of deacon. You are correct in pointing out that Paul uses the maculine repeatedly in this discussion, which would be quite normal for him to do even when speaking of both genders. The maculine was used to include both men and women. The thing that I find most interesting here (and which you left out!) is that Paul very specifically included women in his discussion of deacons. (By the way, Paul did not, to the best of my knowledge, do this in any of his discussions of elders!) |
||||||
89 | Apostles4-2day | Bible general Archive 1 | RWC | 12884 | ||
May I suggest that yes there are both apostles and prophets in the church today, and that there have been since the "birth" of the church at Pentecost. That does not mean, however, that any of them of them have the same degree of authority as did the 12 (or 13) apostles appointed by Christ. I haven't time at the moment, but if you like, I can did dig out a study that I did on this a while ago and give some scriptural support for my view. In a nutshell, I have come to understand an apostle (other than when speaking of one of the 12 or Paul) to generally refer to a missionary, and more specifically a church-planting missionary. A prophet in the New Testament (again, except when referring to one of the 12 or Paul) seems to have a greatly reduced authority from an Old Testament prophet. A New Testament prophet (other than the 12 or Paul) seems to be one who would interpret a message rather than dictate it, and sometimes even interpret it wrong (as in Agabus on at least one occassion). I would appreciate any hearing other thoughts. |
||||||
90 | Define the word "cult". | Bible general Archive 1 | RWC | 12883 | ||
I realise that this question was asked quite some time ago now, but I would like to add a thought. I think that this word is one that must be used with great care because it does not have a very precise meaning that is commonly accepted. Different people will have significantly different understandings of what it means. When we use this word, we should also explain clearly what we are intending it to mean. For example, in an evangelical theological context, the word cult can be - and often is! - used to mean any identifiable religious group that does not agree with the basic or central beliefs of the individual who is using that word. In this context, evangelical Christians will regularly refer to Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) and Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) as cults. In an academic or liberal theological context, the word cult is often used to refer to any religious practises which involve sacrifice. In this context, almost all pagan religions (past and present) would have certain practises that would be called a cult. The rites and practises of the ancient Jewish Temple would be called a cult. In this context, note that it is usually the specific practises of sacrifice that are called a cult, and not the group of people. In psychological context, the word "cult" is often (though certainly not always!) used to refer to any group that would seem to practise techniques used for "brainwashing" or mind control. In this context, the particular religious or spiritual beliefs of the group have no relevance, but rather the definition seems to center on the social dynamics of the group in question. I hope that this is helpful to someone, and I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback that any of you might have. |
||||||
91 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5979 | ||
Please forgive me if I wasn't very clear. Or perhaps you didn't read my note thoroughly. Or maybe both are true. First of all, my understanding of the Scripture is very much Trinitarian. I was only trying to clarify exactly what the point of difference is between the Trinitarian view and the "oneness" view. If you have not already done so, please read the message to which I was responding. That might help to clear up some of the misunderstanding. Secondly, even though I agree with you in our view on the Trinity, I am not at all sure that I would consider a creedal statement to be an authoritative proof providing "a simple answer." There is certainly some value in knowing how the people of history have understood the Scriptures. But that is not the same thing as the Scripture itself. A "simple answer," in my estimation, would be a few quotes from Scripture (taken in their context, of course!) |
||||||
92 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5755 | ||
I first read this message several days ago and I started to write a response offline. Now I see that someone has already responded to you and said basically what I wanted to say, and in FAR fewer words! But please consider my comments below. The repeated stand of the trintarian point of view, if I understand it all, is that there is one (and only one!) God who exists in three persons, and who has done so for all of eternity. Without question, the emphatic point of Is. 44.6-8 (and many other verses like it) is that there is only one living and true God, maker of Heaven and Earth, and that there is none (absolutely none!) besides Him. You have two statements in your posting that seem to somehow miss that. The first is your statement, "If language means anything then by Myself" and alone mean that there was no other person present." You are making a jump from the statement "there is one God" (which is what that verse and the others like it actually says) to "therefore there can only be one Person." Secondly, your last question, ("If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would... he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead?") makes the same mistake of jumping from "one God" to "one person." These statements imply (or at least it seems to me that they imply) that the trinitarian view point must believe in a multiplicity of gods because it holds to a multiplicity of persons within the one true and living God. And that of course, does not represent the trinitarian point of view at all. Trinitarians hold to Is. 44.6-8 (and all of the other verses that claim monotheism!) just as strongly as you do. And trinitarians are just as strongly opposed to theologies and ideologies that teach polytheism as you are. In defending or explaining your "oneness" point of view, don't allow yourself to "set up a straw man" or otherwise miss the real issue. We agree, I think, that there is only one God. We agree, I think, that Jesus was and is both fully God and fully human at the same time. The crux of the issue, if I understand it, is the question: are there three separate individual persons or only one person who takes on three forms or roles? It occurs to me that this discussion is headed down a significantly different path than the current subject. If you would be kind enough to cross-post your note to which this message is responding (and then let me know), I will do the same. Perhaps post it as a note or a question attached to Is. 44.6 or some other verse of your choosing. Just put a line at the top of the new message explaining that it is a cross-posted message and where it had originally come from. If you will do that, save your response to my message until we have these both cross-posted, and then we can keep the discussion on the subject and attached to the verse (or principle) that we are actually discussing. |
||||||
93 | "desirable though wrong" and Jesus? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5244 | ||
I just wanted to follow up this posting with you here under the discussion on temptation. You defined temptation as being "exposed to that which you find desirable though wrong." James describes our temptation as being "dragged away and enticed by our own evil desire." But I do not think that this could be said for Jesus. He had no evil desires whatsoever. Now, I don't think that this is what you meant, but I thought I should just ask you to clarify what you think about how Jesus was tempted. | ||||||
94 | Could Jesus like Adam have sinned? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 5043 | ||
Well, now you have hit on the question that I asked regarding Heb. 4.15. If you have not already done so, you should read through the discussion on that verse. You may find that whole discussion quite intersting. (I have!) I hesitate to say that Jesus could actually have disobeyed, and yet, to be honest, I suppose that this is exactly what I tend to think. His temptations were, I am convinced, real temptations, of the same nature that Adam experienced. But His character (being God) was such that disobedience seems totally inconcieveable. Read through that discussion, and let know your comments. |
||||||
95 | What does "emptied Himself" really mean | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 4979 | ||
Yes, thank you for making the point about Jesus' humanity being like Adam's (and Eve's!) prior to their initial sin. That is how I have come to understand this as well, but I didn't make that clear (at least in that posting). Jesus did not and does not have a sin nature. And His fellowship with God must have been very similar indeed to that experienced by Adam and Eve prior to sin entering the human race. | ||||||
96 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4907 | ||
Just brief reply. I have posted a question under the verse that we now seem to be discussing (Phil. 2.7). It might be good if you could copy your note above and make it a response to the question on that verse. I think that this is a pretty good explanation. I do not believe that Jesus' divinity was in any way reduced by His becoming a human being. I am just wondering if (and even of the opinion that) Jesus had set aside the use of the power that is His because of Who He is. (See my question on Phil. 2.7 for a little further expanation.) |
||||||
97 | What does "emptied Himself" really mean | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 4905 | ||
What does "emptied Himself" really mean? (This question comes from a discussion on Heb. 4.15) I tend to think that when Jesus was incarnated (became a human being) that He set aside the _use_ of most (if not all) of His divine power. That does not mean that He was any less divine, but simply that He chose not to use the power and ability that was His. I think that when He became a human being, He made Himself completely dependant upon the Holy Spirit and that the works that He did were, for the most part at least and perhaps even totally, done in the power of the Holy Spirit. He is, after all, our example. I am convinced that Jesus was and is the Living God wrapped in humanity. At no time did He cease to be God. But it seems to me that in order for Him to truely experience life as a human being requires that He must have set aside (not used) most if not all of His own powers and abilities. That is how He could experience real hunger. That is how He could experience real fatigue. That is how He could experience real pain. That is why we can find Jesus not knowing certain things. And that is why we can find Jesus being truely tempted (and thus the discussion on Heb. 4.15). I am not so convinced that this view is correct that I would say that it was a definite doctrine (teaching) of the Scripture. But I _tend_ toward thinking that this might well be the truth. Your comments and or subsequent questions would be very much appreciated. |
||||||
98 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4767 | ||
I agree with you completely that Jesus had no inward desire or inclination to sin. I am not so sure that the reason He did not sin when He was tempted is because of the fact that He was (and is) God. To avoid repetition, please see the note from Reformer Joe ("I hold that the reason for his temptation...") and my reply ("Hmmm... When God created humans, He made...") Your comments would be appreciated. | ||||||
99 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4766 | ||
Hmmm.... When God created humans, He made us significantly different from the rest of the animal world: He gave us the ability to make choices (the ability to exercise will). Whether that will is free or not or to what degree it might be free we will leave for another discussion! That ability to exercise will is the primary ingredient in what God wants most from us: love (agape love!). In order to love with God's kind of love (agape), we need to have BOTH the ability AND the opportunity. If either of those two things are removed, then we cannot love with God's love. And, as you said in part at least, that is precisely what God did in the Garden: He gave Adam and Eve both the ability to choose and the opportunity to choose. This brings me back to this discussion, and to the issue with which I wrestle. There is no doubt that Jesus had the opportunity to sin. He was tempted (externally) in every way that we are. But did He have the ability to do anything other than obey? If not, how does that qualify as an act of obedience or real temptation? The only explanation that I have been able to come up, thus far at least, is that when Jesus became a human being, He set aside all of His divine nature (not character, but power and abilities - see Php. 2.6-8 where we are told that Christ "emptied Himself" in order to prove His obedience) and became totally dependant upon the Holy Spirit, just as we are. In so doing, I wonder if Jesus was just as capable of disobeying as Adam had been. And yet, suggesting that this might be true sounds like it might be blasphemous! Thus my struggle! |
||||||
100 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4761 | ||
I think I can buy that. As you (and others in this discussion) have suggested, there seems to be two different kinds of temptation: internal (coming from within us) and external (originating in our circumstances or surroundings). As I understand it, Jesus was never dragged away and enticed by His own evil desires (as it says in James): He had none. His temptations were always external and never internal. I also believe that this was true for Adam and Eve, at least up until they had disobeyed the first time. I suppose that it should also be said that this does not mean that Jesus' temptations were any easier to deal with (humanly speaking), since He bore the full weight of _all_ His temptations by resisting them completely, even to the point of death. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |