§ 4. I think it certain, that seeing the
miracles of Christ were done, for three years and a half, so publicly
all over Judea; and seeing there was such violent opposition there, so
soon after, against the Christians; if the matters of fact had been
false, they would have been denied by the Jews generally; and if this
had been the case, we should have known it. The Jews afterwards would
much more have denied them; which it is evident they did not. If they
had, they would have been also denied by the heathens who wrote against
the Christians. But they were not denied. It is impossible that the
whole world should have turned Christian, in three hundred years after
the facts were so publicly done, if they had been generally false. If
the Jews had denied the matters of fact at first, they would undoubtedly
have denied them at this day, seeing they are so tenacious of the
traditions of their fathers. Christ’s resurrection was openly published
within a few days after his death, on the day of Pentecost. It is
undoubted, that the number of the Christians increased every where
exceedingly from that time; so that a considerable alteration was
speedily made by it in the face of the world. Whether the matters of
fact were written or no, they were universally talked of. The conversion
of the Roman empire to the Christian religion, was the most remarkable
thing that ever happened among the nations of the world; and it would be
unaccountable that it should have happened upon the story of a few
obscure men, without inquiring into the matters related.
| 4995
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Theistic Evolutionism: Hybrid or Hyjinx?
|
on: May 15, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
|
All
of the discussions between Christians and science that I can find are a
couple years old and end there. Science is always coming up with
answers on "how life began" and most life started from a bunch of
chemicals. . . a crude form of RNA is what's posted on FOX news today.
How do we as Christians handle these things? Just continue to ignore
science, or let it in and say "it doesn't matter HOW God created the
world or us, but what matters is that HE is the one who did it"?
College professors really gave my faith a beating, and at 28 years old
I'm trying to struggle through the questions and get back to God no
matter what. This is a tough one for me though, I have to admit.
Hi
Lauren... welcome to the forums... the determinism of evolution is like
having a spirit of death over our land... its like walking around in
the midst of a bunch of zombies. I believe this is why we have sooooo
much depression and suicide. First of all i am glad you are washing this
stuff out of your brain! Because when things get tough and you are
tempted to so much sorrow that it turns you in to your faith in God and
it is not under the compulsion of Him as the cause then there is going
to be so much confusion because without a cause then emotion and
uncertainty will rule.Because if there is no cause then there is no
effect and there is no end to look forward to or to hope in.... these
are all connected to our view of everything. If God created from
nothing then He deserves the praise for all that He has brought into
existence and we can be sure that He will bring it to a good end in His
glorifying of His goodness and pleasure in the event and the thing. If
there is anything that exist that does not have a cause then there is no
hope of finding a resolution in the end. This kind of thinking
of evolutionary determinism is built on chance and fate.... everything
ends in itself. Nothing is certain.So that life is what we feel ..what
we see here and now. This is the ultimate way to boredom and
frustration. It is a lack of self awareness that we draw our knowledge
of who we are from the knowledge of God of who He has said He knows who
He is. Without that knowledge we are left to think of ourselves as a
mass of flesh. In this way we would never have a true self image... it
would be like a big dream. But God has revealed Himself as the beginning
of all things and the end of all things so that in seeing Him in all
things we will see our place in His purpose for the existence of all
things. That is the beginning of finding our hope and t he knowledge
that we have a hope in the future that will never change. Lauren...
receiving evolution into our thinking without any argument is like
taking poison but the poison multiplies in us as we find our confidence
in this world. In the end we will grieve... check out Ecclesiastes. It
even affected Solomon the wisest man in the world ... when he said "all
is vanity"...
| 4996
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: predestination
|
on: May 15, 2009, 10:28:38 AM
|
I
agree with most of what has been proported about predesination on this
site. My problem of this issue and preordination and sovernty is about
God authoring sin. To number my days or your days to have written them
down before the foundation of the world means that God has written that
one may take an others life. God would then have preordained that a
child will be aborted. What is once a grievious sin is now notheing
less that God's will in action.
Actually the lack of
determinism creates the illusion that a person who is under great
temptation to a vice so that he gives into the drink is so much under
the power of the drink that he cannot refuse it. Thats why theres not
going to be any alcoholism in the new heaven and new earth. And yet
there will be determinism of good in real worth. It was good that God
decreed the fall and yet did not tempt man to sin. If God had not
ordered the fall then the garden beauty would be blamed for mans giving
into temptation. But the cause for sinning was in man before he chose to
eat the apple... if not then man could not be free to sin. The apple
would have been the cause... but man is always under some kind of
compulsion to do as he does. If he had no prior motive to chose to sin
then there would be no cause of his choosing. If there is no cause of
choosing then there is nothing that exist. And if there is nothing that
exist .. since all things exist by the will of God... then where do we
find the blame to fall? In the amount of resistance to sin? If there is a
good amount of positive resistance but on the other side there is a
good amount of negative resistance... and then in giving into the
temptation does a man get credit for the positive resistance? Is he
worthy of a good try? So we see that every choice has a necessity. In
this way there is good determinism.
|
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
4997
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 15, 2009, 10:12:08 AM
|
Just
like the Pharisees... its so easy for us to rationalize so that we hold
two opposing position and think that we are presenting the truth. I
know that its much easier for us to judge the philanthropist motives in
the sense of calling question to the goodness in the action than it is
for us to be convinced that the crime committed was from an evil motive.
And i suppose that giving of ones resources... his time.. his life for a
cause has some good in it... but to attribute that to Satan would be
wrong even if it was not done for spiritual reasons.
Yes,
and to attribute Jesus' words to the purpose of deceiving is much the
same as equating his purpose with the one who is the Father of Lies,
IMHO.
Here you have the Son of God who was healing people
of disease ... bringing salvation in a spiritual healing... so that He
was well liked by the crowds... and its like the Pharisees coming with a
squirt gun and Jesus comes with the power of an atomic bomb... Their
claim that Jesus being the great Physician was bringing death and
destruction and their cold religion would change society.... wow... they
be crazy! do the math.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
4998
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 15, 2009, 09:59:33 AM
|
The purpose of the miracles is first and foremost to establish Jesus's authority. From Authority comes Credibility.
We
have established from vv. 36 and 64 that some had seen Jesus's miracles
and yet did believe. Perhaps, as with Matthew 12:24, they thought "It
is through Beelzeboul the Prince of Demons that he makes Bread, and now
wishes to seduce us into ritual cannibalism".
You ask, "Why
did he not correct them?" If they had seen the miracles and did not
believe, how much more effort does is Jesus morally required to give to a
hostile audience? At what point do they receivers of the message
have to take responsibility to carefully consider the message and the
authority of the messenger?
22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute,
and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the
people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But
when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d]
the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25Jesus
knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against
itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against
itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided
against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out
demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then,
they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of
God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Matthew 12
Notice
that Jesus corrects their misunderstanding. Can you provide one
example where someone misunderstands Jesus and he (or the author of the
gospel) does not correct that misunderstanding?
Just
like the Pharisees... its so easy for us to rationalize so that we hold
two opposing position and think that we are presenting the truth. I
know that its much easier for us to judge the philanthropist motives in
the sense of calling question to the goodness in the action than it is
for us to be convinced that the crime committed was from an evil motive.
And i suppose that giving of ones resources... his time.. his life for a
cause has some good in it... but to attribute that to Satan would be
wrong even if it was not done for spiritual reasons.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
4999
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 15, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
|
If they did not correctly understand him, then why did he not correct them?
The purpose of the miracles is first and foremost to establish Jesus's authority. From Authority comes Credibility. We
have established from vv. 36 and 64 that some had seen Jesus's miracles
and yet did believe. Perhaps, as with Matthew 12:24, they thought "It
is through Beelzeboul the Prince of Demons that he makes Bread, and now
wishes to seduce us into ritual cannibalism". You ask, "Why
did he not correct them?" If they had seen the miracles and did not
believe, how much more effort does is Jesus morally required to give to a
hostile audience? At what point do they receivers of the message
have to take responsibility to carefully consider the message and the
authority of the messenger?
I do not accept the
premise that there is equal effort in human pursuit with Gods revealing.
This is why i do not think that the time spent in the pursuit of
understanding always equals the amount of finding that level of remedy.
The christian faith is a decreasing of self fulfillment in finding the
understanding of truth... for where there is much knowledge there is
much grief. Or I believed ... i was stretch in believing there fore I
said ... i am greatly afflicted. A good picture would be that we carry
this big open sore of sin and pain... but we dont know the kind, the
depth, the difference in relation to Gods holiness until we have enough
knowledge to see how it holds us down. Maybe at the end of gaining much
knowledge we become consumed in the vastness of His mystery.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5005
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: A question about the bride
|
on: May 13, 2009, 04:39:35 PM
|
MyBigGod,
I
wasn't lecturing anybody on anything. I also didn't command you to do
anything. What I did was to invite you to share your interpretation on a
scripture that seems to contradict what you are professing to believe.
I then explained why I have rejected said belief. Because I believe
the Word of God is congruent and infallible, but our understanding of it
is not.
Ok, hopefully by answering your question, you will answer mine.
As
I understand it. Our sin separated us from God. All sin from all men
from all time was placed on Christ at the cross. Jesus paid the
punishment for our sins. Making it possible for the relationship
between us and God to be restored. Though we are dead in our sins,
because God desires that all men to be saved, Holy Spirit allows us to
respond to the convicting power of God. But it is still our choice.
God
created each and every one of us with a freewill, and he won't violate
that. Having a choice does not mean that we add to the work of
Salvation.
Having a choice is NOT works.
Now, I know you disagree with what I just said, but that is as simply put as I can make it.
With
that being said, NOW will you finally get around to shareing your
interpretation of the scripture that you have been ignoring?
What is your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:20-22?
Please Mr. Sensitive?
Joshua David
This
is talking about a person who has the correct knowledge of the faith
and has shown signs of being saved by withdrawing from the old
relationships and old sins that he once was involved in but he did not
have saving knowledge nor was he able in himself to have the power to
overcome the temptations. So he apostatized... the word is defeated...
which means that they no longer acknowledged Christ as the Lord and
Savior. The words in the Greek like "know" and the grammar ... its
"correct knowledge" about Christ. In other words they had all the rite
answers. And the escaping is fleeing from the world... but what gives
it away is the word defeated. Its apostatizing. The proverb a dog
returns to his vomit... a dog is a dog ....the word "return" is "given
up to judgment"... not just your supposed loss of salvation....and a pig
is a pig... no difference in the identity. There was no life there in
the first place.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5006
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 13, 2009, 01:01:38 PM
|
In
other words, one who commits a mortal sin cuts himself off from the
grace of God. However, such is not a permanent condition. All mortal
sins can be forgiven. With a conversion of heart through the
Sacrament of Confession, the sinner can seek God's mercy and reinstate
the state of grace that was previously obtained through the Sacrament of
Baptism.
To be denied entry into the Kingdom of God, the sinner must:
1. Commit one or more sins of a grave matter;
2. Have full knowledge that the sin(s) is a mortal sin;
3. Voluntarily consent to commit the sin;
4. Reject the grace of God;
5. Reject the mercy of God by refusing to confess his sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
In
the example you gave, mybigGod, the person is in danger of being
condemned to hell if he meets these five conditions. Whether that
person's fate will be depends on the judgement and mercy of God.
Wow...
where do i start? Sounds like to me that someone has been using the
authority that God has as a tool. Thank God ... that i can look mr
catholic in the face and say according to his own view of sin then... i
dont say this litely.... i just want to mean business since our
confession from our lips will bring our own destruction... then
according to the blame and the confusion of a proof of righteousness...
its more simplified if we just ask God to show us who is rite? I mean if
we can ask God to show us if He is who He says He is a matter of
salvation...dont you think it is proper to hold God to what He says
about Himself ...so that if we are harboring any ill and false views of
Him then it matters that He must show himself to us... now... my
understanding of these truths in looking at what you just put down is
that i would bring judgment on my own head in these matters of blame and
praiseworthiness... i am wondering if through this kind of experience
of finding my blame to be beyond the pain of this life... if i would
then give Christ all the responsibility in the experience. So this is
why i do pray this prayer a lot... cause i know that the blame is no
longer on me and so i am confident that i will not find so much pain
that i would turn away. Heres the prayer.... i would encourage you to
put your righteousness where your prayers would be and pray this prayer
with your own understanding of blame and forgiveness.. I am sure you
will end up on my side. Its time to stop playing. Psalm 137 1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. 2 There on the poplars we hung our harps, 3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" 4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land? 5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill .
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy. 7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!" 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- 9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. 
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5009
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 13, 2009, 10:16:56 AM
|
Oh
man . . . just the man. . . . i had a
question to ask of you. What happens if you sin. . . i
mean of commission. . . . and then you die in or by
accident of some kind. . . so that you are not able to
receive the Eucharist before you die?
Are you speaking of unconfessed mortal or venial sins, mybigGod?
Lets
go for mortal sins ...they are all mortal ... i dont really want to
commit a falsehood ... lets say in my sight i had a couple that day...in
Gods site it was like without number... but i wasnt feelin the weight
of them.... sorry... i be dead....what say you?...
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5010
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: predestination
|
on: May 12, 2009, 05:09:22 PM
|
Thor, allow me to begin with the thought you ended with here:
Predestining
is what happen after you are saved (to God's promises and conform to
the image of Christ), never before. If you read Paul with that in mind
then you will understand. If you are trusting in predestination instead of Christ, then you are trusting a false gospel and are not saved at all, just like the Galatians.
Thor
If you are trusting in predestination instead of Christ!?!
What you have here, Thor, is the strawman to end all strawmen. No one
(and I mean no one) who is reformed and has even a half-way decent
understanding of the biblical concept of "predestination" believes in
what you just described.
We believe that it is Christ and him alone which saves, and not our "belief" in the means or the modus operandi by which God brings it about.
(Our belief springs from Christ's saving act on our behalves, and is the result not the cause of our salvation).
And
that statement proves what I have been saying about the the reform
movement; who has corrupted the Gospel message as it was presented by
Scripture, Christ, the 1st century church and early church Fathers
(before 4th century Augustine). If you BELIEVE in Christ Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Note
that Paul never said: “if you are concerned about your salvation you
must have been predestined to be saved'. The the keeper of the prison
was told to BELIEVE ON JESUS...not “you are already saved' just accepted
it or just be aware of it. Jesus' Sacrifice Applies ONLY when
someone believe (trusts fully in Him) If you have studied the Temple
and the Sacrifice system in the Bible to understand God , then you will
know that personal faith, repentance, demonstrated by action IS
necessary for God's forgiveness. Note that the verse tell us to do
something, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” ...or is my
understanding of the English language bad?
God's GRACE IS
NOT, GOD choosing us for salvation! GOD'S GRACE IS sending Jesus to die
for WHOSOEVER BELIEVES on Him! ...big difference! The
Reform movement replaces “faith in Christ to be saved” with “faith in
being predestined to believe in Christ, to be saved. This is what they
call God's grace) Technically if God predestines you to be
saved you wouldn't have to hear the Gospel, because it's already a done
deal. But Paul thinks people will be lost (how could they if they were
predestined?) if they don't hear the Gospel. listen; Th 2:14
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in
Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of
your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 1Th 2:15 Who
both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted
us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 1Th 2:16
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill
up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Note
if Paul is stopped from preaching to the gentiles then the gentiles
won't hear and be saved. If the gentiles were predestined then it
wouldn't matter (Paul would think 'oh well, I guess God never intended
for them to be saved) except Paul thinks it was a big deal and a very
bad sin to resist the spread of the Gospel. What's at stake? The souls of people if they are not allowed to hear and believe just a Scripture tells us.
Also, when you say that "Predestining is what happens after
you are saved" demonstrates that not only do you not have a very clear
picture of the biblical concept of "predestination," you are also a
little shaky on such concepts as cause-and-effect and logical
continuity. The bible makes it plain that saving faith is a gift, not
something we manufacture within ourselves in order to qualify for the
gift. We chose God because he first chose us. However it may have
appeared to your senses at the time, your spirit was called forth from
death to life and then you responded to the call. (Lazarus would
obviously first have had to been made alive before he could've stepped
forth from the tomb).
Paul doesn't use the word predestine the way the ex-pagan non-Jewish, Augustine uses the word. What
is predestined is God's plan for believers, i.e., “we are predestined
IN Christ”...not as most people misread: predestined TO BE IN Christ.
There is no future tense. If Paul even thought his own salvation was a sure thing guaranteed by predestination, Paul would never have said Php
3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency
of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the
loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, WHAT?...MAY
WIN CHRIST? I thought Paul was an apostle and his calling was a SURE
sign of his guaranteed Chosen-ness? I thought he had already won Christ? How
does that argument go? If you're worried about being saved, then the
concern is a sign that you are saved? If a Muslim is concern about
going to heaven then that's a positive sign that he IS going to heaven;
martyrdom or not. If you're concerned about passing your math test then that's sign you have passed!!?? ...poor logic! You probability flunked and you're worried because you know something IS not right! Paul continues: Php
3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is
of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith: Php 3:10 That I may know
him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his
sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Again...Paul says, ”MAY KNOW” Php 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Php
3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already
perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also
I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Reinforcing the doubt, Paul
uses the IF word. Not any “for sure” word or an absolute guarantee word,
which Calvin would have used, because he believed he was the
predestined Elect...or so he thought. Maybe Calvin didn't read the
Scripture right, and he goofed up a lot of people with his false
interpretation. Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to
have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which
are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, Php 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Whoa
nellie! “Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended...” was Paul
being honest or making humble talk? Calvin would say: Yes we have
apprehended because God chose us; however we really don't know for sure
until Christ returns (but then it's too late if we hadn't apprehended)
or we die and find out we have apprehended, or wake up in Hell, smelling
the smoke and then pretty much figure game over! So you never know
your saved until you know. Yes Paul is talking about persevering, but not for the same reason Calvin used. We are saved by persevering in our faith and daily walk according to Jesus and Paul. But Calvin says the perseverance is a SIGN that we were saved all along, ...except you don't really know until the end. On the other hand if you know you have repented, believed in and received Christ and trust in Him with your whole heart just as God's Word tells us to, then you know that God will keep His Word and saved you. Calvin trusts in predestination...actually hopes in it...that you're somehow included. The
Bible tells us to believe in Christ and that faith in Christ saves
us...because God always keeps His Word when His gives us a choice.
|
5013
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Questions
|
on: May 12, 2009, 04:31:45 PM
|
why do you think that God was so gracious to Solomon?
predesination? ha ha .
Yes
and the NT also says that the OT narrative is for us to learn... in
light of the history of Redemption... how God spoke as an example in a
doctrinal sense as showing the reality of His saving work through the ot
characters. And Solomon who was a chosen son was also a wayward son...
who live the majority of his life looking like a pagan. And yet Gods
grace was greater than Solomons sin. So that we can see in Solomon there
will be times in our lives where sin will be much bigger than we
thought that we had grown past. And in struggling we will have many
individual temptations and temptations to lose our ground and our
progress. We will experience a hardness to sin. But if God can keep a
man like Solomon who went to greater depths of disobedience than most of
the other kings ... then we can be sure that its God who has designed
it for us to persevere in this life and He holds us up when we fail even
in a great way. Solomon is the most convincing to me that salvation is
of God.
|
 Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5014
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Questions
|
on: May 12, 2009, 04:19:37 PM
|
Why did God forbid the sound of tools on the worship site? Obviously every thing was joined together like a puzzle.
In
my opinion He wanted to show that allthings in the will of God fit
together. Obviously the were milled at the quarry to exacting
peramiters, but at the temple mount all fit together perfectly.
Its
interesting that the text mentions the sound of the iron banging
together.... and that the quarry was not at the temple site.... and also
that there was nothing spoken about the kind of method there would be
to build the temple in lite of the sound of the tools. I am thinking
that it could be a metaphor in the sense that God does not require work
in order to be in the presence of the Holy of Holies. This was a holy
site... set apart for the Lord. Maybe the conduct was to be different. I
mean there is also a reason as well as the sound of the tools ... for
no tool to be used to put the temple together. In some ways this whole
paradigm is directly opposite to mans confidence in his own skill and
craft... and over and over again God declares that its not in mans
horses but in the power of God. Unless the Lord builds the house ... the
builders labor in vain... unless the Lord watches over the it ... the
watchmen stand watch in vain... not mans craft and Gods sovereignty. So
that God alone gets the glory... and men will learn to pray to Him in
complete dependence... casting all of their care on Him.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5015
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Questions
|
on: May 12, 2009, 04:08:16 PM
|
Is
not having a temple... or having a king who has idols an excuse for the
people to have idols? The way these verses are worded there seems to
be an acknowledgment with these circumstances that this declining is
inevitable.
My answer would point to Daniel and his friends who refused to serve the kings idols.
Since
the bible is not an history book.... is it possible that Daniel who was
declared to be blameless as to not bowing down to the King or partaking
in the culture of the king was not righteous in any way different than
Solomon? Even David who was declared to be a man after Gods own heart...
who had this history written about him for the sake of pointing out
that his goodness was not because of his own righteousness but because
of how he worshiped God and did not lift up an idol before the Lord. His
goodness was in the righteousness of Christ. Is it possible for any man
to not entertain some kind of idol worship... not necessarily one made
of stone?
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5019
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Questions
|
on: May 12, 2009, 10:39:37 AM
|
To
number one, remember the Israelites in the Exodus. They consistantly
turned to idols almost as soon as Moses and Aaron turned around...
In
regard to number two, the prayer in which Solomon was granted wisdom
was, in my opinion, like a "wish" sort of Prayer. If we look a few
verses back God said:
That night God appeared to Solomon and said to him, "Ask for whatever you want me to give you."
Which
he was referring to that particular moment, what do you want solomon.
In turn he could've said, again at that moment, destroy my enemies...but
instead said wisdom. Any prayer against his enemies before or after
that was not in relation and therefore not disobedient.
thats my take...
Yes...i
think that even tho Solomon had not taken the lives of so many men as
David had done... yet he wasnt all together different in his approach as
David. It would seem that since Solomon had brought Idols into
his own house that his prayers would have brought judgment on his own
house... why do you think that God was so gracious to Solomon?
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5020
|
Forums / Main Forum / Questions
|
on: May 12, 2009, 10:08:25 AM
|
|
I thought i might start a thread where we
could bring questions and then maybe we could learn something from each
other. Most of the questions i will bring are from my hours of listening
to the scripture on tape. Ok...
I got three questions....
1 Kings 3
2
The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because
a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the LORD. 3 Solomon
showed his love for the LORD by walking according to the statutes of his
father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on
the high places.
Ok heres the first ... Is not having a
temple... or having a king who has idols an excuse for the people to
have idols? The way these verses are worded there seems to be an
acknowledgment with these circumstances that this declining is
inevitable.
2 Chronicles 1:11
God said to Solomon, "Since
this is your heart's desire and you have not asked for wealth, riches or
honor, nor for the death of your enemies, and since you have not asked
for a long life but for wisdom and knowledge to govern my people over
whom I have made you king,
2 Chronicles 6
compared 23. then hear
from heaven and act. Judge between your servants, repaying the guilty by
bringing down on his own head what he has done. Declare the innocent
not guilty and so establish his innocence.
34 "When your people go
to war against their enemies, wherever you send them, and when they pray
to you toward this city you have chosen and the temple I have built for
your Name, 35 then hear from heaven their prayer and their plea, and
uphold their cause.
2 Here Solomon is praying against the
wicked even when God had said that He did not do as his father David had
done... Was Solomon disobedient?
1 Kings 6:7
In building the
temple, only blocks dressed at the quarry were used, and no hammer,
chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was
being built.
3 Why did God forbid the sound of tools on the worship site? Obviously every thing was joined together like a puzzle.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5021
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: A question about the bride
|
on: May 08, 2009, 04:42:46 PM
|
MyBigGod,
I
wasn't lecturing anybody on anything. I also didn't command you to do
anything. What I did was to invite you to share your interpretation on a
scripture that seems to contradict what you are professing to believe.
I then explained why I have rejected said belief. Because I believe
the Word of God is congruent and infallible, but our understanding of it
is not.
Ok, hopefully by answering your question, you will answer mine.
As
I understand it. Our sin separated us from God. All sin from all men
from all time was placed on Christ at the cross. Jesus paid the
punishment for our sins. Making it possible for the relationship
between us and God to be restored. Though we are dead in our sins,
because God desires that all men to be saved, Holy Spirit allows us to
respond to the convicting power of God. But it is still our choice.
God
created each and every one of us with a freewill, and he won't violate
that. Having a choice does not mean that we add to the work of
Salvation.
Having a choice is NOT works.
Now, I know you disagree with what I just said, but that is as simply put as I can make it.
With
that being said, NOW will you finally get around to shareing your
interpretation of the scripture that you have been ignoring?
What is your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:20-22?
Please Mr. Sensitive?
Joshua David
Let me go cry awhile and i will get back to you.... hehe got to do something.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5023
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: If God had destroyed Eve\Satan on the first sin
|
on: May 08, 2009, 03:45:01 PM
|
(Though her breaking the command did show that the source she was created from, Adam, was flawed--inclined to sin.)
The
ability to choose is hardly a flaw. He was not designed to sin. At
the end of the sixth day all was very good, not flawed.
Right
ltl. The ability to choose is not a flaw. Choosing apart from the
will of God is the flaw, and the inclination to do that was evident,
primarily in Eve and then in Adam. Everything that God creates
is "very good" and even more than that -- perfect. But when God said in
Gen 1:31 that all He had made was very good, we have to realize that He
meant "all was very good" for the purpose for which He created it.And Paul states God's purpose for creating Adam very directly in Rom 11:32 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (NIV)beacon2
We
know that God made man righteous. Man had no inclination to disobey.
And if we think about that choice ... we must conclude that it was a
free choice. The question is ... how can a person choose to disobey
without any prior inclination to disobey? We cannot comprehend the kind
of situation Adam was in being completely righteous. We cannot
understand that kind of moral ability. The confession states that man
was made with a will that was mutable.It was subject to change... strong
... weak. But at the same time God created man with the ability to obey
His commands and man was required to obey them completely. Because
there was no reason for man to disobey. Man did not even understand
evil... in the sense that it existed ... not in the sense of being
familiar with its bondage. Evidently if man had passed the test to not
eat of the tree then He would have known about evil... in being forever
righteous. The great mystery is that man had a free choice... on the one
hand to believe God and on the other hand to believe Satan...but with
the inclination to choose to believe God... Why did man choose Satan?...
the great mystery.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5024
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: A question about the bride
|
on: May 08, 2009, 02:06:42 PM
|
Hello everyone, Don't
worry, I didn't feel neglected, and I realize that this flies in the
face of what almost every single christian has been taught. And I also
understand that you can't build a theology on just one or two parables. What
I am saying is that their are plenty of scriptures that caution us to
watch and pray. To caution us against just taking our walk with God for
granted. That is not to say that we can't feel secure in our
Salvation. What I am trying to say is that we all need to take a
look at what we believe and to constantly be comparing them to to the
word. Just because that is what we have been taught all of our lives
doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. And I also know that
it is possible to go into each and every parable and nit pick it apart, (
not that I am saying that anyone here is doing that 
) even I could do that and ultimately argue any viewpoint that I
choose. What I am trying to do is to present my understanding of The
Grace of Salvation, and the importance of living with an eternal
prespective. I have shared this view with some of my real life
friends and most of them have a real problem with it because it looks
like on the onset that I am trying to set up a second class of
Christian, but that isn't my goal at all. Most Christians that tell me that have told me the same thing that Jawood told me.
Once
you are saved, your in. There is no rejection or walking away. Anyone
who tells you they "walked away" never knew the truth to begin with.
And
I understand that sentiment. It makes it nice and simple. Jaywood,
please understand that I hold these people up in the highest of regard,
in their love for God, and in their walk with God, as well as their
knowledge of the scriptures, so please don't take offense to this. And
I know that this is extreamly rare on forums, but I am not even
claiming to be right. I understand that while the Word of God is
infallible, I am not by any means. What I have done is to take my
understanding of the scripture and to try to 'make all the pieces fit'
even if it goes against what I have been taught. Because I have sat
under some amazing bible teachers, I have sat under some powerful men of
God, but since I have never sat under Jesus himself, then I have never
sat under an infallible Man of God. If I read a scripture that
seems to contridict what I believe, I chew on it. I wrestle with it. I
struggle in my mind to make it fit. If I can't, then I change what I
believe. That has led me to change my mind on a few things I have been
taught. The doctrine of 'Eternal Security' is one of those doctrines
that I have at times in my life believed, then changed my mind on it,
then changed back and forth. All the time refining my beliefs. Jawood, I would ask you a question. What is your thoughts on what I wrote earlier addressing this?
2 Peter 2:20-22 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by
knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it
and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the
beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the
way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs
on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the
proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"and, "A sow that is
washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud. " (
This scripture explains it better than any other. To escape the
corruption of this world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can
only refer to Saved Christians. You can't escape the corruption of
this world without being filled with the Holy Spirit. If these
Christians are still SAVED, they how are they worse off at the end then
they were at the beginning? If they are still SAVED, then how would it
have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness?
Also to turn their backs on the sacred command speaks of rejection, not
drifting away. )
This was one of those scriptures that I
wrestled with the most. 'To escape the corruption of this World by
knowing our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ' is a phrase that I see MUST
refer to a person that is saved. We cannot escape the corruption on our
own apart from Holy Spirit. If we could, then Jesus died in vain. So
if this refers to someone who is saved, and it is impossible for them to
lose that salvation, then in what context can they ever be considered
worse off than they were before they knew the truth? Even if they lost
every reward and entered Heaven a desitute beggar, they would be much,
much, much better off than the most righteous of the sinners of Hell. But
if you consider the possibility that it is possible to reject your
Salvation even after you recieve it... then the scripture makes sense.
They would be worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
Because they will be judge more harshly than those who never recieved
it to begin with. I am not saying that if they are not part of
the bride they lose their Salvation. I am not saying that at all. What
I am saying is that the Grace of God will cover even those who have
neglected their walk with him. As it says in 2 Tim. If we deny him, he
will deny us. (rejection) If we are faithless, HE is still Faithful,
for he cannot deny himself. Which means your Salvation is secure as
long as you do not deny him. And does that make sense? It does if you
believe that all of our sins, past, present and future was placed on
Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvery. When it comes to our Salvation,
we can only humbly accept it, or arrogantly reject it. BUT..... when it
come to our walk with him... that is a different story all together.
And the scriptures bear this out. We can neglect our walk with
him. And if we do so, we risk not being in the bride of Christ. Why
else would all those scriptures that warn us against drifting away, or
being lukewarm, why would those sciptures be in there? The Church
at Ephesus was told that they have left their first love. You cannot
leave something that you never had. I have never left my millionairess
wife, because I have never had a millionairess wife. Now if I had one
in the past and I am not with her now then I have left her. I hope this helps a little with what I was trying to say. Joshua David The
gospel is all of grace... no if... ands... buts ... about it...our
condition before we are saved is that we are dead in our sins...
alienated from God and unable to do one good thing to please Him. How
does a dead man respond to the gospel? He does not and even if that man
heard the gospel preached... even if He had a work of the Spirit in him
... even if the Spirit worked good works in him...that man would be as
dead to spiritual things as if he were in the grave. The only way that a
man can be made alive is through the saving work of the Holy Spirit by
the work of Christ and through the will of the Father. Salvation is not
available to anyone on this earth unless God has determined before time
to regenerate that person ...give them new life... raise them from the
dead. It is not because of the works of righteousness that we have done
but according to His love hath He saved us. At the time of salvation
God takes the old heart... that old will in the man... and He destroys
it.... God replaces it with a new will. The reason that God replaces the
will is not because man chooses to allow God to. The reason is because
mans old will does not respond to spiritual reasoning and illumination.
The old will does not have any cause to respond... the old will only
loves the world the flesh and the devil.... and is all for self. How can
a man choose for something good spiritually ...if he only loves
himself? If he is dead in sins and trespasses then he has not natural
love for God. He must be given Gods will. If all of salvation is out of free grace then how can a person loose something they never started in the first place? I
know your going to show me scripture and then tell me that its all of
grace .... but.... i am asking you to tell me how a man can be
completely sanctified by God alone... and at the same time be
responsible for keeping himself holy without any natural affection to
God? How can God cause something that fails to be accomplished?... then God is not God... He cannot work all things for His own good. The
reason that i am not showing you a lot of verses is because this is a
very simple problem... you are saying that God saving a man is not
enough while at the same time you are saying that a man can be saved by
free grace. I mean this is the law of non contradiction. You seem to
enjoy the contradiction. I mean as i recall... i esplained myself and
described grace to you.. you agreed with sovereign grace... then you
turn around and tell me that it depends on something we do. At least
with the other side i get this ... well my will is free.... uh ha ....
so there.... and at least they say that something in man is worth
saving. Then they dont contradict themselves when they turn around and
say that man can lose his salvation.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5025
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 08, 2009, 10:05:03 AM
|
|
Let me give you an explanation of why Christ
is talking about Himself as the comparison of the metaphors of flesh
,blood, bread. This particular passage is pointed by the use of the
greek article that you dont see in the english text. The greek grammar
is very important in this set of verses... its not like other verses
where there is not a lot of highlighted reasons why the interpretation
is so narrow. Let me give you the english words for the exact position
of the greek words.
"the flesh of me".... when ever you have the
article before the noun and the adjective then the rule is that it
makes the ideas interchangeable... so you could say that when He is
talking about His flesh... he means Himself. Not part of Himself... It
could be read "all of Me is flesh."
In the greek the order of
the words show the main points of what the author is trying to get
across. In this case Christ is really pointing to the incarnation as the
reason that salvation is obtained... not His giving Himself as the main
force of this teaching. Let me show you the order of the words so you
get an idea what i mean. lit... I am the bread the living (the one
-relative pronoun)the out of heaven . When ever you have the repetition
of the article then the clauses the living one the out of heaven is
emphatic. So the stress is His prior position in the Trinity and His
subsequent humbling or becoming a man. The pivotal point is His
incarnation. Not only that but because there is a comparison between the
manna and the bread from Heaven then there is a contrast because of the
repetition of the article. The contrast is that it was bread manna in
the ot... but its eternal life in Christ. Ok back to work.. dont want to
say too much at one time... just consider that not all the clauses,
pronouns and repetition of the article is in every verse like this.
Jesus is definitely saying these things for a single purpose.
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment