 |
Read Me: Topics and Guidelines Theology 201
February 7th 2007
Replies: x
| Views: 1,633
|
|
Thread
|
Thread Starter
|
Last Post
|
Rating
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 11:58 PM
|
|
If limited atonement is an accurate rendering of scripture, then of what are those guilty who are not "in Christ"? For if Christ did not die for them, then what did they resist? Their only failure was to keep the Law revealed in the OT. Since many make the unforgivable sin to be resisting the Holy Spirit and rejecting Christ continually, wouldn't that then exempt the unbeliever from ever committing that sin (and since Calvinists don't believe the elect can commit that sin, doesn't it make it a...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 09:36 PM
|
|
It has occurred to me that Jesus said that it isn't the one who says "Lord, Lord" to Him that enters the Kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of His Father who abides forever. Jesus speaks of those that He never knew as workers of iniquity and frequently calls the Pharisees hypocrites - and those were the ones for whom He reserved the harshest words. In Matthew 24:51, it says that there is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth where the hypocrites dwell. So it is safe to say that...
|
|
|
truthman
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 08:10 PM
|
|
Do you believe that a person's time of death is predetermined by God?
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: November 19th 2009
@ 08:04 PM
|
|
Just a thought I had had - after reading a little bit of history (and remembering a debate I heard on Original Sin). It goes something like this :
1. People of all types of Christianity believe that God is good. That whatever He does is right. That He is, in some sense, constrained to act according to His nature (or His goodness).
2. The Arminian (or is it only the Pelagian?) says that man has free will AND that he is free (to some degree) to choose between good and evil. That is, he is...
|
|
|
apostoli
|
Posted: November 19th 2009
@ 02:27 PM
|
|
I've just been reading an article on the filioque and more particularly the opinions of one Paul Owen.
As far as I can figure doing a quick google, Owen writes against the LDS, but imo, falls into deep error in following strange opinions. I've heard similar argument from some protestant groups who purport to be Trinitarian but inadvertantly advocate oneness pentecostal type perceptions. It seems to me that such rely on Plato's ideas of primal form ie: the essence/substance precedes (and...
|
|
|
Kabane52
|
Posted: November 18th 2009
@ 07:18 PM
|
|
Why are you guys arguing over sola fide and acting like that is orthodox Christian theology? I'm obviously not Mormon, you guys know me pretty well I think, but one poster posted predestination (I presume in a Calvinist sense) and sola fide as "orthodox Christian theology". wat.
|
|
|
Broseph
|
Posted: November 18th 2009
@ 10:21 AM
|
|
Why do catholics believe that the bread and wine of the eucharist become the body and blood of Jesus? My family is catholic, but for some reason i was put into a Protestant christian high school, and now i'm confused. wouldn't worshiping the wafer as jesus because it was made into him by the holy spirit be pretty much the same as Hindus worshiping a statue of vishnu because their god inhabits it after they perfom a ritual? it seems pretty much the same to me, but with a different god I've been...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: November 17th 2009
@ 10:42 PM
|
|
This is just another one of my questions trying to figure out the boundaries of Calvinism. One that popped into my mind that I'm sure has been asked somewhere before - What is keeping God from saving the non-elect? Is it ability? Choice (His, that is)? Constraint?
|
|
|
apostoli
|
Posted: November 17th 2009
@ 07:23 PM
|
|
From time to time I revisit the war of words that made up much of the controversaries of the 5th century. I'd be interested in your opinion of the following simplified modern explanations...
ousia = essence = an abstraction of things as genus and species. eg: humans share many attributes with animals, so is primarily animal. But they are distinguished from animals via religious thought.
hyparxis = subsistence = abstract existence of either the group or the individual.
physis = nature =...
|
|
|
bling
|
Posted: November 17th 2009
@ 05:16 AM
|
|
Is doing all we can for one person without hurting the things we must and should be doing for ourselves and others, enough? What if that person does not get physically better? And why are they not getting physically better?
Do good true Christians need some people to be physically needy? Does the potential believer need needy people? Does the hardened sinner that will not change need needy people? Are we all needy and is there an advantage to being physically obviously needy?
|
|
|
caspianrex
|
Posted: November 16th 2009
@ 05:33 PM
|
|
I was having a chat recently with my stepfather-in-law, who is a seminary graduate. I've always thought of him as a typical older conservative evangelical. But in our recent chat, we began to talk about Jehovah's Witnesses and their theology. When I mentioned that I would find it difficult to find common ground with anyone who denied the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, he began to criticize the doctrine of the Trinity. He said I had a typical Lutheran understanding of Trinitarianism,...
|
|
|
Kabane52
|
Posted: November 16th 2009
@ 01:17 PM
|
|
Calvinist: God told man to sin, but He secretly decreed that man sin. He told all men not to sin. He secretly decreed that they break His command. He is now very angry that they did as He decreed and must satisfy His wrath. He sent Jesus. He then punished Him on the cross, but not enough to satisfy His anger against all people. He arbitrarily chooses a few people and pretends that they are as righteous as Christ (aka the imputation). He then eternally punishes the rest in Hell for following His...
|
|
|
Anoetos
|
Posted: November 15th 2009
@ 02:53 AM
|
|
Is there a difference between when Paul speaks of "works" and when he speaks of "works of the law"?
It seems clear to me that the latter expression refers to ceremonial acts like (especially) circumcision. I say it seems clear because the immediate context of its use always seems to relate either to circumcision specifically or, more broadly, to Jewish expectations regarding righteousness as it relates to ceremonial prescription.
If this is so, can it be extended to good works more generally?...
|
|
|
OneSizeFit
|
Posted: November 14th 2009
@ 03:38 PM
|
|
So I'm trying to witness to people (close friends & family), and I look for examples in the Bible, but it seems like all the proof was in Jesus' miracles and signs (even though he said only fools need signs, all the healings etc were signs), even Paul said the proof is not in the scripture but in the power of the Kingdom of God (miracles) - so my question how can we witness to logical people in 2009? What is the good news, I can say well I had this experience my life is great I am at peace, but...
|
|
|
bling
|
Posted: November 13th 2009
@ 04:20 PM
|
|
If there is a God why does he not make Himself obvious?
Would it be fair if a brilliant scientist could proof logically there had to be a God from scientific evidence?
Does there always have to be some doubt to the existence of God or doubt in the promises of God?
There would have to be some benefit for humans to have faith that would help them fulfill their objective, over not needing faith, so what is the benefit:
1. We either have faith in self or we put our trust in God. Self reliance...
|
|
|
mattbballman
|
Posted: November 4th 2009
@ 01:33 AM
|
|
If God is all-loving, why create at all, knowing some would go to Hell?
Of course, I believe that if the damned go to Hell, they deserve it. But eternal suffering in Hell does seem to be an evil. And if God didn't create at all, that evil would have been avoided.
Is the damned deserved punishment itself a complex good that God makes out of the evil of their rebellion?
What am I missing here?
|
|
|
disciple100
|
Posted: October 31st 2009
@ 01:41 AM
|
|
I have been pondering the Creation. We have several different camps of people who vehemently defend their positions. It really is a shame. I do not believe whether God created the earth young or old affects our salvation. What makes us all Christian is that we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour who died on the cross for our sins and then rose again. I have been struck with inspiration, and feel compelled to at least present a theory I have been toying with in my mind so that others...
|
|
|
OneSizeFit
|
Posted: October 30th 2009
@ 03:54 PM
|
|
Ok so in the Torah - God requested some freaky thangs...spattered blood on the tabernacle, goats, he even mentions how he enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh.
"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." --Leviticus 17:11
Later in the Prophets, and Psalms, we are told God does not desire these things, so Moses then got it wrong.
"For I delight in loyalty rather...
|
|
|
mattbballman
|
Posted: October 28th 2009
@ 03:50 PM
|
|
Don't the social sciences undercut the whole Calvinist edifice? Calvin didn't know the social sciences. He made his theology without considering them. But because he didn't consider them, his theology is wrong. The social sciences give us the social context of the Bible. They tell us what words would have meant to the immediate audience. But the social sciences say they mean one thing; and Calvin, and other Calvinists, say they mean another. But the social sciences are right. So, Calvin is...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: October 28th 2009
@ 06:09 AM
|
|
Two thoughts here. First thought is a definition that may or may not be accepted :
Legalism (in a theological framework) is any attempt to thrust something upon someone externally without first having internal acceptance. Internal acceptance may or may not follow - but the external reliance is what is meant by legalism.
I recognize what I think is a major weakness in this definition. However, to be general, certain instances which may not be called legalism may also seem to be covered by...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: October 27th 2009
@ 04:19 PM
|
|
This is just a thought - based partly on scripture, but certainly requiring some pulling something out of the text. I don't think it's eisegetical, but I am interested in some thoughts on this thought:
In the sola fide debate, one finds a dispute over what is the work of man and the work of God. Ultimately, merit is at the heart of the contention - whose actions are meritorious for salvation? A related thought came to me that there is nothing saying God can't provide absolutely everything,...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: October 24th 2009
@ 06:10 PM
|
|
I'm wondering about this passage :
Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.
Luke 13:18-19
For one thing, I know that in some places, the fowls of the air are representative of unclean spirits - or at the very least something antithetical to the Kingdom. So I am familiar...
|
|
|
KC02
|
Posted: October 24th 2009
@ 05:58 PM
|
|
This is my first post, so please cut me some slack if I am posting in the wrong board :eek:
I would like to discuss the "Apostolic era." Cut to the point: do we still have apostles today or has that office been closed? I am on the fence about this issue. I could put together a fairly good case for or against modern-day apostles.
What do you fine folks say?
|
|
|
headheart
|
Posted: October 23rd 2009
@ 10:00 AM
|
|
Hi there friends.
This question is not a new one, but as I listened to 'Kevin Lewis' who teaches on Demonology and the Occult at BIOLA University answer a mass of questions for the panel at Apologetics.com radio, I wondered to myself what sort of answer my friends at TWeb would come up with, should they have been on the panel and were asked this question.
How can a Christian know when they are being demonized ? - the question is within the early part of the panel discussion. (just before the...
|
|
|
Chappie
|
Posted: October 22nd 2009
@ 03:22 PM
|
|
Is Calvin wrong?
In the third book, Calvin describes how the spiritual union of Christ and humanity is achieved. He first defines faith as the firm and certain knowledge of God in Christ. The immediate effects of faith are repentance and the remission of sin. This is followed by spiritual regeneration, which returns the believer to the state of holiness before Adam's transgression.
|
|
|
Calminian
|
Posted: October 22nd 2009
@ 02:59 PM
|
|
A simple question which may seem strange at first.
I'm trying to write a paper addressing this, and could use some good feedback. The background is the notion of strict determinism or the idea that LFW is logically impossible. And if it's logically impossible, then pre-fallen Adam and Satan and his angels all were predetermined to sin from the beginning. And if they were pre-determined to sin, then their sin was natural, and if natural, they were created with sin natures which seems to fly...
|
|
|
Chappie
|
Posted: October 22nd 2009
@ 08:50 AM
|
|
Isaiah 5:20:
20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
|
|
|
themuzicman
|
Posted: October 20th 2009
@ 11:55 AM
|
|
OK, I've heard Calvinists make these statements (not direct quotes, but I think I've preserved the sense of these things).
1) God's purpose in creating is to maximize His own glory. (solo deo gloria)
2) Everything that happens is God's decretive will.
3) Thus, God's decretive will, which defines creation, maximizes God's glory, and anything different would reduce God's glory from maximum.
Are these accurate statements?
|
|
|
beforHim
|
Posted: October 20th 2009
@ 12:55 AM
|
|
I asked my college group for questions and topics they'd like to hear answered and/or spoken about. I got this question (paraphrasing):
How could Jesus have between fully God and fully man IF: man is born into sin.
My answer is that man being born into sin is not intrinsic to man. Paris Reedhead said, "We don't know why all men sin, but we know that all men sin." I agree with him, and if this is true, then Jesus would've had no sin until He committed sin, which He didn't.
Pretty much...
|
|
|
Amazing Rando
|
Posted: October 19th 2009
@ 02:50 PM
|
|
In Romans 13, Paul writes:
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: October 19th 2009
@ 10:25 AM
|
|
Or rather, for those that believe God elects all to salvation who are going to be saved.
One of the verses I struggle with over this issue is this one (actually, several verses contain this phrase or something very close to it) :
As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but had rather that he should turn unto me and live.
I suppose it's really the OT version of the NT verse that says that God does not will that any should perish. But in the OT...
|
|
|
Kenny
|
Posted: October 18th 2009
@ 08:53 AM
|
|
I think that Scripture says less than we often claim it does. And I think that realizing this should have an impact on how we do systematic theology and conduct our theological debates.
Scripture contains propositional revelation. I.e. there are things asserted in Scripture. For this reason, doing systematic theology on the basis of Scripture is much different than, say, theorizing on the basis of scientific observations. In a good theological system, much of what is there will not be...
|
|
|
Bill the Cat
|
Posted: October 18th 2009
@ 01:41 AM
|
|
Hebrews 4:3For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
"AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,"
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
I read this passage in church last weekend (as the message being preached on "God's Rest" was rather shallow, and the last part hit me as interesting. I have always believed that God's creation was continuing in that He creates each of our spirits when we are conceived,...
|
|
|
Carrikature
|
Posted: October 16th 2009
@ 05:42 PM
|
|
I just finished reading The Oblique Approach by David Drake and Eric Flint.
While a fiction book, I found this part interesting. Two men, Hermogenes and Cassian, are discussing the nature of the Trinity.
I think this sums up my opinion on a lot of commonly debated questions in theology. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Chappie
|
Posted: October 14th 2009
@ 05:54 AM
|
|
What is blasphemy?
|
|
beforHim
|
-
|
|
I asked my college group for questions and topics they'd like to hear answered and/or spoken about. I got this question:
If Jesus was completely sinless how could He have been fullyhuman since, as humans, we are born into sin.
My answer is that man being born into sin is not intrinsic to man. Paris Reedhead said, "We don't know why all men sin, but we know that all men sin." I agree with him, and if this is true, then Jesus would've had no sin until He committed sin, which He didn't.
Pretty...
|
|
|
downtown dave
|
Posted: October 11th 2009
@ 09:29 PM
|
|
From what I've read in Scripture, there is no such thing as an atheist. Proverbs tells us that only the fool says (not believes) in his heart that there is no God. John tells us that the True Light that gives light to EVERY man was coming into the world. In Romans we are told that the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who SUPPRESS the truth. Jesus said that if "they" hate us, to remember that "they" hated Him first. They can't...
|
|
|
lyrix191
|
Posted: October 5th 2009
@ 02:58 PM
|
|
Hey all...
I'm new here and I'm just wondering where everyone comes in on the gifts of the Spirit? Is the air of the site pretty much Cessationist or Continuationist or down the middle?
Lemme give the background...I go to an AG church that is (for the most part) Reformed in doctrine. While I don't practice the miraculous gifts such as tongues and prophecy, I believe that these are active today...but only by the move of the Spirit. Meaning I don't believe that we can use these gifts at...
|
|
|
headheart
|
Posted: October 5th 2009
@ 09:12 AM
|
|
These words are common enough but you will be amazed to discover how often the meaning of each word varies from person to person.
I am sure somebody will present them in a single sentence and think that this is adequate, and others might give me their dictionary definitions.
However, that is not what this question is all about.
I would be interested to know what unbelievers and believers alike understand by these words; in their Biblical context:
1. Belief
2. Believe
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: September 30th 2009
@ 11:10 PM
|
|
I was doing a little thinking on the impermanence of this realm - how it really, in essence, is not real in the sense that the spiritual realm is. What we see and hear naturally is probably less real than anything in the spiritual. Without getting too bogged down in that, it forms part of my theology. But in so contemplating, I was reminded of the famous words penned by the Bard himself :
All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players.
From As You Like It
I was struck...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: September 28th 2009
@ 06:52 PM
|
|
Here they are :
1. Is there a place where John directly mentions Paul in his writings? Peter does - in 2 Peter 3:15,16. Paul, likewise, mentions Peter, Titus, John etc... in Galatians 2. But does John ever mention Paul by clear reference (I know he never mentions him by name)? I'm not saying it should be a surprise if there is no such reference since it seems John and Paul largely dealt with different churches. In fact, the only overlap that I can think of off the bat is where John is given...
|
|
|
Fortydays
|
Posted: September 28th 2009
@ 01:08 AM
|
|
Some say Christianity stole the idea from Greek Mythology?
How much of this is true?
Hades was an underworld for dead souls...heaven Hell and Limbo under
Tartarus? Mentioned in the Old Testament?
I have someone asking me these questions and Google isn't helping.
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: September 27th 2009
@ 08:48 AM
|
|
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
I John 4:1
Or maybe I'm more interested in seeing how this is answered theologically since I know that the question may not be properly answerable in purely written form.
But the question is begged...how does one try the spirits? Before you respond with something like "read verse 2" (which gives a standard by which to test or try spirits) consider that...
|
|
|
nikolai_42
|
Posted: September 26th 2009
@ 08:28 PM
|
|
...who are casual aquaintances walk down a road into town. One man says to the other "Do you trust me?". The other replies that he doesn't, as he doesn't have much reason to do so. So the first man proceeds to take the other man to a movie, pays for his dinner, buys him tickets to a ballgame and offers to go out on the town with him again the following week. While the other man agrees, it also turns out that he's quite sick. Since the first man is a doctor (which explains why he can afford to...
|
|
|
supton
|
Posted: September 24th 2009
@ 05:47 AM
|
|
Mt 24:15 has the phrase "let the reader understand"as does Mk 13:14. Is this considered part of the original text, or added later? I mean, it sounds like these gospels were written after 70AD, not before, if this phrase is part of the original text. I'm not sure why the author would suddenly change tone and speak directly to the reader. The only thing I can think of is: either the gospel was written after 70AD, and the appeal was made to a saying that would vindicate what Jesus said; or...
|
|
|
hedrick
|
Posted: September 24th 2009
@ 05:42 AM
|
|
I've been thinking about the discussions that occur here about justification by faith. Properly understood I think it's important. But I also think there's a larger context, and that important as it is, it's only part of the story.
Jesus is asked about salvation a number of times. He gives several different answers. He connects it with
* faith Mk 16:16, Luk 8:12
* love Lk 10:27
* obedience Mt 25:31ff and many others
* enduring to the end Mt 10:22
Why so many answers? I believe these...
|
|
|
Marko
|
Posted: September 23rd 2009
@ 06:56 AM
|
|
Hi
There are two scriptures have been bugging me recently.
"If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love." John 15:10 (NIV)
Does this indicate that Jesus' love for us is conditional upon our obedience (ie, works)?
Also
|
|
|
harmonmsp
|
Posted: September 22nd 2009
@ 04:31 PM
|
|
For those who do not know: Cessationism states that only some of the spiritual gifts (tongues, healing and prophecy, chiefly) no longer exist in the church today.
This has grown out of an earlier set of questions I just asked about Cessation Theology, which I came to after reading one of Kelp's recent theological-word-of-the-day entries. He mentioned that Cessationism is a "widespread consensus".
I think the reason why I asked these questions is that I don't know how we can know about a...
|
|
|
wvcalvinist13
|
Posted: September 22nd 2009
@ 03:55 PM
|
|
Really, if he is not in control how can he answer your prayers?
If you pray for your friend or family member to be saved, how do you pray?
If you pray for a red corvette, how can God answer that, albeit selfish, prayer, if He didn't plan for color, the color red, Henry Ford, Chevrolet, radio, tv, newspapers, or however you saw the corvette you wanted, money to buy it and a dealer to sell it?
How do you get the job you pray for, if the guy who has your job doesn't move?
God MUST be in...
|
|
|
Kenny
|
Posted: September 22nd 2009
@ 12:41 PM
|
|
I know that there has been more than one debate here about whether or not Molinism is properly thought of as a soteriological view. I am convinced that it is not. But that’s not a debate I want to have here. If you take ‘Molinism’ to refer to a particular soteriological view, then replace all occurrences of ‘Molinism’ in this thread with ‘Schmolinism’ :smile:.
In any case, there are a number of soteriological options that are consistent with a Molinist view of providence. I think it...
|
