  July 30, 2010, 06:36:13 AM
Piercing The Darkness
 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
|
|
1
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 29, 2010, 11:25:14 PM
|
..... The word used for every is: hekastos If every does not mean every then I am afraid the tree of life also will not bear fruits every months. That's sad. Maybe God should have chosen his words more properly.  Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. In this verse the same word is also used. I guess if every does not always mean every then also not everyone will be judged according to his works. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Pantos is the word for "every", or "all" Hekastos refers to a distribution, and isn't translated "every" much of the time. It can be "each", and can refer to any number of items without necessarily being all items of the class. For instance, in Luke 6:44 it could properly be translated "both", as it refers to trees known for their fruit. This immediately follows mention of bad fruit and good fruit (two classes/types of trees). Is every tree known for its fruit? What of trees that aren't fruit trees? Another example is John 19:23 where the soldiers divided Jesus' garments into four parts - "one for each soldier". If you say it is divided into four parts then given to every soldier - does this include every Roman soldier in the service everywhere? That doesn't make any sense. The distribution is to the four soldiers casting lots. Are you going to acknowledge your errors and unfounded rants? Context is important. |
|
|
|
|
2
|
General Category / General Discussion / Re: 501c3 ministries and churches
|
on: July 29, 2010, 05:00:04 PM
|
Is this a new commandment? Do you have any Biblical quotes regarding this?
How can Jesus be the head of the church when at the same time the state tells the church what it may do or say? Sounds like a compromising situation to me.  2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Why do you assume that those in government are unbelievers and are corrupt? Do you throw them all in together, rather than discerning? Perhaps you should check the history books. In Geneva, in the late 1500's, the Elders of the Church were the Elders of the town. There is still the Church of Scotland, of which approximately 46% of the population claims allegiance. There is still the Church of England. But of course, there was also the early church at the time of Constantine - when he made Christianity the state religion. This is not saying that these unions are perfect, but there is nothing in the Bible to forbid this from taking place. In some ways, communism seems to fit well with the early church as recorded in Acts 2 & 4. If you go into areas with very strong Christians known as Mennonites, Amish, or Quakers, you quickly learn that the church and their beliefs govern what they say and do. They don't have internet, so you will have to mail them something to let them know that God doesn't allow the affairs of the church to overrule non-church life, that they are living in sin, though you can't quote any scripture to them to tell them it is wrong to have men who have faith in Jesus to have power in the community.... |
|
|
|
|
3
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 29, 2010, 04:10:55 PM
|
What do you believe about Romans 12:3? That each has the same measure of faith? Yes. If you look at the verse in context, it is within an address to the believers. Brethren...don't think of yourselves more highly than you ought...it is God who has given you faith. Oh, so even though the text says every man it once again does not mean every man,right? That's a pure faith killer. This sows doubt about wether the bible really says what it means. But I guess this is the only option you have as a calvinist. All simply cannot mean all. If the bible says God wants all to be saved then in reality he can impossibly want all to be saved and then you simply need explanations to sell to the people why every does not mean every and why all does not always mean all. The word used for every is: hekastos If every does not mean every then I am afraid the tree of life also will not bear fruits every months. That's sad. Maybe God should have chosen his words more properly. Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. In this verse the same word is also used. I guess if every does not always mean every then also not everyone will be judged according to his works. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Try to get a grip on yourself. Who, or what, are you trying to defend? Why is it that you have blinders on? Can "all" be limited to a specific class, location, or group? Of course! So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them (Mt 4:24). Was each and every sick person of earth brought to Jesus in Syria? No, according to context, it was the sick of Syria. That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and cured all who were sick (Mt 8:16). Did he again cure all who were sick? No, it was limited to those who were brought to him. If he had already cured ALL who were sick, why would he have to do it again and again? Isn't the context quite important? Why can't you accept the fact that "ALL" can be limited based upon the context? Now, in reference to all receiving "the" same measure of faith, or the erroneous idea that it isn't God who is the giver of faith, further consider these scripture texts: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith (Gal 6:10). Some have faith in Christ, and some don't. Not all have received faith. With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one (Eph 6:16). The Armor of God is the gift of God. Further, it is fitted to each one - as can be understood when you are aware that not all wear armor of the same size. This can also be understood as the Greek states the "Take up" of armor to be in the "middle" - such that we cannot just put it on ourselves, but we need assistance with these pieces of armor fitted to us. We must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters,b as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly (2 Th 1:3). Faith can grow! So how is it that ALL must have the exact same measure of faith? and that we may be rescued from wicked and evil people; for not all have faith (2 Th 3:2). Not all have faith! Their "measure of faith" was thus zero! looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith (Heb 12:2). Faith can be perfected - that is, made to be complete. Will we need faith in glory? No way! That is when our faith is complete, when it has been "perfected" - when we know God. So, faith is something that is temporary. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 29, 2010, 02:28:10 PM
|
That's what I guessed - you think all have been given the same measure of faith. If that were true, then why is there a measure? It would simply be called faith. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? (Mt 6:30). Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt 8:10-12). Why is there "little faith", and "great faith", and children of the kingdom who ought to have "the measure of faith", but are cast out? “Why could we not cast it out?” 20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Mt 17:19-20). Jesus clearly speaks to the size/quantity of faith. Is it recorded somewhere that ALL have the SAME measure of faith? What of those who don't believe? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world (Romans 10:17-18). Some hearing the Word receive faith, while others do not. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day (Romans 11:5-8). Can we do anything to save ourselves? Can we somehow purchase faith? Or is it not the gift of God - the gift of grace? Ah. Now I see where you are coming from. I was reading Romans 12:3 in the KJV: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith (Ro 12:3). Here's the root of the problem. There is no definite article "the" in the final phrase in Greek, except the "the" prior to "God" (both "the" and "God" in the nominative case - meaning the subject of the sentence). Literally it reads: "to each as the God apportioned measure of faith". Without "the" preceeding "measure", it can properly only be translated "a measure". I have the text of the NT in Greek, and it lists the textual variants - and it doesn't show a "the" in any of the texts. I see the NKJV corrects this... as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. Steven's Textus Receptus (1550) doesn't have a "the" there. Elziver's Textus Receptus (1624) doesn't have a "the" there. Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) doesn't have a "the" there. I can find absolutely no Greek text, and no reason at all to have a "the" proceed "measure" in this location (Romans 12:3). |
|
|
|
|
5
|
General Category / General Discussion / Re: John MacArthur openly teaches heresies!
|
on: July 29, 2010, 12:52:32 PM
|
|
If you read the link, you will see that Bob Jones, Jr. took something from 1970's, and rather than quote it directly and in context, he would quote a portion, and then put in "...." and quote something else in the long article of MacArther from a decade earlier. He got it to say whatever he wanted (in 1986), but wouldn't listen to whatever MacArthur said or wrote in response. His son, Bob Jones III later apologized for his father and the university, saying that what MacArthur had written was not heretical, nor had it ever been - that it was entirely orthodox. And yet, since this appeared in print, there were so many who grabbed onto it and continued to spread it.
So, apparently you have time to read something fantastical with a headline grabber, and you will expect others to read your links and watch the videos you post, but you don't have time to read a link that contradicts or corrects what you posted? This is a forum board - the expectation is that there is two-way communication - not one-way news reports of outdated and wrong information.
If you had bothered to read the article that I linked you would know that MacArthur did not say it, and that what he did say was taken out of context and twisted for another purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
General Category / General Discussion / Re: John MacArthur openly teaches heresies!
|
on: July 28, 2010, 10:37:17 PM
|
The whole thing is basically an old hoax. Try checking your sources before posting sensational type things like this. from: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htmDecember 2000
Does John MacArthur "deny the blood of Christ?" The accusation has become one of those dripping-faucet urban legends that will not die, like the infamous Madalyn Murray O'Hair FCC-Petition Hoax and the Procter & Gamble Satanism Myth. Nearly every month, I hear from someone who has heard the allegation for the first time and wants to know if it is true that John MacArthur denies the saving efficacy of Christ's blood.
No, it is not true, and it never has been. The allegations are ridiculous—perhaps originally based on a thoughtless misunderstanding, but now clearly fueled by a deceitful malevolence.
The controversy was originally ignited by a supposed "news" item written by Bob Jones, Jr. in the April 1986 issue of Faith For The Family (a Bob Jones University-sponsored magazine). Jones quoted some remarks MacArthur had originally made in a live Q&A session at Grace Community Church sometime in the early 1970s. MacArthur's comments had been transcribed and published in the May 1976 issue of the Grace Church newsletter "Grace Today." The Jones article cited the comments without any documentation, and without noting that they were from a ten-year-old source.
In the BJU article, Jones quoted MacArthur as saying, "It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying." Jones then cited Hebrews 9:22 ("without shedding of blood is no remission") and intoned, "MacArthur's position is heresy."
On June 13, 1986, MacArthur wrote to Bob Jones III, complaining that the magazine had taken snippets of his remarks out of context and deliberately made them seem sinister. MacArthur assured the magazine's editors that he absolutely affirms the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for atonement and explained that the point he was trying to make in the quoted excerpt was merely that the saving efficacy of Christ's blood is not because of some property in the blood itself, but rather because Christ had poured it out in death as a substitute for sinners.
....not one of MacArthur's fundamentalist critics has ever written a dispassionate analysis of his position showing why they believe MacArthur's view is "heresy" from a doctrinal or biblical perspective. The one fundamentalist who dealt with the controversy in a book had the integrity to examine both sides carefully, then declared MacArthur right and his critics wrong [Branson].
MacArthur's view on the blood of Christ is identical to that of Charles Spurgeon....
Despite his detractors' claims, MacArthur clearly affirms—and has always affirmed—the necessity and full efficacy of Christ's blood atonement.
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
General Category / General Discussion / Re: Small details, a NIV reader will never know
|
on: July 28, 2010, 09:17:25 PM
|
Why was it so hard to post the verse in question? John 18:1. Okay. Thanks. Sorry you couldn't understand that I was unable to hear it. Guess what? I installed an update, and was able to listen to it. Unfortunately, I listened to the first half over 24 hours ago. I was interrupted by someone stopping by who wanted to talk. Three hours later he left, and I needed some sleep. I listened to the other half tonight. I disagree significantly with what I heard. I don't know if there was more before this, or after this. I literal word-for-word translation of John 18:1 - These things having said Jesus went out with the disciples of him across the ravine the Kidron where there was a garden into which entered he and the disciples of him. Jesus had indeed been praying. I agree that "the exact words of God matter to him". But assuming the KJV has these exact words, and only these words, and all the words of God - well, that is extremely problematic. Gardens included trees. Consider the beginning chapters of Genesis, where there are trees in the "garden". These things go together. Fruits are eaten from "gardens" in many chapters of the Bible - indicating the presence of trees, or even the predominance of trees. Even trees that don't bear fruit were in gardens (if not the primary reason for the garden) - The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty (Eze 31:8, KJV). Garden? Orchard? Grove? All essentially the same thing. 1. over the brook Kedron—a deep, dark ravine, to the northeast of Jerusalem, through which flowed this small storm brook or winter torrent, and which in summer is dried up.
where was a garden—at the foot of the Mount of Olives, “called Gethsemane; that is, olive press (Mt 26:30, 36).
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1871). Critical and explanatory commentary. (John 18:1). If Gethsemane means "olive press", and this is indeed where they are when Jesus is arrested (Mt. 26) it may not be much of a stretch to consider there was likely a significant Olive Grove there. As noted, the ravine is dried up in summer, and thus they would not need a boat to cross. Too bad he didn't do his research. I don't have time right now to get into his use of "word", "words", and the difference he suggests between "Word" and "Jesus". He doesn't distinguish between "logos" and "hrema" (both translated "word" in English). |
|
|
|
|
9
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 28, 2010, 07:53:31 PM
|
v. 11 "In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will" This verse is kinda "problematic" cause it could be understood in a way that God controls EVERYTHING. If a guy on the street farts and causes a car crash then God was behind it. Or if a young mother gets raped by a couple of criminals and then shot in the head then guess who pulled the strings? God. Do you believe this? Do you take comfort in the thought that whatever happens happens cause God wanted it so? Then why even pray? Whatever God wants will simply happen. Why does the bible say that we shall resist the devil? Why shall we do anything? Whatever God wants happens.  Verse 11 from the KJV:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
This also says "all things". So, perhaps you can answer your own question, rather than going on a rant - trying to paint me into a corner when I'm not even in that room. Do you intend to continue the baseless rants as opposed to dialogue that honestly asks questions? |
|
|
|
|
10
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 28, 2010, 07:41:50 PM
|
What you say sounds contradictory.
What exactly do you believe?
You say faith is also given to us by God. Then do you believe that since God doesn't want all to be saved He simply doesn't give faith to all, so that not everybody has the chance to believe? Is that it?
Romans 12:3 says God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
How does that fit with what you say?
What do you believe about Romans 12:3? That each has the same measure of faith? Some get an ounce while others get a quart? If you look at the verse in context, it is within an address to the believers. Brethren...don't think of yourselves more highly than you ought...it is God who has given you faith. Does God give faith (for repentance/salvation) to all? That's not the point. If we do have faith, then it is the gift of God. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 27, 2010, 04:49:30 PM
|
As I previously posted, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Eph 2:  . Faith itself is the gift of God. The accomplished fact of salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ - this too is the gift of God. You cannot go unto God without God putting his will into effect. Maybe you claim that you are saved through faith - as though it is something you have done. Nay, that is stopping in the text to hear what you want to hear. It is God who saves. You post: Ever thought about the remaining option, that God wants all to be saved but that he gave mankind a free will and you can either respond to God or not?
idea2
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
What does all mean? Does it mean all? I guess not. I guess it only means "some". I bet Calvin has convincing explanations for why all in the bible doesn't mean all. That's a real faith builder when you can't even trust what the bible says. Roll Eyes Yes, of course - Jesus desires that ALL be saved through His sacrifice, that ALL come to knowledge, and thus to true faith. The context of 1Tim. 2:4 is that of prayer. Paul says we ought to offer prayers for all - even those in high positions (yes, including Obama). Further, it is Christ "Who will have all men to be saved". The passage goes on to state that Christ is our mediator before the Father. Would you want to go to court with a lawyer who isn't going to do everything in his power for your cause? I wouldn't. I would want the Mediator to be one who can get mercy granted to me. Yet we know that the Righteous Judge requires that we put into action the faith we have been given. If we do believe that the Crucified One is Lord and Savior, then praise God from whom all blessings flow! The Angels of Heaven will break into joy at those who believe. Gotta go for the next several hours... |
|
|
|
|
12
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 27, 2010, 04:26:32 PM
|
... and that Calvin did NOT believe that God actively chooses some for hell and some for heaven? Calvin definitely believed that God predestined some to heaven and some to hell. Don't know where you think I said otherwise. Calvin was extremely literate, logical, and thoroughly searched the Scripture (including in the original languages). When you say "God actively chooses", do you mean to imply that God is making these decisions currently? Calvin would disagree with this from Scripture. God knew well before today where each would spend eternity. Written to the BELIEVERS in Ephesus... Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. 5 He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and insight 9 he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will (Eph 1:3-11). v. 5 - "He destined us (the believers) for adoption...according to the good pleasure of his will." v. 11 "In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will" These speak to the power of God to accomplish whatever God chooses. He accomplishes all things according to his will. So, if someone is destined for heaven, or for hell, based upon the will of God, how can they go to the opposite place? If this is possible, then God is not omnipotent. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
General Category / General Discussion / Re: Small details, a NIV reader will never know
|
on: July 27, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
|
|
I got 8 seconds of the 10 minutes to download. "and then in chapter 17" (voice ends - refering to John 17)
Can you post the scripture reference or not?
Can you actually answer a direct question (which I previously posted)? If you are not going to actually dialog, then I question why you are here.
My question to you: Is simple trusting faith in Jesus - sufficient for salvation?
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
General Category / General Discussion / Re: John MacArthur openly teaches heresies!
|
on: July 27, 2010, 03:45:03 PM
|
Earth to Dennis, did you not read what I quoted? MacArthur states that, "It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus." I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His "death" or His ''blood"? It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible. Bible says: Death + blood = important Mac says: Only death important, blood unimportant  Try reading the final sentence of what you just quoted from MacArthur (in bold print). Or is this a mis-communication in that the final bold sentence isn't from MacArthur? It's in the same paragraph that starts out, "MacArthur states that...", and there is no reference to anyone else now doing the communicating. So, is it MacArthur who says that both the death and blood are important, or have you failed to make it clear that this is the statement of someone else? Now, how about what you believe. I asked you a single direct question so that we could possibly have a decent starting point on the discussion. Will you please answer: Would any amount of blood, short of the death (of Jesus), be sufficient (for your salvation)? |
|
|
|
|
15
|
God, the Universe, and Everything / The Bible / Re: Calvinism is unbiblical
|
on: July 27, 2010, 11:21:40 AM
|
I am not goina to study a man (Calvin). Otherwise I would have to study other men, too. I would also have to study Buddha and Mohammad and whatever religious author there is. That's very interesting. You will post a subject that says, "Calvinism is unbiblical", but you won't even read what he wrote about our mighty God. I say shame on you. You take what someone else says, and how they characterize the teaching of Calvin - but you won't actually look into yourself. If this is the case, please refrain from posting regarding anything you have absolutely no knowledge about. This should be obvious, but apparently it isn't obvious to you. And why would you choose to study Buddha or Mohammad, instead of Christians of deep faith, such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin? So, you would try to limit the power and knowledge of God - that God doesn't rule eternity, and therefore cannot know who will be saved? Erm, where did I say that? I simply have a problem with this: "God determines who goes to hell" BS which calvinists believe. You say God can be limited. Who is it that can limit God? There is none who can limit God. God is only limited if God so chooses to be limited. God is not limited in knowledge throughout eternity. God can easily allow a person freewill, and yet know exactly how they will choose. God can act upon His desire to save by putting people and things directly in your path. Calvin is simply going to the very ultimate understanding of the power of God - that God can do exactly what God chooses to do. If you say that God absolutely cannot save Joe Blow, I will tell you that you are absolutely wrong. To say that God cannot save is to say that you don't believe that God has the power to will and to save. Apparently you can save yourself - that you are so powerful!!!! No, absolutely not. You do not have the power to save yourself. You have the God-given ability to believe, or to reject God's ability to save. God does not choose to be a puppet master - this is a mischaracterization of what Calvin taught. God gives the ability to choose. God has the power to know how you will choose - before you are even born. If you say that God does not have power upon this present earth, then you blaspheme God in the person of the Holy Spirit. You then would be suggesting that God didn't know what He was doing in Jesus being born and fulfilling the Scriptures. Answer this: Does God know the future? Does God have the power to affect and effect the future? Are you trying to get banned for posting flaming junk - so you can say you are such a strong Christian and get some cred with punks? Are you threatening me? Nice - just like a punk. How old are you? Apparently everything really is about you, and you can accept no words of warning or correction. Apparently you shouldn't consider others, but only what strikes your fancy. Instead you are lord and king of your life? Exactly how could I threaten you? In case you haven't figured it out in the last couple years, I'm not an administrator here. But it would be just like the one person who got banned from here to use it as evidence of how people just wouldn't listen to their "superior" knowledge, of how foolish "those" people are... Now, if you want to argue that you can resist the call of the Holy Spirit, then go right ahead and try to puff up self and limit the power of God. Denying the power of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy. So you believe christians are puppets who can't resist God? The bible says we can quench the Holy Spirit. This is resisting God. Or when you sin you also resist God in some sense. Read the above, regarding freedom to choose, and the power of God to know, affect, and effect the future - from even the very earliest part of eternity. Does the pottery have power over the potter? Do you believe everything which happens on this planet is God's will? I hope not cause if you do then I also don't know what to say. The bible shows that God can indeed be limited. Those who desperately try to deny this in order to defend their false understanding of "sovereignity" aren't doing this on biblical ground. Jesus also could do no mighty works in his hometown. But I guess this was all God's fault cause he made the people doubt Jesus. Yeah, that makes sense.  Psa 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. See, you mischaracterize what I write. Even scripture says the Potter has power over what is made. (Or have you not gotten to Romans in your KJV study?) You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they shall be called children of the living God.” (Romans 9:19-26). Oh my! Did God really say that there "objects of wrath that are made for destruction"? I'll even look it up and post it in the KJV for you... What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:22-24). There are "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"? And these were actually made and prepared by the Potter for this purpose? Surely you are quite shocked to see this is in "your" Bible!!!! You see, I paraphrased the Bible in regard to the POWER of God (the Potter), and you change the subject to whether or not everything that happens here is the WILL of God. (Can you not even stay with one Doctrine that you posted elsewhere as being so important.) Just because God chooses to wait to fulfill prophecy, doesn't mean God doesn't have the power to directly affect and effect His will at any time or place. God even has the power to withhold His wrath! You said (before a flippant remark), "Jesus also could do no mighty works in his hometown." Please try to think through this a bit. How does God generally choose to work? Is it not through His people? When the woman with the issue touched his garment, what was it that Jesus said had healed her? It was her faith. Matthew says it this way (as recorded in your choice of study Bible) - And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief (Mt 13:57-58). Do you have any doubt that Jesus could have called down 10,000 Angel warriors to keep him from the cross? Do you have any doubt that Jesus could walk upon water, could stop the wind and waves, could toss a mountain into the sea, could heal anyone at anytime, could give us further revelation of His Word, and could alter what we call the course of human events at any point? This is none other than God choosing to let people choose. I have no doubt that this happened so that we would know the power of God - even in the power to keep a reign upon that absolute power for a time. Answer this: Should you be posting (or reposting) as fact - in an inflammatory manner - that which you actually have no knowledge about personally? Answer this: How is the power of God limited? |
|
|
|
|
|
TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc |
|
