|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 16, 2008 14:07:13 GMT -5
Interesting article, RC. I've never heard anyone say some of the stuff that author was saying. To be honest, it's hard to make sense of it. It seems to be full of contradictions. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding him... Josh - That is the basic Calvinistic view of the four conditions of man in regards to will. RC maybe you can post links to the first half for clarification.... 1) Pre Fall - 2) Post Fall - 3) Regenerated - 4) Glorified What aparent contridictions do you see? Please point them out in the quote... I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.. Thanks, Paul Sure, I'll give it a shot. This seems impossible to me. Well, I guess it could be possible depending on your view of what sin is. That is probably where I was missing his view. I can't think of anywhere the Bible describes men as both sinners and saints. I understand the imputed righteousness position, but with that view alone (without a real imparted righteousness) you are only seen as saints before God, right? Is that what he is saying? That you live as a sinner but God sees you as a saint? I'm not implying antinomianism by that last question. I just say that so you don't feel pressured to answer it as such. This is one that really doesn't make sense to me. After a man is regenerated he no longer uses that liberty for evil as he did before regeneration, but then again sometimes he does use it like he did before regeneration. I don't understand what he means by saying a regenerate person doesn't use his "power of choice" for evil then turn around and say that sometimes he does. It's almost like saying when men are unregenerate they can only chose evil, but after they are regenerate they can chose both evil and good. If this is true then doesn't that contradict the compatibilistic view of "free will?" If men can only chose what is according to their "nature" then how can men with a new nature chose sin? Maybe this is a better question to ask: why can't a regenerate man chose what he wants, when what he wants is according to godliness? That statement seems to stand at odds with the last statement. How can we be free from the dominion of sin and yet still not be free from it where we don't have to "partly choose evil." Here is my biggest delima with this position. 1)If God wants man to be wholly holy, and 2) man can only do what is in accordance with his nature, 3) a regenerate man wants to be wholly holy, 3) God imparted to regenerate man all things that are needed for godliness in this present world (1 Peter 1:4; Titus 2:11-12), then what stops a regenerate man from actually being a saint in spirit, soul, and body, before the coming of the Lord (1 Thes. 5:23)?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 15, 2008 18:29:02 GMT -5
Interesting article, RC. I've never heard anyone say some of the stuff that author was saying. To be honest, it's hard to make sense of it. It seems to be full of contradictions. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding him...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 15, 2008 18:25:20 GMT -5
I think we can't discount the Holy Spirit testifying to Christians that the scriptures are true. To be honest, I don't just believe the Bible because someone told me that they guys who wrote it had apostolic authority. I believe it because God has shown me that is it true. I'm sure every Christian can testify to that.
As you know, there are many ways you can prove the Bible is correct, but what everyone who is born again can testify is that it was a revelation from God that started their life as a Christian. If it works like this today, how much more was it in effect during "bible days?"
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 15, 2008 18:17:35 GMT -5
Yes, that is right. They could have. It's not possible that the Bible is mixed with just "mere men's" words because the church would have known if there was error. The Holy Spirit would have shown those apostles who were walking with the Lord the error just like Paul did with Peter. Also, the other disciples didn't blindly follow the Apostles (Acts 17:11). They searched the scriptures and the Holy Spirit surely testified to each Christian the writings were true.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 14, 2008 22:43:56 GMT -5
How can you being a Calvinist that believes in a compatabilistic free-will believe that Christians can sin?
Unless I am misunderstanding what compatabilism teaches, it teaches that you can only make decisions that line up with your "nature" as opposed to making decisions contrary to your "nature."
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 14, 2008 22:37:46 GMT -5
Simple. You believe that the men who wrote the scripture were "holy men" and therefore submitted to God and wrote exactly what God wanted them to. Is there some type of argument that it's impossible to hold to libertarian free-will and the inspiration of the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 13, 2008 21:38:17 GMT -5
If any of you guys come by my way, I should have a place for you to stay. You guys make me want to just pack up and hit the road. Right now, I'm not able to but maybe some day... As the Lord leads of course.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 13, 2008 18:07:40 GMT -5
I did a similar thing to one I made. It's best to have something from allowing it to blow in the wind.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 9, 2008 16:03:11 GMT -5
I interpret the passage to mean that those who are unbelieving God appoints to stumble. If you are an unbeliever God will see that you stumble. Not that God appoints who is unbelieving but God appoints what happens when you don't believe.
These verses come to mind.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Rom 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 9, 2008 14:18:24 GMT -5
Steve is right. The relative clause "to which they were appointed" is not describing the word. Let me give some technical info on it. The phrase "ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν" is a relative clause. ὃ is a relative pronoun. In Greek, the relative pronoun has case, number, and gender. The number and gender match the word it is referring to and the case reveals it's function in the sentence. We do this some in English too. You would replace the name Josh with he and not she because Josh is a masculine name. It's a similar concept. The relative pronoun in that phrase is singular and neuter. So, this means it can only be referring to a noun that is singular and neuter. The Greek word for "word" in that verse is not singular and neuter but singular masculine. The Greek words stumbling and offense in this passage are both singular neuter. It could be referring to either one of them. As you guys know, you can always replace a pronoun with it's antecedent. Here is that verse without the relative pronoun.. or at least how I would translate it. And a stone of stumbling and rock of offense which they stumble at the word being disobedient into the stumbling even as they were set. As far as I'm educated in Greek grammar (which isn't really extensive) this is just what the the grammar of this verse plainly says. If you disagree, you will have to start discussing Greek grammar and explain why the relative pronoun that is singular and neuter has a singular masculine antecedent. The question, as Steve pointed out, isn't what the text is grammatically saying but how we interpret it. What translation are you two quoting from?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 9, 2008 12:08:03 GMT -5
I couldn't get it either. I couldn't play it from Firefox, Internet Explorer, or from downloading it. When I downloaded it, the file size was 0kb. I imagine it's bigger than that. :-) Something might have happened when you uploaded it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 8, 2008 17:29:07 GMT -5
It appears that Andrew and Simon were originally disciples of John. That is where they were introduced to Jesus and even spent some time with him. They went back fishing and when Jesus came back to Galilee he told them to come and follow him.
When Jesus met them fishing, it wasn't the first time they had met.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 6, 2008 21:59:32 GMT -5
Ok, I've got a little more time now. Rather than just lay it out how I see it, I'll just ask this question. Why do you think that the Gospel Of John is describing the moment the Spirit came on Jesus? Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. It sounds like John is relaying something that happened in the past. These are quotes from John so these things happened in the past from the prospective of the Baptist. In other words, it had happened before John spake it, not at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 6, 2008 17:55:16 GMT -5
Remind me if I don't reply to this within a day or so. I want to answer but I don't have time right now. I'm afraid if I don't post something on here, I'll forgot.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 4, 2008 20:33:16 GMT -5
It doesn't seem you are really interacting with my posts. I will just leave it for now.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 2, 2008 9:42:40 GMT -5
"The Three Students: Defeating the Theology of Stooges" I'm kidding. If I think of something a little better I'll let you know.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 1, 2008 18:03:21 GMT -5
Jack, Do you have comments on my last post? You don't have to reply. I really want you to rethink what you are teaching. I have some more questions. Looking at the way you interpret how the law should be applied today, I really think it causes major problems for you. Isn't the Levitical priesthood eternal? Do you believe we should have a temple with preists? If you say no, are you changing the law? Exo 40:13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. Exo 40:14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: Exo 40:15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.
Num 25:11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Num 25:12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: Num 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel. Jack, what does the law say here? If the law isn't fulfilled by Christ, why don't we have priests? The law says we should. Lev 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. The law says that the atonement being made once a year is an everlasting statue. Are you making void the law by saying we don't have to have a yearly day of atonement? Are you changing a letter of the law by saying Jesus fulfilled it? If you believe we need to keep the law, you have to deal with these questions. They won't go away. Does everlasting mean everlasting? Does eternal mean eternal? Or is it a matter of interpreting the text in light of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant? 1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 1, 2008 17:42:56 GMT -5
That's awesome!! Great video!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 31, 2008 19:29:35 GMT -5
\ As you know, Paul did more than encourage him to be circumcised. Paul, himself, circumcised Timothy. There isn't really any speculation as to why Paul did it, the scriptures tell us. Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. He did it because of the Jews. Not because he felt that he needed to be circumcised to obey God's command to take the passover. I believe these scriptures outline the spirit in which Paul did this. We know that Paul didn't believe God commanded men to be circumcised from several other passages. 1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I believe Timothy went through this so he could minister to Jews with Paul. There is no reason to be an offense when you don't need to be. There is nothing wrong with being circumcised or doing some other act so you can minister to a certain type of people. If he wasn't circumcised it might have caused needless problems. So, did God want Timothy to be circumcised? Possibly, maybe even probably. But not to keep the passover, not to keep the law, or any other reason than "because of the Jews." Jack, can you tell me how Paul could be like one who wasn't under the law when with the gentiles if Paul kept the law? It seems impossible to me to be "as without law" and yet keep all the things of the law. Offerings... Paul even partook of that too, right? Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. Act 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
Jack, does this mean that there are times in the Christian life we need to make offerings like the law commands?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 31, 2008 19:10:30 GMT -5
Josh: If God told you to be circumcised, and your were not, would you do it for Him? It really doesn't matter what I say. It becomes a matter of whether God says it or man says it. That being established, read the Bible and do as God says, not what man teaches He says. Of course I would. The question isn't whether I or anyone else on the board would do something if God told us to, the question is has God told us to? I'm guessing you do believe that a man needs to be circumcised? I can't really tell for sure from your answer.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 30, 2008 21:45:38 GMT -5
Jack, do you believe that a person must be circumcised too? Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. I'm still curious about this. I just ask because a few people I've ran into believe that if you are a man and really love God you have to be circumcised, because you can't take the passover without it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 29, 2008 18:45:47 GMT -5
Thanks for posting. I enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 28, 2008 17:43:49 GMT -5
I would say that all of the moral law is summed up in the word love. Love is the law. We are under obligation to love God supremely and love our neighbor equally. As far as other "laws" in the Bible, such as the dietary laws, the ceremonial laws, and Israels governmental laws, Christians are not under any sort of obligation. Especially not Gentile Christians. There is liberty in Jesus Christ. The only moral obligation that Christians are under is obligation to the moral law. And the moral law is the law of love. Antinomianism is when a person says that Christians are not under obligation to the moral law of love. Legalism is when a person says that a Christian is under obligation to the Old Testament dietary, ceremonial, and Israel's governmental laws. We must not become antinomians but we also must not become legalists. For example, it is OK for me to eat bacon, shrimp, and lobster. Praise God! "... commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received, with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:3-5 Another example of the liberty found in the New Testament is that you do not have to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses (dietary, ceremonial, governmental laws). "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with wors, subverting your souls, saying ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment" Acts 15:24 So Gentile believers do not need to keep the Jewish laws. Christians are to obey the law of Christ. We are not obligated to obey the dietary laws, the ceremonial laws, or the governmental laws which were given to the nation of Israel. We are obligated to obey the law of Christ, to obey the moral law, which is the law of love. Amen. This seem so plain in the NT.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 26, 2008 21:43:51 GMT -5
Thanks for posting. I've seen this article around but hadn't took the time to go through it until now.
Ah, amen. Nice quote.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 25, 2008 20:04:18 GMT -5
Jack, do you believe that a person must be circumcised too? Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 24, 2008 18:17:30 GMT -5
Telos means end or finish. Of course it doesn't mean make void, it means to finish. A telescope is a scope that you can see the "end" with. Telos does NOT mean to amplify. You are pushing way to much into if you believe that.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 22, 2008 19:38:44 GMT -5
I thought it was a good and interesting recording. Thanks for mentioning it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 20, 2008 22:40:39 GMT -5
Here is what comes to mind.. I'll show just how much of a fundamentalist, stick in the mud I am.
Get on the Rock, Jesus Christ, or roll into hell.
If you love to watch, listen, or do the things God hates you are an enemy of God.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 20, 2008 22:34:34 GMT -5
These guys remind me of a group that came out to "balance out" our preaching and signs. They had signs like "Jesus turned water into wine" and "Jesus loves you."
It is sad. People like this just really don't understand what they are doing. When you tell a drunk that Jesus turned water into wine and a porn star that Jesus loves them and say nothing else... you basically just give them an immunization shot to make sure they don't get converted. You delude their mind where they can't really count the cost, understand the Gospel, and then repent.
Dear God! What is wrong with someone who can even imagine a porn star being a Christian!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 15, 2008 17:50:58 GMT -5
You don't like donut holes?
|
|