Can someone who is a Calvinist please explain the following verse to me:
Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
How can God say "neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin"?
Firstly it does seem to run counter to omniscience, and then since all we can ever do is sin, for the Lord to be surprised by a sin, seems, well, surprising.
by the Book wrote: Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. # Did God break this promise? Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. # Note "God will establish" # Note "Everlasting Covenant" # Did GOD lie about the "everlasting" status of HIS promise/Covenant? 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. # Note "My (GOD's) Covenant therefore OF GRACE ALONE. # Note Command to Keep thus obeyed by God's people alone. # Note Covenant to KEEP is between God the disciple AND THE DISCIPLES CHILDREN. They who reject the Covenant God made with HIS people - Are not HIS people.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Query, I guess I have as much proof that is was books about the sacred text as you do that it was not. So let me query, query or others. Are you saying that good Christian books should not be read? Are you saying that the writers were violating Scripture because they were not redeeming their time by writing books? Are you saying the Holy Spirit can only show truths to one person at a time and what others gleam from meditation cannot profit us? I actually have more questions but think that is a fair start to make sure we are on the same page. Thanks for your responses.
Other books have a place. My worry is people spend a disproportionate amount of time reading these (because they want to be spoonfed) and they neglect their bibles. The result? They can quote their favorite authors but find it difficult to use the Word of God to answer questions. I think this is particularly the temptation in Calvinistic churches.
The thinking Christian is fast disappearing as a result.
1517 wrote: Lurker, Your questions are legitimate and should be taken seriously. God's spirit is in every true believer, we both affirm that, but, God uses men to teach. Because the Spirit is in the believer, the proper teaching will find that person, I believe it. This certainly does not reduce the essential need for prayful reading of and meditation on the Word itself. When I realized I was born again I listened to different teachers from differing theological perspectives. As the Lord lead by His word and Spirit I began to understand the difference between the good, the bad, and the ugly. It is a wonderful circle of grace. God gave man his word, teachers present the word, people are saved by that word, filled with the Spirit began to recognize the the truth in other teachers, and praise God for both the Word and the teaching. Glorious, merciful, condescending God he is to us!
One wonders why the Lord didn't just write a list of recommendations!
So if someone dies a convinced Arminian, you don't believe they are saved?
Re: the parchments - what evidence do you have that his reading was even connected with the Scriptures? After all in one place he quotes a Greek philosopher!
1517 wrote: Query, or Observer, or Batman, What a mighty jump you make to somehow refute what is clearly in the Bible by implying I am Romanish in my beliefs. Yes, the Bible is a confusing book to those who are perishing and those who are babes in the faith, hence the NEED for biblical TEACHERS. The Ethiopian was confused while reading Isaiah. Does the passage in Acts read that he gave it moment, re read the passage and it came to him. Or, does it read that Phillip was there to TEACH what the passage meant. What about Apollos in the same book. He was zealously preaching the word, but had a few things mixed up.,What happened? He was sat by a wise Christian couple. Your childish personal attacks are futile, doesn't edify anyone. God uses men to teach, encourage, exhort, and explain. That IS simple to recognize for the believer.
Query here. If you want to address someone else, you will have to wait for them to appear.
He had not heard of Christ or his sufferings and as an unconverted person he struggled with that one text in Isaiah. This was explained to him, he believed, was baptized and sent on his way to Ethiopia. Did Philip forget to mention that he should not travel to Ethiopia because there are no qualified teachers there?
1517 wrote: Lurker, The word of truth was PRESENTED to you by those who God used as teachers. The while Bible is filled with God using the "foolishness of preaching" to reach his people. What does it matter if it is in book form? Your logic does seem to imply that any man can pick up the Bible, without a teacher or fellowship of believers, and can come to a proper understanding of the Bible. We need teachers and should revere the work of God in Godly men. The problem of division will never go away this side of heaven. But, listening or reading Godly men is commanded because God is the one who filled them with His word.
The Bible is such a confusing book! We might as well have it in Latin, and let the Roman Pontiff decide for us what we should believe!
The poor Ethiopian Eunuch, once he believed was sent on his way back to his own country with no guarantee of a teacher. Appears that God's providence didn't know what 1517 knows! How does God manage without your expertise?
1517 wrote: ..you ignored the holy scripture that I presented..
12/28/13 6:40 PM Observer wrote:
Much is being made of "of such is the kingdom of heaven".
Matt 5.3 says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Comprehension is a real problem for dumb people. So let's make this real simple. This means either:
1. Every person who is poor in spirit is heaven bound, or
2. Not every person who is poor in spirit is heaven bound, but heaven will be populated only of those who are poor in spirit.
Applying similar logic to the words "of such is the kingdom of heaven", the 2 options are:
1. That it is speaking of all children. In which case they should not narrow the meaning to believers children!
2. That heaven will be populated with those who have a child like spirit (not a childish head like Presby!)
That the second is the correct interpretation is confirmed to those who care to hear what the Bible has to say by the 2 parallel references in Mark 10.14,15 and Luke 18.16,17. Here the Lord explains what he meant by adding, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein". Of course it follows that some children will be be there if they receive it!
We must discard the simple for the complex. The words cannot be allowed to stand because we have a way of explaining them away to make it somehow consistent with our view even if it means inverting the wording and making both members of the Godhead seem ignorant! Never once must we think that perhaps our theology is wrong and that there is another and better to understand it that lets the text stand as it is!
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."
1517 wrote: I would remind you that scripture does not contradict, which I assume you know
So you really do believe that The Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit did not know what they were saying, and you're here to make their statement consistent with the rest of God's revelation. Thank you. That's really good to know that we have in the church such capable fellows like you.
1517 wrote: Wording in Scripture does matter. Plus, you can't merely say someone is manipulating something like the scripture without presenting proofs. I am not a presby, but am a Christian who focuses on the object of the seal ( regeneration) than on the symbolic seal.
Why is comprehension such a big problem in some quarters?
Go back and read my first post and then read our interaction through again. If you read with your eyes and mind, you might just discover the proof that you seek.
You invert the order of the wording of the commission with your theological belief and think that this is not a problem because you can accommodate infant baptism? Oh, please!
Got to go. I will call in tomorrow to catch your answer.
1517 wrote: Query, The point is regeneration. If Presby's or any other think their children are under the covenant is irrelevant to actual regeneration. Absalom was under the covenant, being the circumcised son of David, but, again, the matter is regeneration. I believe infant baptism does not go against scripture because of the reasons I highlighted in my earlier post. If the child grows up and becomes regenerated, his baptism is a true seal. If he/she doesn't, then they got wet in a church as a baby.
So the wording of Scripture matters not so long as you deem something to be a less important point of doctrine which you can hide away or manipulate by your preferred theology? I get it now. Thanks.
1517 wrote: Not all baptized professors are saved, much like not all circumcised on the 8th day Jews were Israel. Like the scriptures state, circumcision or non-circumcision account for nothing, only the circumcision of the heart. Therefore, if a baptized infant grows up and becomes regenerate, then their baptism has been proven, if not, they were merely immersed in water. Baptism does not save, therefore it doesn't matter when a person is baptized, it is the internal regeneration that is matter.
I did not imply that baptism saves. What concerns me is the order of the verse. viz. Belief and then baptized! If Presby "covenant baptism" had been known to the Lord Jesus and to the Holy Spirit, then it seems incredible that both got it wrong and that God has become the author of confusion. Maybe he is not Presbyterian!
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned
Did the Lord Jesus (and the Holy Spirit when inspiring the Word) not know the Abrahamic covenant and that by virtue of it everyone would be baptized and therefore the order of the words should have been:
He that is baptized and then cometh to believe shall be saved?
SteveR wrote: I am a witness to posts attacking Christians here, quite possibly to determine the temperature for the part of hell reserved for you.
One of the most deluded and hypocritical persons on this board sets himself up as a witness!
What venom you spewed out over an innocent query!
We all know that you will have a part in hell with the Jesuits, the Popes and the Devil himself and by my guess it is going to be THE hottest part. You might want to consider repenting and getting a good dose of humility chum.
SteveR wrote: Kinda harsh What makes you think PP is a Catholic? A 10 yr reader who compliments OPC pastors for their sermons doesnt sound like a Catholic to me btw- A thorn & brier inspector would be busier than a fruit one on this mb
Since you have nothing positive to say about this site or the majority of the people who post here, WHY do you stay here?
Frank wrote: My main thought was that praying for God to destroy someone was not against scripture. Now if it isn't against scripture then it isn't against God. Also, if I don't kill them myself, then I am simply leaving it up to a perfectly loving and "just" God and since I have permission to do this from scripture, it can't be wrong in and of itself. You and I would agree that God is not going to destroy anyone because Frank wants Him to. The worst case is that He would get upset with me if I didn't do what was morally correct. A good example was the article itself. I have never prayed for God to destroy Hillary Clinton, but I think she would be a good candidate. I think she is demonically possessed and she is trying to destroy Christ's church. If she turned out to be one of God's elect, then God would simply ignore me. I always enjoy differences of opinion. That is one of the ways we sharpen our doctrines. "iron sharpens iron". Not angry!
Why would God ask us to pray ***for*** our enemies, if he does not intend good to his own enemies? Does God ask us to do something for our enemies when he intends the opposite for his own? And how come such imprecatory prayers are confined to the OT? Is there any significance in this.
Frank wrote: I am one of the few that believe it has a place in our Christian thoughts and prayers. I sort of look at it this way. I pray that if someone isn't one of the elect (the Lord knows) and they fit a category that is clearly demonic in their conduct towards Christ and His church, then I sometimes pray that God will destroy them. But, I will admit it is a difficult concept and I'm glad you brought the issue up. I'm not sure how the Lord answers this prayer, but I believe it is one we should offer up on occasion. Also Psalm 139:21-22 is very interesting when compared with 139:23. Thanks for the comment!
Christ taught us to pray ***for*** our enemies, not against them.