Jump to content

Christforums

Doctrinally Sound Christian
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About Christforums

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.christforums.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Christian evangelism
  • More About Me
    I am a devout Christian and the owner of Christforums.com

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Only one true God "ought" be acknowledged

Recent Profile Visitors

186 profile views
  1. There's a difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Now that I answered you I have to go wash my hands.
  2. No, there's no sense continuing. You have to shoehorn "all this other stuff" into the text.
  3. To make it clear, you're rejecting the very Scripture which interprets Scripture. And then you point to a known Cult. I realize you have to hold on to all these cultist ideologies and poor translations because otherwise the "gods" arguments crumble.
  4. As stated the best method of interpreting Scripture is allowing Scripture to interpret itself. Where you're using "gods" God has revealed Himself in Three Persons. Genesis 1:2 has the Holy Spirit resting upon the waters. And John 1:1-5 states the Logos. There is no good reason to reject these other verses which reveal the nature of God in the Three Persons. I do however, realize, Jehovah's Witnesses teach and mistranslate the bible in John 1:1 to suggest Jesus was "a god". That heresy has long been refuted. Heresy: Arianism The belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were lesser, created beings and not persons of the Godhead.
  5. So if the author states a direct "cause" then the issue comes down to whether He is more believable or unbelievable over "all these other speculations"? Let's proceed. Genesis 1:1 precedes 1:2 and from it we glean that God created everything in a preexisting state (without form and void). Going back to Genesis 1:1 you bring up the plurality of God Elohim as a plural noun of a plural number. Now while there are various camps or schools of thought which attempt to interpret this as a celestial court or even the Trinity I do not necessarily think Elohim refers to the Three Persons of the Trinity here because in the following verses Elohim had spoken, and the Spirit of Elohim rested upon the waters. If we suppose Three Persons directed here then there'd be no distinction between them. So instead I offer the plurality is the sum of powers of the Godhead. Those powers in which God exercised while creating in His eternal essence. Just putting this out there in that I am not interested in learning about nor exploring all these other speculations which in order to harmonize with Scripture the Scriptures must first be interpreted in such way as to allow for them eisegesis. Again, my main focus is understanding what the author had in mind and meant to convey. How that fits into a contrary worldview is up to that person.
  6. Thank you, haven't been to those places yet. I am in Nampa, ID and exploring the local area. I'm quite a bit down south from Coeur d'Alene.
  7. G'evening Josh! Been a while! Just pointing out the obvious as to a source outside Scripture. Don't get me wrong, I'm not rejecting or ignoring what you post but all I care about is what the author meant to convey. Does an unbelieving scientist or atheist have weight in my quest to understand the author of Scripture? Granted, sometimes to understand the author, extra-biblical sources for language, history, etc might help us understand a little more but I do believe the very best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture. See, all this is for you to decide for yourself. All I care about is understanding what the author meant to convey. The struggle for me is to properly apply certain best methods and principles of interpretation to help understand with respect to the author's intent. So no, I don't agree that all I can offer is speculation, I have a text in front of me and I care about what the author meant to convey. However, I don't expect everyone to understand the text including myself. After all many misunderstood Jesus Christ so why would I think anyone might understand me all the time? But I think it is a stretch to suggest that whenever I say something all anyone else can do is to speculate as to what I mean. For example, Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Could you possibly exegete any of what you wrote from that verse? To suggest the verse meant any possible theory is eisegesis, that is, reading what the reader has in mind into the text. This is nothing more than putting words in someone's mouth. I'm sure you'd be quite upset at me if I kept saying what you didn't mean as your intended message when it was the furthest from the truth. I think we both agree that this would be a dishonest practice. Tis' why I think we should be compelled to seek the truth in what is meant not what we want or have in mind. Now I don't want to mislead you and make myself appear to know the biblical languages such as Hebrew and Greek, but I do find it necessary often to reference the Hebrew and Greek to better understand any meaning that may of been lost in translation. Can we simply agree as to what the author meant to convey? For example, " "When" God in the beginning created that what before did not exist was now made. In Genesis 1:1 what before did not exist and was now created is conveyed through a merism or figure of speech through "the heavens and the earth". Does that offer any help in understanding what the something that was not before that is now? I offer three camps in which Genesis 1:1 is usually interpreted to consider. (1) According to the first, traditional interpretation, Gen 1:1 describes the initial event among God’s acts of creation. Verse 2 then gives circumstantial information about the state of the earth at an early point. (2) According to the second interpretation, Gen 1:1 functions as a temporal subordinate clause: “In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth, the earth was without form....” (3) According to the third interpretation, Gen 1:1 is a summary of the entire sequence of divine acts described in vv. 2–31. It does not describe the very first event that led to the creation of the earth and its unformed state in v. 2. Rather, the first act of making things starts with v. 3, and Gen 1 offers no comment on how the unformed earth of v. 2 came into being.
  8. Moving to Idaho and settling has exceeded any expectations I had. I love this Red State, what a culture shock! I was just mentioning this, while the state of Idaho is very Conservative (ranked top 10) it is very hospitable towards religion in general. Can't go more than 10 blocks without running into a church. Moving out of California the greatest friction was between Secularism and Christianity, in Idaho the State politics go together with Christianity like Mashed Potatoes and Gravy! If there's any friction it appears to be contention towards orthodoxy, the real battle is between Christianity and Mormonism. We're currently renting an apartment across the street from a Mormon church. I can't believe how many people the church has. Good news is that we've acclimated well, established employment, and are currently in the process of our building a home. Kinda funny, the home realty business we commissioned introduced the owners ship who is a pastor, we were referred to a mortgage broker who is a pastor. I know some may or may not understand but it means so much to simply say to someone God bless without them being offended! P.S. Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have engaged in the thread between LuthAMF and Josh, it looked like a civil welcoming thread to engage so I couldn't help myself. Looking forward to our future engagements! William
  9. Is anyone welcome to chime in? If so please consider my responses, if not feel free to delete or let them go unremarked and I'll refrain from further engagement. Notice "how" WLC is appealing to outside sources and their theories. Why is this important to point out that WLC is appealing to a different standard? Also, I'd like to point out Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The above is a translation. Translation may include interpretation and I think it important to not just ignore the Hebrew from which a translation occurred. The thing that intrigues me about WLC is he is appealing to outside theories made by an extra-biblical authority. Then you too recognize that WLC has some wonderful arguments but he is horrible at theology. If anyone wants to know my thoughts on Genesis 1:1 they are, "When" God in the beginning created that what before did not exist was now made. I think John Calvin brings out wonderfully the point of timing in which God began, when at that moment, the Creator decided. John Calvin "for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create." As far as WLC and his argument, I prefer to simply reference God revealing Himself as I am that I am. In consideration of Genesis 1:1, I offer, He who causes to become [I am that I am]. From that I can understand "how" WLC comes to God being the Uncaused first Cause.
  10. Yes, and I agree with you. Not all Seminary or institutions are equal. Generally, Pentecostals and Charismatics are very uneducated and appeal to emotionalism. Fundamentalist believe they are Neo and receive some type of matrix download of everything needed to know by simply parroting what Scripture says. They can be heard saying I am taught by the Holy Spirit. They haven't any reservations about blaming the Holy Spirit for horrible interpretation.
  11. There's a difference between revelation and illumination. Lemme draw a parallelism for those involved in this thread. That hick seems to think that I must win him as a Christian. He thinks I am to serve him as if when he asks if I have any Gray Poupon I must hand some over to that cracker and honor his prescence and ignore his vulgar, ignorant, and insulting remarks. That inline breeding hill billy believes that his prejudices must be overcome by me as Christian. Amazing that when I throw a parallel in front of ignorance some act like a vampire and don't see a reflection. I have half the mind to take the redneck out in the woods and make him scream like a pig, sueeeeee. Get off your high horse Redneck Professor, and while the rest of these millennials may love happy endings when someone saddles an ass and slaps it to ride off under a rainbow I don't appreciate your deliberate and persisting insults my frizzy haired browned eyed lad.
  12. Christians are like Ogres and Ogres are like onions. Onions have many layers, so much to peel away. Sin is what prevents us from perfectly reflecting God as image bearers. Some have much more than others but nonetheless sanctification is a lifelong endeavor. Eventually our flesh in totality will be peeled away. None of the flesh will remain and you the imaginary person thought up will stand before God.
  13. I am actually reminded of why I paused and took a leave of absence from this forum the first time. Kindly, like so many others you seemingly miss the point altogether. You're so concerned about me or you. Draw a circle around a capital M on a piece of paper or sticky and put it beside your monitor as reminder. Lemme try to clarify and leave you with something as I depart again. I am moving to another state and have much to prepare. I want you to imagine if just for a moment you're one of the Elect of God. And now I want you to please, if you will, read first Ezekiel 36:25-27 which concerns being reborn, rebirth, or regeneration and Ephesians 1 and note what "I, me or myself" or "you" have done in our salvation. And ask yourself, where does any of this (our arguments etc) matter. Again, I ask you to list the things you ("M" for man) have done. Lemme repeat and reemphasize what have you done as an Elect? Now after you read these and note what you have done as an Elect try to place yourself in the Evangelist seat and please do tell me how salvation relies on any of your eloquent arguments etc? Ezekiel 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.[a] Ephesians 3 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 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed 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 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known[c] to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee[d] of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,[e] to the praise of his glory.
  14. No matter what answer you're given I'm sure you'll find reason to support your presuppositions.
  15. Not in Reformed theology. That isn't really the problem for God but rather the greatest obstacle for Christians. Christians "WANT" to see the fruits of their labor in apologetics (debates, arguments etc.). Paul stated that he planted, Apollos watered and that God gave the growth. Likewise other parables which suggest that the seed falls on various ground but only takes root in desirable soil leads to what is necessary for belief in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Jesus alluded to this Scripture when He stated to Nicodemus that no man can "see" or "enter" the kingdom let alone draw near the object of faith (Jesus Christ) John 6:44 without being Predestined/Elected/Called/Regenerated to salvation. If you're Elect wellnamed it is only because of God's monergistic works and not fanciful arguments etc in debate. In John 10:26 Jesus states, You do not believe because you're not my sheep. The verse does not say you are not my sheep because you do not believe. As for me, I'm not saying that you're not elect, I was dragged through unbelief and various worldly philosophies for almost two decades. Entering Christendom through Gnosticism abandoning any notion of Christianity turning to Carl Jung to make sense of the world around only to receive what I now know as Regeneration. Without, I'm guessing that you may receive an intellectual conviction which may lead you to side with the Christian faith. Perhaps, the secondary effects, a higher moral society etc may present themselves, but that's says nothing of salvation. The way I see things, I'm not here to convert anyone. And I find arguments futile efforts. Look at the Prophet Jonah which hated the Ninevites. He refused to go and ended up being swallowed up by a divinely prepared fish and spit out on the shore of those he abhorred. There he gave the shortest sermon in the biblical record. The salvation of others isn't dependent upon my eloquent or logically sound arguments. If God wants you and sets His affections upon you, you're powerless and won't be able to resists. Enjoy!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.