Theopedia:Ask a question/Archive 1

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

March 12

The Baptism of John and Christian Baptism

What are all differences? -Aaronshaf 20:20, 12 March 2006 (EST)

In the New Testament, when we see that a person "knew only the baptism of John," it means that they had only come to the awareness that they must repent - but not to the awareness that salvation was available. The other difference is that Christian baptism was done "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28). -David 13:25, 13 March 2006 (EST)
"but not to the awareness that salvation was available" -- This sounds odd to me, because it seems as though this repentance was preached with the coming of the kingdom with the "forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4). How is that not salvation available? -Aaronshaf 02:06, 14 March 2006 (EST)
I would maybe clarify that by saying "salvation through the Messiah". JordanBarrett (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2006 (EST)
"John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." -Acts 19:4. Thoughts? It seems as though John's message was attached to the coming messiah, doesn't it? -Aaronshaf 02:56, 14 March 2006 (EST)
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here - I still think it's different. John, while in prison and right before his death, still wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus quoted a Messianic passage that was to be told to John to confirm this. This is ironic in that John seems to have pointed to Jesus even though he wasn't positive he was the Messiah. At any rate, "telling people to believe in the one who was to come after him" doesn't mean that John's baptism gave an awareness of the salvation available in Jesus. John died before the resurrection, and so I don't believe he (or others baptized by him) had "awareness that salvation was available." I personally don't think repentance, or his call for it, was the same thing, but I could be wrong. And telling others to believe in who came after him I don't find to be the same thing as salvation. Plus, and I find this to be the kicker, Paul describes Christian baptism was being buried with Christ (or dying with him) and being raised with him. John would have never known this or thought this, again, because he died before the resurrection. Just some thoughts. JordanBarrett (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2006 (EST)

March 10th

Dialectic Theology

Can anyone tell me what is meant by the term "Dialectic theology"? What I can gather is that it involves ideas that appear contradictory, or more like a paradox. Yet, it's still confusing to me. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. JordanBarrett (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2006 (EST)

This is from the Wikipedia article dialectic, and I found it helpful:
Broadly defined, Dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue. It is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are rhetoric and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, both rhetoric and dialectic were understood to aim at being persuasive (through dialogue). The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion.
I believe it is also a method associated with Karl Barth and Neo-orthodoxy. Gomarus 23:08, 12 March 2006 (EST)
That does help. And yeah, I'm trying to read up on Barth some right now and I keep coming across that term. Thanks for the help. JordanBarrett (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2006 (EST)

March 9th

Free Church?

Can anyone help me understand what constitutes a "Free Church"? JordanBarrett (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Feb 25th

Acts 2:47 and Cornelius

Were the folks "saved" in Acts 2:47 all unregenerate, spiritually dead, fake Jews? If not, what does that perhaps allow for ... in terms of the usage of the word "saved"? What about the concept of "salvation" (which is of course broad and different depending on the context)? Could this have any bearing on how we understand Cornelius being "saved" (Acts 11:14)? This man was already God-fearing, gave alms to Jews, and prayed to God, and ... whoa... "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God." (Acts 10:4) Your thoughts are appreciated. -Aaronshaf 23:12, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Feb 19th

Perfection of the Scriptures

Can someone direct me to at least two solid Biblical scholars that speak for the authenticity and perfection of the Scriptures and three secular scholars that do so? So far, N.T. Wright is about all I can think of. -David 13:12, 19 February 2006 (EST)

Perfection as in inerrancy? Just want to make sure. ;) JordanBarrett (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2006 (EST)
That would be the case, yes. :D -David 19:28, 20 February 2006 (EST)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but N.T. Wright doesn't hold to inerrancy (At least, that's what I've been told). Norman Geisler has been a big proponent of inerrancy. He has a book called "Inerrancy" that I'm pretty sure is a sort of commentary on the 1978 Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. Also, J.I. Packer and Francis Schaeffer have also spoken (and written) stuff on this. I looked around for "secular" scholars to no avail. Obviously, this doesn't mean there aren't any. :) If I may ask again, what do you exactly mean by secular? In my mind, a "secular" scholar would more than likely be a naturalist and therefore deny inerrancy (or perfection). JordanBarrett (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2006 (EST)
Perhaps Wright doesn't...but he certainly has a strong support for their accuracy in terms of history, etc. I should have thought about Geisler and Schaeffer. By secular, I mean people that aren't necessarily "religious" or "Christian" but attest to the accuracy and authenticity of the Scriptures (early dating of the New Testament, rejection of the JEDP theory, etc.). Thanks! -David 09:17, 21 February 2006 (EST)

Feb 16th

The reward of eternal life at final judgment and all the follows

  • How can such things legitimately be called "rewards" while maintaining sola gratia? In what sense should we think of things like eternal life as "rewards", while they are at the same time called gifts? -Aaronshaf 14:01, 16 February 2006 (EST)
Any specific passages you are dealing with? JordanBarrett (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2006 (EST)
I can't speak for a Reformed congregation but I (and others of the "Fundamentalist-Evangelical" strand) have typically maintained that we are saved by grae and rewarded on the basis of what we have done. In the case of judgment, it is works-earned ("the wages of sin is death"). While salvation is not earned, God does reward those who serve Him faithfully (certain passages refer to "the crown of life" "crown of glory" and other such things. Revelation is full of rewards mentioned ("To him who overcomes..."). I guess the point is that it comes down to being saved by grace and receiving rewards for faithful service at the end of the age. -David 15:18, 16 February 2006 (EST)

Feb 13th

The sin unto death

  • I have a real hard time seeing how 1 John 5:16 fits into my life. How have you seen fit to apply this verse? My main problem is this: How does one discern whether another has committed this sin? How does this fit with Matthew 5-7's love-your-enemies attitude? Have you ever considered someone you actually know described by 1 John 5:16? Thanks! Grace and peace in Christ. -Aaronshaf 05:38, 13 February 2006 (EST)
I think this depends on how you define a "sin not leading to death" and a "sin leading to death", but I think that's already obvious. :) Have you read the articles that are posted on the 1 John article? Pending where your judgment falls on the interpretation will more than likely (and should) direct your application. JordanBarrett (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Baptism by fire

In what sense? In the world at large, the phrase has come to mean "an ordeal", but I don't suppose that's what you're thinking of? Are you referring to Luke 3:15-17 where John the Baptist says that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire? I always took that to mean judgment, as John goes on to explain his image of fire in those terms. Wooster (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2006 (EST)
I would agree that the use in the gospel is meant in terms of judgment. JordanBarrett (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2006 (EST)

Feb 6th

Citing a source

If you simply leaven a one-line quote, are you required to leave the entire source of the quote? Or can you simply leave it as,

"This is a quote" - Jordan

JordanBarrett (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2006 (EST)

To start, I would make a distinction between block-quoted text and in-line quotations. Any quotation set off from the rest of the body text should be fully referenced as it appears, no exceptions and no matter the length. For in-line quotations, I would use web conventions for web-sourced material and print conventions for print material. Thus, if you got the quotation (or can get it) from the web, you leave a numbered link, as so:
...and the chief end of man, says the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever" [1], which...
If you got it from a book, references are harder to do. I'd say either follow the usual convention (give the book a full reference in the references section, and cite by surname and year of publication), or, if it's not worth it, work it into the body text thus (page references are useful, but I never swear by them, partly because different editions have different layouts):
...but "missions exist because worship doesn't." (Piper, 1993, p. 17) This...
...but, as Piper put it in Let the nations be glad!, "missions exist because worship doesn't." (p. 17) This...
A final thought: how would you treat an in-line quotation from the Bible? Go, and do thou likewise (Luke 10:37, AV). (Teehee!) Hope that helps. Wooster (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2006 (EST)
That is close to what I am thinking. An example of my question would be the Agape article. Because the quote is short, can that work? I have seen others leave a one sentence quote from say, John Wesley, yet there is no source. Are those acceptable? Am I making any more sense?  :) JordanBarrett (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2006 (EST)
I have to say, I've not been at all convinced by these one-quote articles in any case. I certainly would rather that we had proper sources for these things, although I guess something's better than nothing. For Wesley, most (if not all) of his stuff is public domain, so there should be no problem in finding a web source for a quotation. For my part, I'd leave quotations like in agape unless I had something to put in its place; then, I would have no qualms about removing an un-referenced but otherwise worthy quotation. Of course, I take a very hard line on issues of citation, as you may well remember.  : ) Wooster (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2006 (EST)

January 30th

Deleting pages

Is this something only admins. can do? If so, I've got a list for you.  : D I tried flagging pages as "eminently deletable" using empty edits, but they don't show up in recent changes. Wooster (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2006 (EST)

January 24th

Methods in systematic theology

A question in three parts.

  1. Is there any reason why systematic theologies seem always to start with the Bible and move onto God (see Grudem, Reymond, Berkhof)?
  2. Am I wrong in hearing this order to be saying something like "God exists because the Bible tells us about him"?
  3. Am I wrong in thinking that even to say that "we know God exists because the Bible tells us about him" is missing someone rather important?
Wooster (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2006 (EST)
I would suggest that the reason they start with the Bible is because we cannot really know God or Christ except through his revelation of himself through Scripture. Nature can convince men that God exists and is even sufficient to condemn men (Romans 1-3), but we cannot know God, his nature, attributes, plan of redemption, etc., apart from his own authoritative revelation. Hence, first addressing the authority and inspiration of Scripture establishes the basis for all that follows: Theology proper, Christology, Anthropolgy, Pneumatology, Soteriology, Hamartiology, Eschatology, and so on. Gomarus 20:30, 24 January 2006 (EST).
I would agree. Scripture is the ultimate and most authoratative source of revelation. Furthermore, especially regarding Reformed theologians like Grudem, Reymond, and Berkhof, Scripture is the main source of theology and any true knowledge of God, and so they deal with it first to prove its validity and help others understand why it is used to develop a systematic theology. An interesting note is that Karl Barth went another route and began his Church Dogmatics with the Trinity. This all falls under Prolegomena (a nice $10 word) which is an interesting debate in and of itself. Barth says that prolegomena is not "things which need to be said before theology is possible" but instead "the things that must be said first in theology". Other thoughts? JordanBarrett (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2006 (EST)
To be more pointed towards your questions. (1) is answered above. (2) I don't think its saying "God exists because the Bible tells us about him" but as Gomarus said, we learn the more detailed aspects of God, his plan, purposes, who he is, who Christ is, etc... (3) Could you rephrase this question?  :) JordanBarrett (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2006 (EST)
Thanks, that helps clear up the reasoning that's going on. Jordan: question number 3 was really aimed at wondering whether the statement which you made ("Scripture is the ultimate and most authoritative source of revelation") is actually the full story. In other words, is this guy not the ultimate and authoritative revelation of God? Wooster (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2006 (EST)
Incidentally, I keep getting database errors on this page, but not if I click through "diff". Odd, huh? Wooster (talk)
Same here on the datbase errors. Gomarus 14:14, 25 January 2006 (EST)
To your last question. Yes, Jesus is the ultimate authority and revelation. But how would you answer the person who says, "Don't bother me with what the Bible says (about this or that), I just believe in Jesus." People are just as quick to believe in a Jesus of their own imagination as they are a God of their own concoction. For example, "My God is a God of love and would never condemn anyone to Hell." However, if it is not the Jesus revealed, defined, described, and expounded in the Bible, it is a fatally flawed belief. To say we can know Jesus apart from Scripture is reminiscent of neo-orthodoxy which threw out the propositional truth of Scripture in favor of its existentialism and of modern Gnosticism which relies on religious experience and personal insight for its authority and understanding of the Christ -- "You can say what you will, but I know what I feel in my heart to be the truth!" :-) Gomarus 14:14, 25 January 2006 (EST)
This could sound odd, but here's how it runs through my head (along with what Gomarus is saying) - "The best way we can be pointed to the most authoritative source (Jesus) is by using the most authoritative, reliable, God-given source (Scripture)." In other words, Scripture is authoritative because it points to Jesus, it contains His words, because they are words from God Himself, and thus I believe the Bible is authoritative because it reveals Christ who reveals God. Hope that makes some sense. Let me know if you (or anyone else) has anymore thoughts. This is a good discussion. JordanBarrett (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2006 (EST)
Gotcha. I guess my natural bent towards pedantry gets mixed up with a keen desire to keep Jesus central, and hey presto! the ordering of material in systematics gets me confused.  : D You're right, Jordan, it is a good discussion, and I think it pans out in practical ways, too. F'rinstance, when talking about the Bible with non-Christian friends, I make sure that we're clear on *why* we're talking about it: because the Bible is the only place you're going to meet Jesus. And that actually makes for clearer evangelism, because I get to talk about Jesus. Not that we judge a viewpoint based on its clarity to the non-believer, but when I find that a non-Christian friend understands why my beliefs cohere, I always think we've got somewhere good. Wooster (talk)
It's interesting, Gomarus, that you mention the neo-orthodox, because I understood Barth to be quite insistent on special revelation and very sceptical (perhaps overly?) of the concept of natural revelation. I know Brunner was mad keen on it; indeed, I thought it was a point of some disagreement between the two? Or did Barth not carry that through consistently into his doctrine of Scripture? Wooster (talk)
Btw, the PC problems I mentioned elsewhere have finally done for my machine. I am reciting the imprecatory psalms against the twin enemies of gremlins and the ravages of the "professional" technician. I'll check in again once I get the PC back and work up some more material, probably in amill or "interpretations...". Also, the database error's been fixed for this page. Wooster (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2006 (EST)
Scratch that last; DB error's back with a vengeance.

January 20th

The Spirit in Genesis 1:2

Is this intended to speak of the second person of the Trinity? Is this how it was originally meant? Not having the NT, what would have been a sound interpretation/understanding of this and what the Spirit of God was? -Aaronshaf 12:44, 20 January 2006 (EST)

I personally find the interpretation of the OT more difficult than the NT at times. The reason being is that new light is shed on the OT by the NT. Off the cuff I would think Gen 1:2 was not originally meant to be a main passage that spoke about the Spirit of God as the Holy Spirit. It's context is creation, not the Holy Spirit as could be John 14:15-31 or other areas. However, now that we have the NT I think this passage can be seen differently than it's original intention, and that is, it can be seen as the Holy Spirit's involvement in the creation of this world.
Regarding a Jewish interpretation, I'm not sure. I've googled around and come up empty, but I'll check some other sources when I get home. I would imagine the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mishna, or the Talmud would have something on this (since most of these show common Jewish interpretations of OT passages), but it'd probably be hard to find.
Actually, I did just find this. "Judaism as a whole does not have a developed pneumatology. Most Jews consider the Holy Spirit to be a thoroughly Christian concept. "The designation of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, stems from a Hebrew figure of speech, the ruah hakodesh ("holy spirit"). In Jewish usage, however, this concept was never identified with a seperate person, but with a Divine power which could fill men, as, for instance, the prophets." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1943, 1969, see: "Trinity", pp. 308.
I'm not sure though if this could be considered an early interpretation. JordanBarrett (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2006 (EST)
Wow, very helpful. Thanks. -Aaronshaf 18:53, 20 January 2006 (EST)
Maybe this can add some more to it (hopefully not making it confusing),
"There has long been discussion concerning whether [Gen 1:2] speaks of a supernatural wind or the spirit of God. To some extent, it could be said that this proble exists because Hebrew uses the same word (ruah) for the meteorological phenomena (wind) and for the metaphysical entity (spirit). Technically, however, it is not that Hebrew uses the same word for a spirit and a wind but rather that ruah is sufficiently broad to cover the whole category from spirit to wind. We cannot ask whether the author intended "spirit" or "wind" - the author intended ruah... on the other hand, it is rightly pointed out that all of the other OT uses of ruah elohim are most naturally translated "spirit of God" rather than "supernatural wind"... the motif of the wind used as an instrument of God to master waters can be found in the exodus narrativ (Ex 14:21; 15:8). In these cases the wind is closely connected with deity..." - J.H. Walton, "Creation", Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. (IVP, 2003). p. 157
JordanBarrett (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2006 (EST)

January 5th

Common grace

Couldn't it be said that common grace is saving for the elect, i.e. that sometimes this grace plays a key role in preparing the soil for the word of God? It seems as though common grace could be a Reformed prevenient grace for the elect. -Aaronshaf 15:13, 5 January 2006 (EST)

Reformed writers of the past have also used the term "prevenient grace" (or in today's vernacular, preceding grace), but use it referring to God's work in the elect (prior to regeneration) in bringing them to conversion, unlike the Arminian prevenient grace which amounts to universal enablement. In my view, the Reformed prevenient grace may be seen as part of God's "effectual call" or irresistible grace, but is properly seen as distinct from non-saving common grace. Common grace, on the other hand, extends to all mankind as does the Arminian prevenient grace but it is a non-saving grace and specifically does not include offsetting the effects of the Fall, or restoring man's free will, or enabling man to turn to Christ in and of himself (if he so wills) as in the Arminian view. Therefore, while common grace may be used of God, it is not "key", for the "key" is his irresistible saving grace to the elect. Gomarus 10:37, 23 January 2006 (EST)

January 3rd

Evolution & Noah's Ark

What is a summary of the major Reformed Evangelical views on Genesis 1-11? Evolution, Noah's Ark, etc. -Aaronshaf 18:24, 3 January 2006 (EST)

Maybe check out this...? JordanBarrett 17:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)

December 4th

Sola and prima scriptura

What is the difference between sola scriptura and prima scriptura? -Aaronshaf 23:59, 4 December 2005 (EST)

In simplist terms, and in the ways I have seen it used: Sola Scriptura maintains the Scriptures are the sole source of doctrine, while Prima Scriptura maintains Scripture is the primary (but not sole) source of doctrine. To me, this is reminiscent of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral where authority is based on a consideration of (1) Scripture (2) Tradition (3) Reason and (4) Experience, although Scripture is "primary". Also I have heard Roman Catholics profess holding to Prima Scriptura, but there is ample evidence in their official teaching that Scripture is subject to the magisterium of the Roman Church. Gomarus 13:19, 6 December 2005 (EST)

Revelation 20:11-15

How can Rev. 20:11-15 be understood apart from a works-righteousness? Layperson 00:25, 5 December 2005 (EST)

I read the introductions and beginning chapters to Future Grace, by John Piper, and it changed my whole view on this. It basically comes down to this, from what I understand: We will be judged according to our works, but only will be accepted on the basis of the righteousness of Christ. See also Matthew 25 and Romans 2. Piper has some sermons on the Romans 2 final judgment passage that talk about this topic. [2] [3] [4] [5] -Aaronshaf 09:32, 5 December 2005 (EST)
"Would it be a contradiction with the gospel of free and sovereign grace if that Gospel were powerful enough that all who truly believed it were radically changed by it and came to heaven on the path of persevering obedience? If that were true - and I think it is true - then the works that count would be the works of faith, and at the judgment they would be the evidence of saving faith in Christ. And our salvation would accord with them, but not be based on them." -John Piper [6]

November 10th

Phil 4:13 and "all things"

What is a clear way to explain the limitations of "all things" that Paul speaks about in Philippians 4:13? Obviously this does not mean believers "can do all things" such as fly, or live underwater (ok, wierd examples). But legitemately, what can believers do through Christ's strength? Perhaps this is a proof-text for Wesleyan perfectionism... JordanBarrett 14:36, 10 November 2005 (EST)

I would start by paying close attention to the context of verse 13, namely verses 11-12, wher Paul says, "Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need," NASB. Following which, he says, "I can do all things . . ."
It is reminiscent of Paul speaking of his ability to "endure all things" for the sake of the gospel. I take the primary reference therefore to be his optimism in Christ regarding whatever circumstance or opportunity the Lord brings his way. I see nothing that would make this a reference to attaining a state of sinless perfection. Gomarus 15:00, 10 November 2005 (EST)

Ok, forget that I mentioned perfectionism. :) Are you saying the limits of "all things" extends to one's circumstances only? JordanBarrett 16:54, 10 November 2005 (EST)

I'm merely saying that context is important to understanding what Paul is saying, and therefore due weight ought to be given the context in determining the meaning. Somebody once said, "a verse without a context is a pretext." :-) Gomarus 07:40, 11 November 2005 (EST)

Agreed. However, I find the context to give ambiguous limits on "all things". So we can say "context, context!" all day, but I guess I'm possibly looking for other passages in Scripture that can place viable limits on "all things". JordanBarrett 12:02, 11 November 2005 (EST)

OK. Here's some helpful input. The word translated "I can do" is the Greek ισχυω (or ischuo). According to W. E. Vine, this is properly rendered "I have strength for". In otherwords, Paul is saying "I have strength for all things because it is Christ who strengthens me." This fits the context and clarifies the statement. Gomarus 12:30, 11 November 2005 (EST)

Maybe you'll hate me, but this helps me clarify "I can do" and not "all things". The greek panta (all things) is too vague for me. I'm looking for limits, some kind of modifier, and I don't believe the context makes it crystal clear or even somewhat foggy. My guess is that context has this apply only to Paul's circumstances (because of v. 11), however, I'd like to get this hashed out because I run into too many Christians who use "all things" to mean "anything imaginable". Maybe what I'm looking for is too complicated and I'll just never be happy.  :) JordanBarrett 12:46, 11 November 2005 (EST)

Sorry Jordan. It seems clear enough to me. Paul is not trying to describe "what" he is strengthened for, rather that his strength comes from Christ. That's the WHOLE point. Gomarus 13:06, 11 November 2005 (EST)

I will go elsewhere then. I agree with you on the main point, the context, etc... However, I don't need this explained. I'm looking for how to explain this to laymen who wonder what "all things" encompasses. So Paul's strength comes from Christ, great, but for what? All circumstances? Any temptation? These are the questions I get, and I'm trying to find easier ways to explain them that make sense to a laymen. We have established the main point of the passage, but I feel the application is lacking. JordanBarrett 13:22, 11 November 2005 (EST)

November 4th

Calvinism, foreknowledge, and prayer

How does Calvinism, God's foreknowledge and prayer work? If God knows all things before we do them, and ordains all things through his sovereign will, how can prayer be effective? How can a finite human being sway the will of the infinite God? JordanBarrett 11:35, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

Caedmon's Call has a lyric, "And you can't plan the ends and not plan the means." God ordains prayer to be instrument through which his kingdom comes and will be done. Why else would he have us pray it? I think that sums up my attitude toward it, although psychologically and emotionally I don't have this worked out. To me this is relevant to times in the Bible when it seems God "changed" his mind. I chalk it up to be that God irrevocably set his mind on changing his mind. He ordains that he, in relationship with man, would "change" through prayer. Anyways, that's my 2c. Piper has been helpful to me on this. -Aaronshaf 11:44, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)
Ahhh. Why, indeed, do Calvinists pray? :-)
First, we are commanded and encouraged in Scripture to pray.
Secondly, spiritual benefits are derived from prayer based on the way Paul speaks of it.
Thirdly, it pleases our heavenly Father when we come to him in prayerful dependency.
Fourthly, God ordains the means as well as the ends, therefore by prayer we become participants in God's "means" of accomplishing his will and instruments of his grace.
Finally, as to the question, "Does prayer change the will of God?" I don't know, but it changes me.
Gomarus 11:50, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

I think that's the hard thing for me. I'm aware of what Scripture says, and of the biblical examples of when God's people prayed and he listened and acted accordingly, but it's still hard for me to accept. I try and walk a fine line between God being wholly other and yet us being his children to whom he actually listens - God as the Creator and Supreme Being and yet God as Father. Interesting stuff, to me at least.

I should actually pay attention more to what I read. Last night, before bed, I was reading Philosophy for Understanding Theology and Allen was talking about how Hellenism can be seen in Christianity. He mentioned that Hellenism is always asking, "How?" and "Why?" and seeking to find an answer. He then said, however, that the early Church Fathers were content with the Mystery of God, in that not all things could be answered concerning God's nature and his actions, and that the Mystery of God is something that affects all doctrines, for we will never understand them completely. I guess this also goes with what I wrote on the knowability of God. Pretty funny how I woke up with this question bugging me, and yet God has in fact surrounded me with things that relate to this question in what I recently read and wrote. Again, I need to pay attention to that kind of stuff, and marvel at (and accept) the mystery of God all the while trusting what his Word says. Thanks for your replies. JordanBarrett 13:12, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

November 3rd

Spirit of Christ in 1 Peter 1:11

What does "Spirit of Christ" mean in 1 Peter 1? -Aaronshaf 10:40, 3 Nov 2005 (EST)

October 28th - November 2nd

Scripture quotations on commentary articles

I think we should be consistent when we quote Scripture and then give brief commentary. Once we come up with a primary version, if we use others, we should make sure we quote/source it (e.g. NIV). What version does Theopedia want to use? JordanBarrett 16:20, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

I don't think we're really allowed to quote an entire chapter in one version in one article, as that would violate common copyright restrictions (many versions like the ESV limit quoting to only portions of a chapter). That's why suggest we use a mix between NASB, ESV, and NIV. No big deal though. Anything except interpretative paraphrase. -Aaronshaf 16:26, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)
Maybe we should add a note that says that the assumed version, when not noted, is the ESV? -Aaronshaf 17:16, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)
That's a good idea. Will do. JordanBarrett 17:46, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)
I think it's dangerous to allow the "assumption" of anything. It is a good idea if you are writing an article and are planning to use 1 main translation to state that up front, at the beginning of whatever you are writing, "ie All Scriptures taken from the NET-New English Translation (from Bible.org) unless otherwise stated." : JenniferDent 15:08, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
That doesn't seem like a very practical or aesthetic thing to do (state that on every such article). -Aaronshaf 15:01, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
When people start making assumptions concerning anything it leads to more confusion. I'm not speaking of just quoting a scripture here or there, however if you are writing a large article with numerous scriptures that are quoted, it is helpful to state at the beginning which version/translation you are quoting from. It really shouldn't be a big deal if you do not want to post such a large statement at the beginning of your article to just type: NET, NIV, NKJ, KJV and so on after each reference. Again it is just a thought. : JenniferDent 15:08, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
Another site to use is www.Bible.org/Netbible their copywrite restrictions are clearly listed and compared to 99.9% of other translations/version is the most readily available. : JenniferDent 15:08, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

John 7:15-16

Does Jesus have some sort of mystical union with the Father wherein Jesus, in his humanity, receives knowledge from the Father? How is this to be understood in light of his deity? How does the Holy Spirit play a role in this? -Aaronshaf 15:33, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Penal substitution and imputation

When were my sins imputed to Christ? On the cross, or at conversion on the basis of the cross? -Aaronshaf 13:52, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

See main articles: Penal substitution theory of the atonement, imputation

My understanding was that Christ did become sin for us on the cross (Gal 3:13, Col 2:14, 1 Pet 2:24). It was that point that our sins were paid for.

John 12:42

What does "nevertheless" mean in this passage? How does it connect to v. 41? -Aaronshaf 16:09, 31 Oct 2005 (EST)

John 12:44-46

What are some examples of modalists using this passage to support modalism? -Aaronshaf 16:08, 31 Oct 2005 (EST)

Sola scriptura

What are some popular arguments against sola scriptura? -Aaronshaf 16:06, 31 Oct 2005 (EST)

Local church movement

What is the Local church movement? JordanBarrett 17:30, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Check out the links on the bottom of The Local Church. It's a modalistic quasi-cult that denies the Trinity. I've personally interacted with them at my local university. -Aaronshaf 17:50, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)

October 26

Licensing

I'm looking for a license to put Theopedia under which is similar to the LGPL software license (distinct from the GPL license). Any pointers anyone can give me to similar licensing schemes? The goal is to make the text as open as possible. -Aaronshaf 17:06, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Is there a problem with the GFDL? Notthe9 12:58, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Creative Commons has an online tool to help select a license and I believe there is a built-in integration with MediaWiki (when I set up my first MediaWiki site about a week ago I was walked thru the Creative Commons questionaire). If you are still looking for assistance, let me know and I can do a little more research.--Ksearles 11:45, 5 February 2006 (EST)
I personally use a Creative Commons license for my articles, etc. It protects your authorship although allows free use of the content. It might be what you're looking for. David 12:38, 5 February 2006 (EST)

October 25

Why do we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit?

That we are depraved seems like a good answer, but is that it? "You are from below, I am from above", as Jesus said in John 3. Do we need the illumination of the Spirit also because we are simply finite? -Aaronshaf 14:18, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

What does John 15:22 mean?

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin." -John 15:22

-Aaronshaf 09:16, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

It certainly does not mean that they would be without sin. "Christ is describing the guilt of the world" NET Bible study notes. Christ came with both "words" (vs 22) and "deeds", ie miracles (vs 24) yet they (the world) maintained their unbelief. The sin that is referred to here is the sin of unbelief and is the only one that can not be forgiven since they are ignoring the Way to receive forgiveess (through Christ) Another thing when trying to determine what something means is to read the verse before and after and also the entire chapter. This chapter has Christ talking to his disciples. You will be hated, because of me, and so on. This helps explain the specific passage that you are looking at. Does this help? JenniferDent 20:26, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

October 24

What is the "federal vision"?

Could someone tell me what the Federal Vision is? -Aaronshaf 19:12, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)

When is a "people group" considered "reached"?

What does it take for an "ethnos" to be considered reached? What types of things need to be in place? What are some people groups considered reached? -Aaronshaf 12:03, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)

"A people group among which there is no indigenous community of believing Christians with adequate numbers and resources to evangelize this people group. The original Joshua Project editorial committee selected the critieria less than 2% Evangelical Christian and less than 5% Christian Adherents. Sociologists have recently researched what percentage of a population needs to be influenced to impact the whole group and the answer was 2%." (And I would add that there must be a self-propogating, self-sustaining church growth movement.) (cpoteet)


The Joshua Project has a list of all the unreached peoples: http://www.joshuaproject.net/unreached.php

What is a "people group"?

What is considered a people group? What are the various controversies surrounding the content of that term? What are some popular definitions? -Aaronshaf 11:52, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Related: ethnos

"For evangelization purposes, a people group is the largest group within which the Gospel can spread as a church planting movement without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance". In many parts of the world lack of understandability serves as the main barrier and it is appropriate to define people group almost entirely on the basis of language differences. In other parts of the world, most notably in portions of South Asia, acceptance is a larger barrier than understandability. In these regions, caste, religious tradition, location, common histories and legends, plus language may be used to define the boundaries of each people group. Joshua Project uses the terms "people", "people group" and "ethnic people" synonymously. However, others may distinguish between the terms." Source: From 1982 Lausanne Committee Chicago meeting and Joshua Project (cpoteet)

October 21 and older

What is a covenant?

What is the definition of a covenant? -Aaronshaf 10:39, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

user:Gomarus answered this on the covenant page. More should be coming soon. JordanBarrett 13:05, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Soul

What is the "soul"? Did elect souls go to heaven before Christ resurrected/ascended? -Aaronshaf 10:44, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Christ's ascension

What is the relationship between Christ's ascension and redemptive history? -Aaronshaf 10:45, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

James 2

What are the various ways Christians reconcile James's statement, "one is justified by works and not by faith alone", and Paul's "justified by faith apart from works" and "to the one who does not work, but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"... ? -Aaronshaf 10:49, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

The typical Reformed response is that James is not talking about the same kind of justification as Paul. James in James 2 seems to be quite clearly talking about works justifying one's Godliness, that it shows that one is righteous. Paul, however talks about the justification of an individual before God (see Rom 3:20, for example), his being made just. That was a poor explanation. Meh. Notthe9 12:55, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Notthe9 is relating what I also have seen as a typical reconciling of James and Paul. I.e. James is speaking of justification before men, Paul is speaking of justification before God. It also fits with the idea that we are justified by "faith alone" but not by a faith that is alone. Paul also speaks of a faith that works, not a faith that leaves one unchanged. Gomarus 13:51, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Giving people the benefit of doubt

What are some theological reasons for giving people, especially unregenerate people, the "benefit of doubt"? i.e., what are some theological reasons for assuming totally depraved people are basically honest and good? What makes assuming the best of people a noble and godly thing? I'm not so much asking WHY people, especially unregenerate people, do good things. I'm asking... why should I assume they will do things well? It seems like giving people the benefit of doubt, assuming their best, is a godly interpersonal trait. -Aaronshaf 10:50, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

We should give people the benefit of the doubt because love always believes. We should not assume people are basically honest and good. Assuming the best out of people is acting in love. Notthe9 12:42, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Why should we assume that ANYONE is "basically honest and good"? According to the scriptures no one is good except God. Mark 10:18 From the Christian Worldview (perspective) In Titus it says: All is pure to those who are pure. But to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their minds and consciences are corrupted.(NET)Although people can do good things (ie feed the hungry, donate things to those less fortunate), with the eternal aspect in mind it realy counts for nothing. : JenniferDent 15:47, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

I hope Jennifer sticks around. But back to the question . . . I think Christians can be wary and discerning and still exhibit kindness and the love of Christ when dealing with unbelievers. I'm not sure what you mean by "giving them the benefit of the doubt," do you mean "trust" them? I have unbelieving friends whom I trust to keep their word and conduct themselves fairly with me, but that's based on a developed relationship, not a meeting on the street. Gomarus 15:56, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

Thanks Gomarus, I'll share what I know, which isn't much we all have SO much more to learn...in between admin responsibilities on another site, wifey type things and motherly duties...(not necessarily in that order) Anyway in my above I should have said this: Why should we assume that ANYONE (including those who claim to be christians) is "basically honest and good"? As Christians we should be more walking the walk then talking the talk. By their fruits you shall know them. Matthew 7:15-10Everyone on this planet falls in one of two categories. The saved and the lost. JenniferDent 17:21, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)

Determinism and compatibilism

I am trying to know more about compatibilism and determinism and I went through the stuff in theopedia. Can you give me direction as to where I need to look to know more about these topics.

Thanks,

Abhinav (from a friend of mine. -Aaronshaf 11:16, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT))


I would check out Predestination and Free-will: Four views on divine sovereignty and human freedom, edited by David & Randall Basinger (IVP). The four authors are: John Feinberg (calvinist), Norman Geisler (moderate calvinist), Bruce Reichenbach (arminian), and Clark Pinnock (open theist).

Immateriality

What is the difference between the immateriality of the human soul and the immateriality of God? -Aaronshaf 11:41, 21 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I don't know that there is. I think God's immateriality might be a communicable attribute. Notthe9 12:49, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Theopedia:Ask_a_question/Archive_1"
Personal tools