Results 341 - 360 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97479 | ||
DarcyA: If the UPC does not deny the Trinity, then neither do the JWs. You can't have it both ways. Since the UPC itself says it denies the Trinity and since I do not have any way to look into the thoughts and intents of another person's heart, then all I can go by is what they SAY. And what they SAY is that they deny the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. One cannot be a Christian and reject one of the essentials. When anyone believes or teaches that the Father is not God or that the Holy Spirit is not God, then that person neither worships nor serves the God of the Bible -- who is one God in three Persons, not one God in one Person. Any way to convince Lockman to allow us to use the percent sign and other symbols? I doubt it! One possibility is that the disallowed characters might be read as programming code and would thus interfere with the normal operation of the programs. But that is only MY OPINION. :-) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
342 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97480 | ||
DarcyA: My Note, to which you replied, quotes only the first two paragraphs of an article on the subject. I recommend that you save any questions until after you have read the entire article. To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0603.pdf) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
343 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97482 | ||
Amended Note (Disregard Previous Note) If the UPC does not deny the Trinity, then neither do the JWs. You can't have it both ways. Since the UPC itself says it denies the Trinity and since I do not have any way to look into the thoughts and intents of another person's heart, then all I can go by is what they SAY. And what they SAY is that they deny the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. One cannot be a Christian and reject one of the essentials. When anyone believes or teaches that Jesus is the Father, or Jesus is the Holy Spirit, or the Father is Jesus, or the Holy Spirit is Jesus -- then that person neither worships nor serves the God of the Bible, who is one God in three Persons, not one God in one Person. Any way to convince Lockman to allow us to use the percent sign and other symbols? I doubt it! One possibility is that the disallowed characters might be read as programming code and would thus interfere with the normal operation of the programs. But that is only MY OPINION. :-) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
344 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97485 | ||
'What is Christianity? 'When it gets to mere Christianity, the basics and fundamentals are rather few. All Christians agree on the basics and fundamentals. If they don't, they are not called Christians. ( . . . ) '[For example,] this is what separates Mormons from Christians. Mormons disagree on those fundamental issues and that is why they have to be called something other than Christian. ' . . . The fundamental truth claims of Christianity as a whole are rather basic. Christianity stands or falls on those things, and not on the parochial particulars. 'What are the fundamental truth claims of Christianity? 'The particulars of mere Christianity entail four basic things: '1. Your view of God , '2. your view of creation , '3. your view of man , and '4. your view of salvation .' ____________________ What is Christianity? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/whatis.htm) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
345 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97490 | ||
A christ...not THE Christ of Scripture ___________________ "Those who reject any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith worship a christ who is not the Christ of Scripture." ____________________ 'Everything Essential to Saving Faith Is Fundamental ' . . . a doctrine must be regarded as fundamental if eternal life depends on it. ( . . . ) 'Since Jesus Himself is the true God incarnate (1 John 5:20; John 8:58; 10:30), the fact of His deity (and by implication the whole doctrine of the Trinity) is a fundamental article of faith (see 1 John 2:23). Our Lord Himself confirmed this when He said all must honor Him as they honor the Father (John 5:23).' ( . . . ) 'The Fundamental Doctrines Are All Summed up in the Person and Work of Christ 'Paul wrote, "No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity. Those who reject any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith worship a christ who is not the Christ of Scripture. ( . . . ) 'That is why [John] wrote, "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2 John 9). Far from encouraging union with those who denied the fundamental truths of the faith, John forbade any form of spiritual fellowship with or encouragement of such false religion (vv. 10-11). (Adapted from John F. MacArthur, Reckless Faith [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997], pp. 108-17) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
346 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97496 | ||
You are not saying that as long as a person claims to believe in Jesus then he can believe anything else he wants to and still be saved, are you? Perhaps our problem in this thread is that we are both using some of the same words, but we do not agree on what those words mean or how they are defined. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
347 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97500 | ||
CRI proves that the UPC is not a Christian church. If it is a Christian church, then so is the Watchtower organization. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a theologian or CRI to figure this out. According to the stated beliefs of the UPC and the commonly accepted (biblical) definition of Christianity, the UPC is not a Christian church. Moreover, no orthodox Christian church believes that there is one God in one Person. --Radioman2 |
||||||
348 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97503 | ||
I quote here the best, clearest, most concise and accurate answer I've ever heard to the question: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO *BELIEVE* IN JESUS CHRIST? "To believe in Jesus Christ is to have a confident conviction that: '1) He is who the Bible says He is. '2) He will do what He promises. '3) Upon placing my trust in Him, I enter into a personal, eternal relationship with the Son of God." (Quoted from a sermon by Charles Stanley, In Touch Ministries) Notice that this is not God's Simple Plan of Salvation or How to be Saved or Steps to Salvation. This is merely WHAT IT MEANS TO *BELIEVE* IN JESUS CHRIST. "1) He is who the Bible says He is." And according to the Scriptures, He is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit. He is not one God in one Person. To believe otherwise is to believe in another gospel and another Christ. --Radioman2 |
||||||
349 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97505 | ||
Do you even know the definition of the word 'doctrine'? Are you aware that the Bible uses the word 'doctrine' (2 Tim 3:16 KJV)? What do you mean "downgraded to a doctrine"? --Radioman2 |
||||||
350 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97508 | ||
As long as you are defining the words, you will never be wrong or mistaken. :-) --Radioman2 |
||||||
351 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97509 | ||
As long as you are defining the words, you will never be wrong or mistaken. :-) --Radioman2 |
||||||
352 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97511 | ||
The "full gospel" does not include the false, heretical, unscriptural notion that Jesus is the Father or the Holy Spirit. It does not include the notion that there is one God in one Person. I never said that there were no on-fire Christians who loved the Lord in the UPC. If people will not read or make an effort to understand what is posted, then they need not embarrass themselves by attempting to reply to it. |
||||||
353 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 97552 | ||
The word used in the quote was not Catholic (capital C); it was catholic (lower case c). Used in the quote it does NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church. It merely carries the original meaning of the word catholic. In the quote 'catholic' means 'universal.' As I said earlier, as long as you are defining the key words, it is impossible for you to be wrong or mistaken. |
||||||
354 | Why did Jesus say "never again?" | Matt 24:21 | Radioman2 | 78758 | ||
You write: "What covenant is God going to make with the Jews? He already made one with them and they blew it." - - - - - - - - - - "That Israel has not been forever set aside is the theme of this chapter (Romans 11). "(1) The salvation of Paul proves that there is still a remnant (Romans 11:1 ) "(2) The doctrine of the remnant proves it (Romans 11:2-6). "(3) The present national unbelief was foreseen (Romans 11:7-10). "(4) Israel's unbelief is the Gentile opportunity (Romans 11:11-25). "(5) Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree, Christ (Romans 11:17-22 ). "(6) They are to be grafted in again (Romans 11:23,24). "(7) The promised Deliverer will come out of Zion and the nation will be saved (Romans 11:25-29). That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture. The Christian is of the heavenly seed of Abraham (Genesis 15:5,6; Galatians 3:29) and partakes of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant." "But Israel as a nation always has it own place and is yet to have its greatest exaltation as the earthly people of God." (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/) |
||||||
355 | GOD TURNED HIS BACK ON JESUS WHEN JESUS | Matt 27:46 | Radioman2 | 93915 | ||
Neither Psalms 22:1 nor Matthew 27:46 nor Mark 15:34 *say* "GOD THE FATHER TURNED HIS BACK ON JESUS." The original question pertains to what the Bible SAYS, not to how it is INTERPRETED. | ||||||
356 | WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE? | Matt 28:19 | Radioman2 | 91204 | ||
J.Holmes: Welcome to the forum! I agree with your post. Radioman2 P.S. No offense intended, but J.Holmes is the phoniest username I've ever heard. (Forum users, save your posts rebuking me. I know the user and am joking.) |
||||||
357 | WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE? | Matt 28:19 | Radioman2 | 91940 | ||
J.Holmes: I've made a terrible mistake. I mistakenly believed that I knew the person with the username J.Holmes. Turned out I was wrong. Please accept my apology for having offended you. It was not my intention to do so. Welcome to the forum. I hope you will continue to be an active participant in it. Please don't let my unintentional rudeness keep you away from the forum. I am Radioman2, A Friend of Another J. Holmes |
||||||
358 | Luther, Calvin and Zwingli on Mary | Mark 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80045 | ||
God, Mary's Savior You are right. Here is more information on the subject. "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Luke 1:47 (NASB) "1:47 *my Savior.* Mary referred to God as 'Savior,' indicating both that she recognized her own need of a Savior, and that she knew the true God as her Savior. Nothing here or anywhere else in Scripture indicates Mary thought of herself as 'immaculate' (free from the taint of original sin). Quite the opposite is true; she employed language typical of someone whose only hope for salvation is divine grace. Nothing in this passage lends support to the notion that Mary herself ought to be an object of adoration" (note at Luke 1:47, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
359 | shall not taste of death till they see | Mark 9:1 | Radioman2 | 96478 | ||
The Law under the New Covenant [candy lee: I present the following for your consideration. I would appreciate any feedback you wish to give. If you disagree with any of the following, could you quote at least some of the part(s) you disagree with and comment on the Scripture references cited, telling us why you disagree. It is not my intention to challenge or debate you or put you on the defensive. I do respect your views and I just wondered what your reaction is to the following. --Radioman2] 'The Law under the New Covenant. 'The New Testament's statements about Old Testament law are difficult to harmonize. On the one hand, some New Testament statements indicate that under the new covenant the whole law is in some sense abrogated (Rom 6:14, "you are not under law" Rom 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law" ). 'Direct application of cultic laws is clearly excluded in the New Testament. Food laws, circumcision, sacrifices, temple, and priesthood have been superseded (Mark 7:19; 1 Cor 7:19; Heb 7:11-19, 28; 8:13; 10:1-9). Christ has abolished in his flesh the commandments and regulations that separated Jew from Gentile (Eph 2:15). 'Dispensationalism concludes from these statements that Christians are under no Mosaic laws, not even the Decalogue, but are instead under the law of Christ (Gal 6:2; 1 Cor 9:21).' [Note to clarify my position: I do not consider myself a Dispensationalist. --Radioman2] ____________________ From the article "The Law", Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) |
||||||
360 | shall not taste of death till they see | Mark 9:1 | Radioman2 | 96483 | ||
The law is not altogether invalid 'On the other hand, the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. (...) 'The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"), Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10). 'In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction.' ____________________ Bibliography. G. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics; W. S. Barker and W. R. Godfrey, eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique; H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus; D. A. Dorsey, JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 321-34; H.-H. Esser, NIDNTT2:438-51; M. Greenberg, Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, pp. 3-28; idem, Studies in Bible: 1986, pp. 3-28; idem, Religion and Law, pp. 101-12, 120-25; H. W. House and T. Ice, Dominion Theology: A Blessing or a Curse?; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics; idem, JETS33/3 (Sept. 1990): 289-302; G. E. Mendenhall, Religion and Law, pp. 85-100; Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law; V. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses; R. J. Rushdooney, The Institutes of Biblical Law; R. Sonsino, Judaism33 (1984): 202-9; J. Sprinkle, A Literary Approach to Biblical Law: Exodus 20:22-23:19. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) --Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [40] >> |