Results 1581 - 1600 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1581 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 22490 | ||
I disagree on the last point. While baptism occurs apart from saving faith, it is not a "choice." It is a commandment. Don't let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction! --Joe! |
||||||
1582 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 22489 | ||
Tim: Sorry, but this is completely illogical thinking in your attempt to hold to baptismal regeneration at all costs. First you arrgued that NO ONE ever received the Holy Spirit before baptism; then you argued that Cornelius didn't receive the Holy Spirit, but rather just manifested some gifts of the Spirit; and now you are saying that he did indeed receive the Spirit before baptism as Acts 10 said, but that he was a "special case." Are you going to stick to this interpretation? In any case, I think Acts 8 is an interesting passage to look at. If the Holy Spirit comes at baptism as you say, why DID the apostles have to come later and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. You keep changing your definition of what exactly the Holy Spirit does at baptism. Does one RECEIVE the Holy Spirit at baptism or not? First you said "yes," then you bring up passages that clearly indicate that at least in this case, the Holy Spirit was NOT received at baptism, and yet they were still saved and "sealed" because of their baptism. I think you need to go back and get your definitions stright, Tim. It is very hard to argue against you when you change your own position with almost every post and re-define terms such as "receiving the Holy Spirit" when it suits your pre-conceived notions. So maybe you had better clearly distinguish between these three so the rest of us know what you are talking about: ...receiving the Holy Spirit ...the gift of the Holy Spirit ...the seal of the Holy Spirit Please nail those down once and for all so we don't have this chameleon debate. How are these things different, and when do each of these become a part of the life of a person? --Joe! |
||||||
1583 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 22485 | ||
"4. The accounts of salvation without baptism all precede the death of Christ on the cross (including the thief on the cross). While Christ was still on earth, and before his New Testament had been instituted, He had all authority to forgive sins. Today the only way you can get forgiveness of sins in the first place is through the waters of baptism -- That is why every example of conversion in Acts includes baptism. You cannot get any clearer than that." Actually, chances are that the thief on the Cross probably died after Jesus, since He was already dead by the time they came around for the traditional breaking of the legs. And let it be clear that I hold that baptism is an essential first step in the believer's new life in Christ. I by no means want to indicate that it is merely a nice little "picture." It is obedience to our Lord God. However, baptism is a response to regeneration, not the cause of it. --Joe! |
||||||
1584 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22391 | ||
You wrote: "Finally, I just want to say whether we agree with each other's views or not - we will BOTH go to heaven. It's okay if you want to 'work out your righteousness' and it's okay if I chose to believe that I AM already righteous (and just need to behave so by learning from the Spirit) - both of us are already SAINTS and no longer sinners because of receipt of the salvation gift. You can go ahead and be Martha....I'll chose to be Mary (and both are believers of Christ, btw)" Yes, both are believers in Christ, but that is not to say that Mary's life was CHARACTERIZED by doing nothing. It is not okay to believe whatever you want. One of us is seriously wrong regarding what characterizes the life of a believer in Christ. There are people in this world who profess faith and do not really possess it. False brethren do exist. They themselves do not consider themselves false brethren. There will be those who will be saying , "Lord, Lord, didn't I..." and being told that Jesus never knew them. Be sure from Scripture that yours is a living faith. And as I close, I would like to point out to you a few references on Law and Gospel and the distinction between justification and sanctification: "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul "The God Who Justifies" by James R. White http://www.founders.org/FJ28/article1.html http://www.alliancenet.org/pub/articles/horton.LawGospel.html And Martin Luther's Sermon on the twofold use of law and Gospel: http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/sermons/law_gospel.html May God's blessing and truth characterize and transform your life. --Joe! |
||||||
1585 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22386 | ||
I am flabbergated that you had the temerity to write: "One thing to note about James when reading his letter is that it was written BEFORE Paul's. A lot of practicalities in it, but it is milk since he did not have a full understanding of grace as Paul did. This is not to mean that we don't read James, but that we should be aware about his understanding of grace compared to Paul's." Great...now you are saying that the words of James are not inspired by the Holy Spirit...way to deny the inerrancy of Scripture. James' words are as God-breathed as Paul's, no matter even if you are correct about the dating of the two epistles. That is the problem with the bad theology you are proposing. You inevitably have to say (even in the New Testament) that "this really isn't meant for us" or "so-and-so just didn't get it." Paul is right AND James is right. Both are New Testament writers, post-resurrection. They both had the complete revelation of Christ. James was Jesus' brother, for crying out loud! The words of the entire New Testament are God-breathed, superintended by the Holy Spirit to be true in what they say and a reliable guide for faith and practice. You cannot pick and choose what Scriptures you are going to follow and consider yourself a follower of the true gospel. You also wrote: "They DID??!!!! They preached the LAW to believers???!!! " They certainly did. You cut the very passages which support it. Paul cites the fifth commandment as applicable to believing children in Ephesians 6. Go back and read all those verses again from Paul, James, and Peter. Pure law, plain and simple. Both Law and Gospel are preached in a biblically-sound church. Law is not preached as a means to salvation. Law points out God' moral desire for our lives and our character, and as a guide for our sanctification. It is also Law (not Gospel) we use to rebuke the behavior of our brethren, since the Gospel does not comment on our behavior. Gospel merely shows what God has done for us in His grace. So, yes, Paul and James and Peter and John all wrote using Law and Gospel correctly. "So if the law is not made for a righteous man, how can it be made for us who are already made righteous in Christ?" Because we have only been declared righteous, not MADE righteous. Go read the works of Luther and Calvin and just about every other Reformer. Justification is a declaration of righteousness. Sanctification is the process by which we are made progressively more righteous. "Simil iustus et peccator" is Luther's way of putting it..."at the same time just and a sinner." It is only the Pope and you who disagree. "Yes, He has fulfiled the law so that I don't have to fulfil it myself when I'm in Him." Agreed completely. I will go a step further and say that you CAN'T fulfill it. The Law still condemns anyone who thinks that they are righteous in practice. That doesn't change the fact that God's standard for holy living is found in his moral law. --Joe! |
||||||
1586 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 22365 | ||
Tim: You wrote: "In addition though Jesus was dying the new testament had not yet been instated so rules that apply to salvation after the kingdom came with power at Pentecost do not apply before that date!" So Jesus ADDED a requirement for salvation? Abraham is justified by faith (no baptism), but we as New Testament believers have to do MORE thanks to the substitutionary death of Christ? For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness --Romans 4:3,5 Indeed, what does the Scripture say? The way of salvation has been the same since the Fall. --Joe! |
||||||
1587 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 22348 | ||
Tim: You wrote: "This is the ONLY one where the one being converted received any special dispensation from the Holy Spirit." Show me where and explain why Cornelius was a special case. Here we have clear example of someone receiving the Spirit (exact words) before baptism, and this is the BASIS for Peter ordering him to be baptised. It is very clear: 1. Cornelius hears the word of God. 2. Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit. 3. BECAUSE Cornelius has received the Holy Spirit, Peter orders that they be baptised. He even defends his action of baptising them on this basis in front of the Jerusalem elders. It is really quite clear, and nowhere does it say that Cornelius falls under some special dispensation. --Joe! |
||||||
1588 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 22322 | ||
Then please enlighten us as to what the case of Cornelius IS talking about. Scripture helps us understand Scripture. Did Cornelius receive the Holy Spirit or not? The apostle sure seemed to think so (he specifically uses this term, despite your insistence that Cornelius did not receive Him), and the inspired Luke sure didn't disagree with him. So tell us, Tim, what was the deal with Cornelius? Are you right or is the Bible right about Cornelius RECEIVING the Spirit? --Joe! |
||||||
1589 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 22305 | ||
Tim: You wrote: "Spiritual rebirth ONLY takes place at the physical immersion (Baptism) in water." Explain the family of Cornelius. "For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?' And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days." --Acts 10:46-48 Clearly Cornelius received the Holy Spirit not AT baptism in water, but prior to it. In fact, it was by the clear demonstration of his regenerative state that Peter commanded them to be baptised. We see the same things at Pentecost. One cannot legitimately say that all those there who received the Holy Spirit had been water baptised at the same moment: "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls." --Acts 2:41 Those who had received his word (past perfect) were baptised (after event #1). One does not receive the things of God without the Spirit of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:14). And we have the thief on the cross? But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." --Luke 23:40-43 No baptism, just belief. And the result? Salvation. Now I do not want to be characterized as saying that baptism is not important. One must wonder about the salvation of someone who has no desire to be baptized. However, the two are clearly not the same. --Joe! |
||||||
1590 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22231 | ||
You seemed to miss the point of my post. You said that our only duty was to know God/Christ better. I listed about 10 different verses which are clearly commandments in the New Testament of what a follower of Jesus Christ is to do. No, it is not done under our own power, but they are marks of a true believer. I have really gone down this road before on this thread, and (no offense) I think that a lot of this discussion could be eliminated by you going back and reading my response to your arguments. To briefly sum up, however, let me bring up a few things to clarify: 1. We are saved by grace, through faith, apart from works. This is the basis of our salvation, and it is completely a work of God (Ephesians 2:8,9). 2. We are saved for the purpose of glorifying God through our good works (Ephesians 2:10). 3. Law has never been a means to make one righteous, since all it does it shut man up under sin (Galatians 3:22) and reveal God's perfect standard for us (Psalm 19:7). The Law, while being perfect in itself, has never made anyone perfect (Hebrews 7:11, 18, 21). 4. The good works which God empowers us to do for His sake are marks of our new life in Christ. A "faith" that does not demonstrate itself in works over time is a dead faith, which does not save (James 2:14-26). Therefore, we are not saved BY works, but we are indeed saved UNTO good works. Are these works, accomplished by God in us and through us, contrary to God's law? I will extend the challenge to you that I did to others. Please show me ONE God-honoring work that we can do which is not in keeping with God's moral law. Paul, Peter, and James did not consider the law useless for the Christian. Not considering the Law obsolete, they preached the Law to believers: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." --Romans 13:10 "If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,' you are doing well." --James 2:8 "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." --Romans 3:31 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH." --Ephesians 6:1-3 "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, 'YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.'" --1 Peter 1:14-16 [Contrary to your ripping the OT reference out of its context, the "shall" here is not a declaration that we are to "claim," but rather a commandment for how we are to live our lives...i.e. "all your behavior." Please pay attention to the words around it and all becomes quite clear.] Lastly, we have the example of Christ Himself. How did He describe His perfect life? As "fulfilling" the law rather than "abolishing" it (Matthew 5:17-18) We should absolutely see Jesus as our example, but that example he set for us is complete and perfect obedience to the moral law of the Father. As Christians we still sin? What is sin? "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." --1 John 3:4 Sin is lawlessness. Sin is a lack of conformity to the law of God or a transgression of the law of God. Romans 3:20 tells us that it is precisely by the law that we know what sin is. The law may be written on the hearts of all human beings... "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" --Romans 2:14-15 ...but it is in perfect keeping with the written standard of behavior found in the Old Testament. Therefore, we know what sin is because of the moral law of God. That includes believers. NT sin is the same as OT sin because it is not in keeping with God's law. Adultery and stealing and murder and lying and idolatry and dishonor toward parents are still sins, because they violate the will of the Lawgiver. The law will forever reveal the character of God and the character of humanity in our continual falling short of it (James 2:10), causing the believer to contantly rely on God's grace and forgiveness. Law and gospel are interwoven throughout both Testaments, and the proper understanding of both and the uses of both is key to understanding Scripture. --Joe! |
||||||
1591 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22153 | ||
"Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God." --1 Peter 2:16 "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." --Galatians 5:13 "But prove yourselves DOERS of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does." --James 1:22-25 "But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification." --Romans 6:17-19 You wrote: "Our ONLY "duty" / "responsibility" under the new covenant is to know more about Jesus, respond to His work on the cross, and PRAISE Him for EVERY good and perfect gift - that includes the gift of our righteousness which cannot be attained totally or in part, but which can only be RECEIVED totally. PERFECT gift." God's response: "But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;" --1 Peter 2:9 "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation." --1 Peter 2:12 "For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men." --1 Peter 2:15 "For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps," --1 Peter 2:21 "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, 'YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.'" --1 Peter 1:14-16 "Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more... For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality... For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification." --1 Thessalonians 4:1,3,7 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." --Matthew 5:17 "Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share," --1 Timothy 6:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." --Ephesians 2:10 etc. --Joe! |
||||||
1592 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22148 | ||
You wrote: "But once we bring the law in, self comes in too" This is simply false. So King David, writing his love song to the Law in Psalm 119, is bringing self into it? You have a completely wrong understanding of the Law if you think that obedience to God's law by necessity means effort of the unaided self: "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." --Romans 8:7,8 Who subjects himself to the law of God? Not the mind set on the flesh. Who pleases God? Not those in the flesh. Therefore, the one who obeys God's law and pleases him are those who are walking by the Spirit. You wrote: "The old covenant is ALL about us doing things for God. In the new covenant, it's ALL about Christ doing things for us." NO NO NO! God does all things ultimately for His glory, including saving His elect. I want you to do a New Testament search over on the right-hand side of this page and type in the words "for sake" and see how much He has done and we are to do for God's sake or Christ's sake. It is this man-centered "gospel" which is poisoning the church today. You wrote: "we'll enjoy it more when we allow Him to work instead of making ourselves work our transformation." Letting go and letting God? That isn't Paul's point of view. We do indeed work as God enables us to work for His glory: "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, BOTH TO WILL AND TO WORK for His good pleasure." --Philippians 2:12-13 "Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to HIS OWN LABOR." --1 Corinthians 3:8 "For it is for this we LABOR and STRIVE, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." --1 Timothy 4:10 "BE DILIGENT to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." --2 Timothy 2:15 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK." --2 Timothy 3:16-17 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand SO THAT WE WOULD WALK IN THEM." --Ephesians 2:10 Other passages speak of the same idea: "Therefore let us BE DILIGENT to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience." --Hebrews 4:11 Bottom line: it is God who works in us and through us, but also we work and strive and labor alongside him, by the power of His Holy Spirit. Notice in all these passages who is doing the walking and laboring and striving and working. We are. Under our own power? Absolutely not, but the true Christian walk is not a cake walk. Relying totally on God grace does not mean that we do nothing. God-honoring works are part-and-parcel of every true believer's life: "But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.' You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" --James 2:18-20 --Joe! |
||||||
1593 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22147 | ||
All you have managed to do here is take verse 10 and sandwich it in the middle of verse 12 and say that THAT is what Paul is pressing on toward. And it doesn't make sense in the context of the rest of the chapter. In verse 14 he is not pressing on toward any type of knowledge, but he is pressing on in answer to God's upward call. This is the thing for which he has been laid hold of. In verses 16-19 he is talking about nothing else but living to a standard (notice how many times he talks about the "walk" of individuals), contrasting himself and other true believers with those whose end is destruction (and he isn't talking about the "unchurched" here, either). What we see here, as in a number of passages theoughout the New Testament, is the end being sure for those who are truly believers in Christ, but at the same time there is indeed labor and striving on the part of the Christian to attain to that future reality. All of this is accomplished by the Spirit's work in our hearts, but nowhere are we called to "sit back, take it easy and enjoy our already attained righteousness." The apostles' lives and direct teachings convey the opposite. You wrote: "We can't DO anything to grow the fruits of the Spirit on our own." Of course not. But that doesn't mean we just sit back and watch as God does everything. We work out our salvation as God works within us. We labor and strive and press on just as Paul did. Why? To earn our salvation? No way. But we do need to take the words of Scripture seriously that say: " For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end," --Hebrews 3:14 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." --John 14:15 Works are not the basis of our salvation, but rather the evidence of it. In other words, if the Spirit of Christ truly indwells us, it will show in our lives. John elaborates on this throughout his first epistle, and James chapter 2 points out that we are indeed shown to be God's children by our God-honoring works. You wrote: "The law DEMANDS that we put in our self-effort" How so? Scriptural support, please. The gospels tell us that even Jesus fulfilled the Law by relying completely upon the Father's leading and the Holy Spirit's power: "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." --John 5:30 "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." --Mathhew 12:28 "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness." --Luke 4:1 "until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." --Acts 1:2 Lastly, how do you come to the conclusion that the new wine and old wineskins represent what you say they do? If they represent the new and old covenants respectively, what do the old wine and new wineskins represent in Jesus' parable? --Joe! |
||||||
1594 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22140 | ||
You wrote: "He MADE us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. "Made' means it's already happened." Does it? Paul often uses the past tense to assure us of a future glory, such as he does in Romans 8:30: "and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." He has justified me, but he hasn't glorified me yet (Philippians 3:21, 2 Corinthians 4:17, Colossians 1:27). There are those who will become believers who have not been called nor justified as of yet, since those things come just prior to and at conversion. Still, Paul uses the past tense to describe it. And, as I cited in the Colossians verse before, in a very real sense Christ is seated ABOVE, which means that we are BELOW, by comparison. In other words, it is not done yet, but rather "just as good as done." We see this all over Scripture. Has Satan been defeated? Yes, but he is still active in the world. How can those two be true? In the same way, we can be considered glorified even though that isn't a reality for us until the Second Coming, and we can call ourselves "saved" even though in another sense we are "being saved" (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor 2:15). Same thing in Ephesians 2. We have not been physically raised up with Christ yet (that is a future reality as well -- 1 Corinthians 15:51 ff), but Paul describes it in the past to accentuate the future certainty of it. Only in the sense that Christ, the Second Adam, has become our head are we indeed seated next to the Father at this point in time. This is the historical understanding of the passage, and the one held by the majority of Christians throughout chruch history. You wrote: "You say 'Paul sees that the righteousness to be gained from the Law is what is our own' but I don't see that he sees that at all." "...not having a righteousness OF MY OWN derived from the Law..." --Philippians 3:9 You wrote: "As mentioned in my previous post, there are TWO ways to righteousness which Paul mentions consistanly in his epistles. The first way is through the law." No. "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." --Galatians 2:21 "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law." --Galatians 3:21 --Joe! |
||||||
1595 | Reasons for Rejecting our Witness | John 1:7 | Reformer Joe | 22092 | ||
Steve: I agree completely about meeting them where they are (with Bible in hand, of course!). The point I was making is that at the core of a person's rejecting Christianity is his/her unrepentant heart. This fact becomes especially interesting when talking to cultists. In one sense, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are being duped and deceived by the religious organizations to which they belong. Along with that, however, is a willful rejection of the truth that is revealed in Scripture regarding our complete and utter helplessness and need for a Savior. Until God supernaturally changes the heart, the person will embrace just about anything that does not involve surrender to Christ. You are also correct in having to clarifying the Christian faith, thanks to the stupidity of many things out there bearing the Christian label. However, it was Jesus himself who issued the call to take up one's cross, so I think that such an approach is PERFECTLY legitimate for a non-believer. People rejected Christ when he made such calls, and He knew that they would do so. That says nothing about the evangelist, only something about the hearer. In short, there is way too much "luring" people to the foot of the cross. People should count the cost (Luke 14:28) and know exactly what the Christian life entails. Anything else leads to either spurious conversions or churches that are afraid to proclaim the truth which may drive the unbeliever away. Yes, we as believers can do a great job of making Christianity look unattractive by our non-obedience to Christ (1 Peter is an excellent book to study to avoid this). However, we must not forget that the Cross in itself is a stumbling block and an offense to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:23, Galatians 5:11, 1 Peter 2:8). Praise God that He is sovereign enough to overcome our sinfulness and shortcomings to bring others to Himself! --Joe! |
||||||
1596 | Huge Impact? | Romans | Reformer Joe | 22091 | ||
Charis: Well, I do think that the pursuit of formal theological training is of great benefit to the believer (even though I have not had the pleasure of such seminary enrollment myself yet). However, I do not think that it should be something for the "elite," which is an idea too commonly held by the clergy and the laity. I am blessed to attend a church that is very concerned with making the congregation "theologically-literate." We currently have a free, weekly class in systematic theology going on taught by one of our elders, for example. Another mid-week course is going on which deals with the teachings of Islam, providing a Biblical response and tips for communicating the Christian faith to Muslims. In my not-humble-enough opinion, it is a core responsibility of the elders/deacons of a church to make sure that the congregation is well-educated in the faith, which means going beyond the practical "how can I have a more meaningful quiet time" types of sermons to giving them the "meat" of the Word (Hebrews 5:12). Of course, at times this may be rebuking, correcting, and convicting to its hearers. In my opinion, however, no one can ever have too much good theological training, along with an understanding is that the whole Christian life and practice is rooted in one's understanding of God and the Bible (i.e. theology is utterly PRACTICAL). I also am a big fan of confessional churches. No, confessions and creeds do not carry the same divine inspiration that Scripture does, and one may in fact disagree with points within those confessions (my denomination even allows for clergy to be ordained and minister while disagreeing with minor points of doctrine in the Westminster Confession of Faith). Here are what I see as the benefits of a well-thought out and comprehensive confession (whether it be Calvinist or Arminian in scope): 1. It usually involves a group effort of people who have dedicated their lives to studying and expounding the truth of God's Word. 2. It goes beyond addressing the basic issues of salvation, as it touches on on the church's understanding of worship, the sacraments, the Bible, prayer, the role of the believer in the whole scheme of things. One has no doubt in coming to a confessional congregation what that congregation holds to be truth. 3. These confessions are supported by a myriad of references to the only standard of faith and practice: the Bible. Contrary to popular belief, a confession does not take the place of the Bible, but rather stands as an explanation of Scripture's basic themes. This is extremely useful, for certain themes (such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the end-times) are not found in one passage of the Bible, but are addressed throughout Scripture. Thus, a confession serves not as a Bible in itself, but a compendium of Christian doctrine based on the Bible. 4. The early Christian church demonstrates the use of creeds and confessions, going back as far as the apostolic era (Hebrews 4:14, 10:23; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Timothy 2:11-13; Philippians 2:6-11). But the most compelling reason as far as I am concerned is the following: 5. It does an excellent job of preventing false doctrine from entering the church. What I find in many non-confessional churches (and I have belonged to several in my life) are congregations not thoroughly informed on the Christian faith, and more susceptible to being "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14) that comes down the pike. You may not see that as clearly from your Japanese vantage point, but one just needs to go down to the local Christian bookstore in the United States to find the results of such shallow teaching on the best-seller shelves. From "Bible Codes" to the latest eschatological interpretation of what happened on the news yesterday to ten thousand versions and spinoffs of a prayer manual based on an obscure couple of verses in 1 Chronicles, we see the results of Christians not knowing what they believe and grabbing whatever fluff a publisher is willing to spew out. I even saw a book the other day which is supposed to serve as a Bible study using the teachings of the Andy Griffith show as a jumping-off point for discussion! Well-written creeds and confessions and catechisms point to the truths of the Bible and serve as educational tools which prevent this kind of nonsense. Note that I am not saying that non-confessional churches are apostate or not as dedicated to God. I do think that confessional churches have an advantage when heresy or silly ideas visit the front door, and they do serve as useful instruments for educating believers in the essentials of the Christian faith. Hope that clears up my view! Can't wait for the invective response that is sure to follow from someone on this forum... :) --Joe! |
||||||
1597 | response | Rom 1:18 | Reformer Joe | 22028 | ||
My spiritual immaturity? You are the one who micharacterized my argument as an Arminian one, and then proceeded to say that R.C. Sproul would "string me up and shoot me" for what I said, as if he were my lord and savior and inventor of Reformed theology. You then misrepresented his clear teachings in a forum in which he apparently does not participate, and me correcting and rebuking you on this is spiritual immaturity? It is horrible to come out in the public square and make unfounded accusations of another believer in Christ and misrepresent the theology that he holds. If I went onto another bulletin board and said something along the lines of, "You know that old Schwartzkopf denies the Trinity," I hope you would wish someone there to correct me. And you still have not addressed the substance of the content of the post or the other one. I clearly expounded the Reformed understanding of Romans 8. It is the one Sproul holds to as well. What is wrong with it? And you still have ignored the Scripture passages you requested as support of my views. If you see this as me "dragging the discussion down into the ditch," so be it. And I would make precisely the same point I made in person as well. The only difference would be that it would be an interchange of voices rather than a series of written communications, which in itself changes the dynamic of the discussion. If you do indeed find evidence of Sproul "jumbling things up," please cite it verbatim for us so that I can make a full apology to you and the rest of the forum. Until that time, I will stick to what he wrote on p. 145 of his book _Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology_: "Reformed theologians understand the golden chain as follows: From all eternity God foreknew his elect. He had an idea of their identity in mind before he created them. He foreknew them not only in the sense of having a prior idea of their personal identities, but also in the sense of foreloving them. When the Bible speaks of 'knowing,' it often distinguishes between a simple mental awareness of a person and a deep intimate love of a person. The Reformed view teached that all whom God has foreknown, he has also predestined to be inwardly called, justified, and glorified. God sovereignly brings to pass the salvation of his elect and only of his elect." Disagree with Sproul if you want, but understand a view before criticizing it. --Joe! |
||||||
1598 | Are Positional and Practical truths true | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 22026 | ||
I notice that you did not answer the question I asked: are we righteous just like Christ was in nature and in practice? I do not deny that Christ is our righteousness. I fully embrace that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us by God's grace through faith in Him. I am indeed DECLARED righteous (which is what Paul says in Romans 4...note the word "credited"). I am indeed a regenerated person, being sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit (i.e. being made progressively more righteous in practice). None of the verses you have cited contradicts this. Where have you seen me write once that righteousness is attained from the Law? Please go back and read my postings. You are arguing against a position I don't even hold! By mocking the historic Christian views of positional righteousness vs. practical righteousness (and the tone of your post is nothing but prideful swinging the Bible at a target which is miles away from what I believe), you are again demonstrating the ignorance that American Christians have of their evangelical heritage. Those you are ridiculing are the very Reformers who freed the evangelical church from papal tyranny, along with every major Protestant theologian until the end of the nineteenth century. But your view, which gained popularity in the 20th century, is probably the right one. After all, the first 1900 years of Christian thought probably didn't have the same wisdom that you apparently possess... I will repeat it: saying that we are righteous in practice (that is, sinless, holy, perfect) just like Christ is an insult to the holy, sinless, and perfect Son of God. "More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:8-14 Paul sees that the righteousness to be gained from the Law is what is our own, but the righteousness on the basis of faith is Christ's. He also regards himself as not having attained it yet (even though you apparently presume to do so). He realizes that he has been laid hold of by Christ Jesus, and his destiny is sure, but he also presses on to attain it. Paul sees himself as "not perfect," which means that being in God's presence is a positional truth, not a present reality. Take a look at John in Revelation 1 to see how our "righteous" selves react in the presence of the glorified Christ. You are absolutely correct that God sees us as righteous IN CHRIST. We are clothed in a foreign righteousness, that of Christ Jesus. Justification is a legal declaration of righteousness, not the making of us into people righteous in ourselves. One day we will be made perfect and righteous on our own, but we simply must continue to cling to Christ's imputed righteousness for our salvation. Where in Scripture do we find that our own spirits are seated at the right hand of God? "Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. --Colossians 3:1 Christ is seated at the right hand of God, ABOVE. --Joe! P.S. I have already argued this on other threads, so please go back and do a little homework of my actual view before replying. |
||||||
1599 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | Reformer Joe | 21917 | ||
Hank: I must say that I am disappointed with what I read in your post. You are about the last person I would have suspected to imply that theology has no connection to encouragement and the path of righteousness. What were Christians debating about before Arminius? Pick up any worthwhile book on church history and you will learn that they were debating other important things. Things like the Trinity, justification by faith alone, etc. While I do not hold that the C/A debate is one of salvific importance, I do think that it is one of great importance as to how the Christian views God's operation and relationship to humanity, which does indeed have a huge impact on the conduct, assurance, and evangelism of believers. Again, if you want to talk about something else, please start a thread! Give us something else to talk about. I am more than happy to move on, but the only posts that merit/require a discussion these days relate to issues of God's sovereignty in the affairs of human beings. Incidentally, I do have a bigger agenda than the C/A debate. While I certainly disagree with Tim on a lot of his interpretation, I also recognize that he is not biblically ignorant. What distresses ME most is the amount of posting that goes on here from believers who state their unreasoned and unfounded opinions based on one or two pet verses taken out of context, while ignoring the rest of the Bible which interprets those verses. Biblical illiteracy in the church is inexcusable, considering those who have died for the sake of actually letting individual Christians have a Bible in their own language to read and study. Many "real witnesses," as you put it, are still on the spiritual milk decades after they should be meat-eaters. I was on a university campus listening to an open-air preacher the other day who couldn't rationally defend Christianity against the charge that Jews shouldn't be evangelized because the Bible says that they are "God's people" already. Last summer, I heard a VBS teacher inform the kids that Jesus would never tell anyone that they were going to Hell. It is the lack of edcucational, theological training that most non-confessional churches demonstrate which leads to such falsehood being propagated even in "evangelical" churches today. Debate may make us uncomfortable, and on a forum like this it may seem that with each newcomer the debate gets re-hashed. However, it is simply wrong to say that differences in theology are not important. And I can be the first instance you can cite as having been dramatically changed by embracing the view I now hold. --Joe! |
||||||
1600 | response | Rom 1:18 | Reformer Joe | 21856 | ||
I couldn't help but notice you took one clause out of my post and built a whole response to it. Were the verses I gave in the rest of the sentence not sufficient to support my point? I would especially like your take on Jesus' quotes from John 6. Who CAN come to the Son? Who are the only ones who WILL come to the Son? Who are the ones of whom Jesus will not lose ANY? All the same group of people: the ones that the Father permits and causes to come to him. In any case, you seem to think that I hold that people do not make REAL choices. I am not going to repeat myself on that again. We act according to our natures. What is the nature of the unregenerate? Those Jeremiah passages must also be taken in context of the other passages in Jeremiah in which God says that Judah's doom in inevitable (read: it is CERTAIN to happen), where he tells Jeremiah not even to pray for the nation. God call everyone outwardly to repent. There is no question that anyone in the hearing of God's call to repentance has heard what they SHOULD/MUST do. However, because of our own sinful nature (Romans 3:10-18), we won't do what we should do unless God changes out hearts so that we will want to do so. In the very book you cited as evidence for your position, we find that mine is supported: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil." --Jeremiah 13:23 This is an indictment of the NATURE of man. We can do good just as easily as a leopard can change his spots. Good luck! You wrote: "It goes back to the jump in logic: God intervened in X situation therefore he must INTERVENE or DETERMINE the outcome of ALL situations. I can’t make that jump." I didn't base that on an inductive leap in logic, but from clearly stated passages of Scripture. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 ] Next > Last [97] >> |