Results 1641 - 1660 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1641 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20250 | ||
Thes are indeed good questions. Let me take a couple in the brief time I have right this second. 1. My personal relationship to God? He is my adopted Father, and also my Lord. This is solely on the basis of His mercy toward me, and in no way based on any clever decision on my part to "accept Him." He changed my wicked disposition, despite the fact that I didn't deserve it in the slightest, and he is the one who preserves my reconciled state with Him. In other words, Christ is the Author and Perfecter of my faith. In addition, there is the core idea that I was chosen by God for a purpose beyond my own going to Heaven. 2. Accepted? I don't see much difference here between C and A here. We are both accepted solely on the basis of Christ's subsitutionary death and resurrection. More later... |
||||||
1642 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20249 | ||
Tim: Actually, although Lionstrong seems to have pointed it out to you in his own cuddly way, Calvinists also believe that in most cases men will not receive Christ unless someone preaches Him to them. We simply say that God in His sovereignty WILL bring someone bearing the gospel to that individual. We hold that the Spirit of God works through the proclamation of His word (we call it a "means of grace"). I think that the difference in evangelism is in the presentation. For example, I am commanded by God to glorify Him and proclaim His truth to other human beings. Some of them are of the elect and some are not. While I certainly don't have a photocopy of the Book of Life, I also hold that everyone I share the message of Christianity with will continue in their stubborn unbelief unless God changes the disposition of his/her heart. Therefore, I strongly avoid the high-pressure, touchy-feely approaches to evangelism. Since it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates, any sugar-coating or soft-peddling the truth of God's holiness, man's depravity, and our utter helplessness before Him could lead to spurious conversions. That is, I do not want to be responsible for giving someone an emotional, warm feeling of being saved if the true possession of faith is not there. Of course, I can never be 100 percent sure, since it is not I who judges the heart, but woe is me if I give someone a false sense of assurance of salvation based on a misunderstanding of what true saving faith is. While I do not think that most Arminians present a false view of justification by faith alone, I do see a tendency to place a high value on packaging the presentation just right, to rely on technique a little too much. People can definitely be boorish when it comes to presenting the gospel, but the GOD LOVES YOU AND PLANS FOR YOU TO BE IN HEAVEN WITH HIM...(psst: sin)...JESUS DIED AND ROSE AGAIN BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU! approach just doesn't seem to be the most biblical way of going about it. I guess that in the Calvinist view, with such a extremely God-centered perspective of the ultimate end of salvation, our presentation of the Gospel is much less on "what God can do for you" than "Here is what God has done for His glory." It is kind of hard to put into specific terminology, but there certainly is a less human-centered approach to evangelism in the Calvinist vein. --Joe! |
||||||
1643 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Reformer Joe | 20185 | ||
Like Tim and Arminianism, I held to most of the theological distinctives of Calvinism before realizing what Calvinism holds. It simply was a way to describe my understanding of the Bible. Neither of us are claiming some "extra-Biblical revelation" as Bill seems to indicate that we are. This is not Joseph Smith stuff we are talking about here. The Holy Spirit obviously did not "reveal" the correct interpretation to both of us, either, since the law of non-contradiction was still in force last time I checked. As for me as a Reformed guy, I do my utmost (or should do my utmost) to present the gospel to everyone, realizing that God uses the proclamation of His word to draw the elect to Himself and that if God does not regenerate them, they will continue in their rejection of the truth of Him and be lost. We both evangelize; neither of us holds that only a select group should be evangelized; what it does affect, however, is the content of our evangelism (you will never hear me telling any individual anymore that "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" since that may, in fact, not be true). I would encourage Bill and others to examine the two schools of thought. Theological knowledge is not something to be ridiculed or ignored. Saying "all I need is me and my Bible" doesn't work, either, because most of what we hold regarding the Holy Scriptures was taught to us by others (pastors, books, etc.) We may have analyzed their teachings in light of Scripture and come to particular conclusions (a GOOD thing), but the fact remains is that God never intended for us to be "biblical mavericks," rejecting the commentary and excellent preaching and teaching of God's word over the centuries. --Joe! |
||||||
1644 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Reformer Joe | 20184 | ||
I couldn't find the word "Trinity," either. I am off to join the Jehovah's Witnesses. :) --Joe! |
||||||
1645 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Reformer Joe | 20083 | ||
Where did you dig this guy up? :) He seems to use a lot of words to say virtually nothing at all. Rather than being enlightened, I just came away scratching my head, wondering if he had some point in there. The only thing I could glean from it is that he takes pleasure in ignoring the issues, despite the fact that they obviously are of some importance if they are revealed in Scripture. Rejecting theological terminology does not make one profoundly spiritual and insightful. I repeat my charge: anyone who thinks in the slightest about the God of the Bible will come to certain conclusions about His chracter, nature, and overall plan. These conclusions will conform closely to either Arminianism or Reformed theology. You have made assertions yourself in your posts which place you pretty squarely in one camp, even if you reject the label itself. While I hold Arminians who have placed their trust in Christ to be my fellow heirs with Christ Jesus, I hold them to be wrong on some pretty important issues about God's modus operandi. Our beliefs affect the way that we live and worship and evangelize. Arminians who understand (and yet reject) Calvinism would consider me a fellow Christian as well. They also hold that I am wrong. They also realize that it is much more of a significant isuue than whether the choir should wear robes or not. I can and do fellowship with individuals whom I hold to be completely wrong on these issues, just as I can fellowship with people who hold different views on the mode and manner of baptism. However, it is foolishness to ignore God's revealed word and proudly state "I am neither." The only "neither" is a fence-sitter who refuses to think about God at all. --Joe! |
||||||
1646 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Reformer Joe | 19849 | ||
Bill: Nothing wrong with having a Th.D. Nor with being familiar with the original languages (I sure wish I was more so). Nor with recognizing the contributions of the churth fathers and other Christian leaders who helped defend the Word of God against heresy (that's not worship, by the way, but respect). You are certainly not JUST another sheep, but the fact remains that God has used certain individuals in church history in a much more visible way than he has you or me. Don't despise theology, and don't blow off the work that Christ has done in his bride throughout the last 2000 years. While such men and women were not infallible, there is certainly a lot that we can learn from them. Secondly, while you do not label yourself a Calvinist or an Arminian, you must by necessity adhere to at leat some of the principles of one or the other. Let me show you an example: Do you believe that Christ's atonement was limited to a select, definite group of people (Calvinism) or to the entire human race (Arminianism)? Do you believe that God predestines individuals for glory based on his own wise counsel alone (Calvinism) or not (Arminianism)? Do you believe that God's saving grace changes the disposition in the human heart so that s/he will inevitably place faith in Christ (Calvinism) or do you believe God's grace merely enables man to freely accept or reject the offer of salvation (Arminianism)? Reject the labels, but it is impossible to reject both systems of theology, since there really is no third option on the points where they disagree. I understand the need not to be "boxed into" a stereoptyped category, but the fact is that categories are merely shorthand for more detailed explanations. --Joe! |
||||||
1647 | What is God's will? | Matt 6:10 | Reformer Joe | 19783 | ||
Oh, Tim! You came so close to citing directly one of my favorite verses: "For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men." --1 Peter 2:15 To all: think on the importance that works do indeed have in the life of a believer...God's will is that we work, not for our salvation, but to give Him glory (Ephesians 2:10; 1 Peter 2:9,10). --Joe! |
||||||
1648 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19622 | ||
Steve: Thsi will be my last post on this thread. Sorry you found my two questions so overwhelming. :) Holding to theistic evolution and adhering to intelligent design at the same time is possible, but they are not the same thing. For example, I fall into the latter camp but not the former, because I hold that the evidence put forward to support macroevolution is weak and extremely circumstantial. My faith is based on the truth that is revealed in the Scriptures, as was Paul's (1 Corinthians 15). You experience of realizing that Jesus was the Son of God simply by "asking God" apart from the Bible is pretty darn close to the Mormon practice of praying over the Book of Mormon to determine whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. One last comment: you seem to place a lot of credit for your salvation on you "intellectually figuring out" the Gospel. The problem of the rejection of Christ is not an intellectual one. Any intellectual difficulties are usually smokescreens for the real problem: a sinful will opposed to following Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who changes our hearts so that we will embrace Him. And the way that the truth is revealed is via the completely trustworthy, factual accounts found in the word of God. The Holy Spirit works through the Bible. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." --Romans 10:17 --Joe! |
||||||
1649 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19587 | ||
Steve: When the Bible was penned, the only cure for leprosy WAS divine intervention. In addition, there is no passage that states that "never will there be a cure for leprosy apart from God's supernatural intervention." That is far different from saying that we were evolved in God's image, rather than specially created in God's image. Like it or not, define a "parable" in any out-of-context way that you want, if humanity indeed came about via descent with modification, then the Bible is lying. No one heard a parable of Christ and says "Wow, I wish I could meet that Good Samaritan. I wonder where he lives" or "Just where can I find that good soil in which the seed fell? I want a good harvest this year." That's because Jesus explicitly stated, "The kingdom of God is LIKE this..." or something to that effect. Drawing a direct, clear comparison is precisely what a parable is. If you think that the Gensis 2 account of man's creation is not literally true, then you are calling the account an ALLEGORY, which is a complete work of fiction representing a concrete reality. The creation account in Genesis simply does NOT fit the literary genre of parable. --Joe! |
||||||
1650 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19584 | ||
Steve: Actually, the thrust of my question was, "Why should I not take the next step and deny the historicity of the resurrection of Christ?" Is there one scientifically-documented story of a person dead and buried who came back to life after a few days? If the preponderence of "scientific evidence" suggests that such a thing is impossible, why should anyone who denies the literalness of Genesis 2 (which is the detailed description of man's formation from dust) accept something so "scientifically unsound"? --Joe! (not JOEL) :) |
||||||
1651 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19581 | ||
Steve: Then we come back to Tim's earlier question: why did God need to be involved at all? What evidence is there of a God-directed program? Really...go find the book I mentioned. Wells is not some hick who thought he should write a book. He is a professor at UC-Berkeley. You seem scientifically-minded, so this book should be right up your alley. --Joe! |
||||||
1652 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19566 | ||
Tim: RE: John 8 Reformed teaching goes further than saying "only the elect will respond in faith." We hold that individuals can only die in THEIR sins because they are not atoned for. It is that same situation of "Who pays the just penalty of the sins of the damned?" Arminians seem to say that it is BOTH Christ and the sinner. --Joe! |
||||||
1653 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19563 | ||
Tim: Regarding Acts 22, my point was that the savage in the deepest jungle of the Amazon forest has not been witnessed to by Paul. Therefore, not "all men." I know that this is so completely obvious so as to be ridiculous. However, the point I was trying to make was that most everyone understands that Ananias' words to Saul were not referring to every single individual on the earth at that time or ours. This is one blatantly obvious example of where "all" needs to be understood in a contextual/common sense fashion. Granted, 2 Peter 3:21 does not fall into the "blatantly obvious" category. However, the sweeping statement that the Reformed simply want to instantly re-define "all" to mean "some" does not really ring true. The problem that the Reformed have with the Arminian interpretation of this verse, incidentally, is that Peter is saying that the return of Christ has not come yet because God is waiting. Why is God waiting? Because he desires for all to come to Christ. When will ALL come to Christ? Never, and God knows that. If his desire regarding the salvation of each and every human being will not be met (God not ultimately getting what He wants is a BIG problem for me, but let's leave that for now), he has known that from the beginning. So once again, what is God waiting for? --Joe! |
||||||
1654 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19553 | ||
Steve: Webster's definition of parable does not fit your use of it. In the Bible, all the parables meet the following conditions: 1. It is clearly identified as such in Scripture as a STORY. 2. The narrator of the parable utilizes everyday events to illustrate Scriptural truths. 3. The MEANING of the parable is clear from its context. 4. As you stated above, it is an extended, overt comparison between one thing and another. Therefore, Genesis 2 does not fit the characteristics of a parable at all. You accuse the modernists of "de-mythologizing" Scripture, but how are you not committing the same error here? The only difference is a matter of degree, not of kind. "God might have done it that way" is not an acceptable answer. God might have hatched the earth out of an egg. God might have created human beings out of tree sap. The point is that the Bible clearly explains in no uncertain terms how both events occurred. It does not suggest that it was some poetic way of describing an underlying reality. It is presented as an event in history. By the way, I would encourage you to read a book entitled "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/crsc) for a clear revelation of how much "credible scientific evidence" there is for the notion of common descent. --Joe! |
||||||
1655 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19546 | ||
Steve: I am not questioning whether you place your faith in Christ alone for your salvation. I would love an answer to the question I asked, however, if you wouldn't mind. --Joe! |
||||||
1656 | An Arminian Consensus in the Forum? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19525 | ||
Norrie: To get back to the root of the distinctives between Calvinism and Arminianism, you can read the Canons of Dordt. Since this a Calvinist document, all that it affirms represents Calvinist theology, and all that it rejects/denies are distinctives of Arminianism. I would encourage anyone who wants to undertsand the differences and why they are so important to read this document. It will help you grasp the two views and see why you are generally one or the other, even if you reject the labels themselves. You can find it here: http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html --Joe! |
||||||
1657 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19524 | ||
Tim: How does the Arminian interpret Jesus' conversation with the Jewish leaders here? "Then He said again to them, 'I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.' So the Jews were saying, 'Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, "Where I am going, you cannot come"? And He was saying to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.'" --John 8:21-24 It seems from this passage that those who will not believe in Christ will die in THEIR sins. How is this possible if all sin was propitiated at the cross? And just a side note: Arminians also do not take every instance of "all" to mean "every single one." To be fair, you should point out that the Reformed do not say that "all" means "some," but rather we disagree as to whom the "all" is referring to. For instance, Ananias says to Saul: "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard." --Acts 22:15 Was Paul really a witness to all men? Even if we consider his epistles a "witness," is he even today a witness to ALL men? One more example, so as not to belabor the point. I would think that you would agree that every human being is not justified, but we have verses like this: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." --Romans 5:18 Now if we take this verse by itself, it would seem to teach universalism. We may disagree on the interpretation of this verse in its context, but I would think you would admit that ALL are not justified, since that comes through faith in Christ. The context qualifies words like "all," Tim. That is why we can go to 2 Peter 3:9 and say that the "all" in that instance could very well mean "all the elect" (cf. 2 Peter 1:1-2) rather than "all of humanity" (which clearly will NEVER happen). --Joe! |
||||||
1658 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19497 | ||
We do not compromise what is revealed in Scripture as truth for the sake of the fallacies of neo-Darwinism. The origin of the diversity of species via descent with modification is not scientific fact. That is the bottom line. It is a theory based on a metaphysical rejection of the supernatural and a false extrapolation of something that actually does occur in nature (natural selection). The authenticity of Scripture IS an essential, Steve. If we say that Genesis 1-2 are "spritualized" versions of the truth, where do we stop with the spiritualizing and concede that "all the rest" REALLY happened the way it was written? --Joe! |
||||||
1659 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19495 | ||
What teaching on leprosy are you referring to? --Joe! |
||||||
1660 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19494 | ||
SO what you are saying is that you are UNCERTAIN about the OT. What does this mean? That you think it is unreliable as a historical document? What about the Flood? Babel? Abraham? All of those events happened a long time ago as well. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 ] Next > Last [97] >> |