Results 1681 - 1700 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1681 | Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil law | James 2:10 | Reformer Joe | 19250 | ||
Bill: Please address the point I made, rather than arguing against points I am not making. To put it in the plainest terms possible: 1. I am not, nor was I EVER under the Mosaic Covenant. I am an uncircumcised Gentile (Romans 2:9-16) 2. I am not seeking righteousness of my own from the Law, because that is an impossibility (Philippians 3:9). 3. The righteousness by which I am saved is Christ's imputed to me, not my own. 4. The moral commandments of God, including the Decalogue, are quoted either verbatim or in essence by most of the writers of the New Testament epistles as instructions for BELIEVERS. Was Paul sinning by telling the children of Ephesus to follow the Fifth Commandment (Ephesians 6:1-3)? 5. Therefore, while my salvation was earned for me by Christ, we were saved primarily for God's glory. James 2 and most of 1 John clearly demonstrate that those who are not desiring to obey Christ may not even be saved at all, not because they must work for salvation, but rather because a complete lack of works points to a complete lack of true faith. 5. Therefore, we are not to be slaves to sin, but slaves to righteousness, not to earn our salvation, but because the Bible clearly shows that that is what saved people do (Romans 6:16-20). If I am in error here, please take the passages of Scripture I have cited and explain where I am in error in interpreting them. With all due respect, Bill, you are arguing against positions I do not hold to myself. I am not a legalist. There is no way for me to earn my salvation. However, I am also not an antinomian, who believes that there is no connection between true faith and desiring to obey God's moral commandments, which are all over both Testaments. If you insist that the Ten Commandments are not for today at all, then you have yet to explain why Paul and James and John and Peter tell their addressees to do the things found in them. That's the bottom line. --Joe! |
||||||
1682 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Reformer Joe | 19095 | ||
Nolan: Please see Tim's post in response. It was precisely the argument that Barnes makes that the Ten Commandments were NOT merely a "shadow of things to come" that puts him at odds with the perspective of the Dallas Dispensationalists. --Joe! |
||||||
1683 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19055 | ||
Bill: Again, I agree completely that we can do nothing that is pleasing to God apart from the empowerment by His Spirit. I have never suggested that we can, because to do so would violate the entire message of the New Testament. However, the very verses you cite, and the example of Christ, show that while Christ acted on the initiative of the Father, and by the power of the Spirit, it was CHRIST doing these things, not the Father through him. The problem I have with the notion of "Christ living His life through me" is that it is completely foreign to the idea that by God's empowerment, I am the one living the life. I can take no credit for the sanctification in me, just as Paul considers all of his "upward mobility" to be rubbish in light of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus as Lord. However, it is also true that the Holy Spirit is not merely using me as a conduit, but rather is changing ME and making ME more like the Son in righteous living. One other thing: Paul wasn't pleasing God through the Law before. That was his whole point. --Joe! |
||||||
1684 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19054 | ||
Bill: Justification is a legal declaration. Nothing more. That was the view in Paul's day as well as ours. It does not mean "being made righteous." The view that actual righteousness is infused into us is the Roman Catholic view, not the view of Scripture. One of the greatest points of conflict between Martin Luther and the Pope was precisely on this point. We are not saved because God has made us inherently righteous, Luther argued, but rather because God has declared us righteous on account of Christ (this is known as forensic justification). The Old Testament sacrifices never took away individual sins, only the Atonement that they pre-figured. It is Christ that has always been the sole source of justification: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." --Hebrews 10:4 I suggest that you are defining justification out of the legal context in which Paul was working, since it means precisely that we are declared righteous. In the case of the Christian, that justification occurs solely on the fact that Christ foreign righteousness is imputed to us (put on our account). Our record of wrongs and Christ's "switch places," so to speak. I do understand your position, Bill. Most of the pastors that I have sat under in my life had been Dallas Theological Seminary-trained ones, just as I am sure that yours is. I became a Christian while a regular attender of a Bible church and have spent most of my Christian life in dispensationalist circles. I have many, many friends who share your view. And, while I consider you all to be members of Christ's body, I also know that the Dispensationalist view is a very recent development in church history (as in the last 150 years) and holds a viewpoint contrary to almost every major evangelical theologian in church history. Now that in itself does not mean that this view is wrong, but one really has to wonder how so many learned men of God over the last 2000 years missed this until the 1830's. I would encourage you to examine some alternative viewpoints, even if it is only to understand and be able to refute the critics of DTS teachings. --Joe! |
||||||
1685 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Reformer Joe | 19052 | ||
I understand the Dallas Theological Seminary view, as wrong as it is on this point. This quote doesn't seem to be in line with what you pasted earlier from Barnes. So, according to the DTS authors of the Bible Knowledge Commentary, we are down to 9 commandments, only those specifically re-stated in the New Testament (another proposition I disagree with, since Christ was a Sabbath advocate, although not in the legalistic sense that the Pharisees were). Why aren't these other nine part of the "shadow of things to come"? Why can I disregard a Sabbath rest, but not consider that pesky anti-murder law to be a thing of the past as well? After all, there is no distinction between ceremonial and moral law, is there? I know you are only quoting someone else here, Nolan, but I do agree with Barnes' view a lot more than those who insist that something must be repeated in Paul's epistles to carry any weight for the believer. After all, is ALL Scripture profitable or not (2 Timothy 3:16)? --Joe! |
||||||
1686 | Shine light, not practice righteousness? | Matt 6:1 | Reformer Joe | 19027 | ||
Searcher: Was this gentle light what Stephen practiced in Acts 7 when he was full of the Holy Spirit? Just a question to provoke more discussion... --Joe! |
||||||
1687 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Reformer Joe | 19025 | ||
Nolan: It seems to me that Barnes' view contradicts Tim's rather than supports it, if I am understanding Tim to say that the Fourth Commandment is no longer applicable to believers. --Joe! |
||||||
1688 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19024 | ||
Tim: Sounds about as classically Arminian as you can get! Phil Johnson of Grace to You (John MacArthur's ministry) casts Arminianism in almost exactly the same terms that you do, but he defines my view as "sublapsarianism," making it synonymous with infralapsarianism. I would encourage everyone on the forum to read an article by him to see where they stand on this whole issue. Even though he seems to share my position, he is very fair in categorizing the different views. To get this link, you will have to replace the [TILDE] in the address with the little sqiggly thing that often goes over the "n" in Spanish. Silly studybibleforum.com won't let us type it in our text: http://www.gty.org/[TILDE]phil/articles/sup_infr.htm Thanks again for making me think! --Joe! |
||||||
1689 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19023 | ||
CDBJ: I think that this is an excellent passage to examine. Would you agree that the coming event that Christ is referring to is Pentecost? John 16:7 seems to indicate that this is the case. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came, but only to those who are believers. We nowhere get an indication that after Pentecost every human in the whole world suddenly was convicted of their sinfulness. However, by the indwelling Holy Spirit in the lives of true believers, the watching world is convicted of their sin, the righteousness of God is demonstrated in the lives of believers (since Christ is gone and we see him no more), and the judgment of Satan and his children is proclaimed. Via the Holy Spirit's indwelling and sanctification, we are walking billboards of the truth. What I cannot see from the whole counsel of God is the idea that before Pentecost that judgment and knowledge of sin was not present. That would seemingly contradict Romans 1:18-32: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." --Romans 1:20 "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." --Romans 1:32 What do you think of John 16:8-10 in light of such verses? What could Christ possibly have meant if the knowledge of God's law has been present from the beginning? I think that this is a good point of discussion for the Study Bible Forum! --Joe! |
||||||
1690 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19021 | ||
Bill: I never meant to imply that the resurrection was not an essential component of the gospel message. I apologize if I led you to believe that I held such a view. The point Paul makes is in 1 Corinthians 15 is that if ther is no resurrection at all (the view he was challenging), then even Christ is not raised, making Paul and other evangelists false witnesses. Therefore, Christ would be a false Savior and there would be no resurrection for the believer at the end of the age. Note that the future PHYSICAL resurrection of the believer is the central idea that Paul is putting forward, not the indwelling life of the Holy Spirit. Reading the whole chapter makes that clear and puts 15:17 in its context. Now what does Paul mean when he says in Galatians 2:20 that "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." One thing that it cannot mean is that he is stepping aside and letting Christ work through him as some kind of cosmic puppeteer. The rest of that verse makes it clear that he is still living his own life: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and THE LIFE WHICH I NOW LIVE in the flesh I LIVE by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Countless other passages in the epistles, via specific commandments to holy living in the believer, make it plain that being a Christian is not sitting back and watching/allowing Christ to live out His life though our bodies, but rather conforming ourselves to His will (Romans 12:1-2) and obeying Him (Hebrews 5:8). It is the Holy Spirit who works the changes in our spirits to please God, and He who gives us the power to live the Christian life, but the Bible also says that we strive and labor and walk and work and buffet our bodies and discipline ourselves and even suffer for His sake. Thanks again for your comments. I look forward to your reply. --Joe! |
||||||
1691 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19019 | ||
Bill: Thanks for your reply. You are absolutely, 100 percent correct in saying that Christ came to bring us life. The question is, however, what was standing in the way of that life? You make the point yourself: sin. The very meaning of the term "salvation" means that there is something we have to be saved FROM. That is our sin. Forgiveness comes via a sinless Christ's substitutionary death, the instrument of our justification. I am not sure what the point is you are trying to make here, Bill. Maybe I am just not understanding how what you have written in the first two paragraphs of this post is different from what I believe. My original point was that salvation and justification are synonmymous, since we as Christians were SAVED from the consequences of our sin 2000 years ago in Judea. While the indwelling Spirit is a blessing and an ever-present help for Christians, it is not that indwelling which provides our salvation. Otherwise, how do we explain that in most pre-Passion cases, believers in the coming Messiah were NOT indwelt by the Holy Spirit (King David and John the Baptist being two notable exceptions)? Most of those who will be in Heaven with us who lived before Christ's arrival did not have Him living inside them; yet they are justified/saved. Pre-Pentecost saints and post-Pentecost saints are both justified; otherwise they would not be in Heaven. That's why I hold that the Holy Spirit's presence in us and also the rich inheritance that we as believers are promised in Scripture are indeed gifts of our loving and gracious God, but that those are abundant gifts based on our adoption as sons, a separate act from forgiveness of our sins. In theory, we could have been offered forgiveness (i.e. salvation from Hell) and assigned a place with the servants rather than a place at the Lord's Table. We would still be just as saved, just not as blessed. Thanks be to God that He has done so much more! --Joe! |
||||||
1692 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19018 | ||
Tim: I am not supralapsarian. For those reading who aren't familiar with this term, supralapsarianism holds that: 1. God, out of his own wise counsel, elected a specific group of individuals to eternal life, not based on any merit or inherent superiority of those individuals (Ephesians 1:11 -- a view held by all who called themselves Reformed) 2. God out of His own wise counsel, elected the rest of humanity to reprobation (i.e. Hell), before taking into account the Fall. In other words, God is ACTIVE in keeping the non-elect out of Heaven. I do not hold to supralapsarianism, because the main idea behind it is that men are damned based on God's wise counsel rather than on their inherent sinfulness. Humans do not go to Hell because God didn't choose them. Humans go to Hell because they are by nature children of wrath who rebel against a holy God. Therefore, I lean toward infralapsarianism, which holds that our condemnation was justly earned by humanity (although foreknown and permitted by God), while salvation is for those whom he chose to rescue out of the position that we were in. The "default position" is condemnation for all of us; God just "flicks the switch" on the elect to salvation (to put it very crudely). --Joe! |
||||||
1693 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19000 | ||
Tim: Here we are again! I REALLY tried this time to keep out of the "5 points" discussion, but every time I try to get out, they pull me back in! :) In the Reformed position, there is a certain sense in which we were saved 2000 years ago at Calvary, for that is when the debt was paid for our sins: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." --Romans 5:8 In addition, regeneration (rebirth) logically precedes faith in the Reformed view, since our spirits must be made alive in order for us to stop rejecting the gospel. Temporally speaking, they are simulatneous; that is, we place our trust in Christ at the same time that we are spitirually regenerated. The question is which is the "domino that knocks the other one over." The Reformed position states that God is the unilateral cause of us placing our faith in His Son: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," --1 Peter 1:3 Now we know Ephesians 2:8-9. In my perspective, this is the expanded, full version of the evangelical idea "justification by faith." We are saved BY God's grace THOUGH faith in Christ alone. All of this is the gift of God. So grace is from God, and faith is a gift from God that we ourselves place in Christ. Therefore, I hold that our justification was planned in eternity past, secured in 1st-century Judea, and applied to us (made manifest) when we were regenrated by the Holy Spirit of God, placing faith in Christ. The tricky thing, Tim, is when we start talking about an aspect of God which you often have brought up: his timelessness. If we ask, "When does God consider us righteous?" we have a hard time answering that. Those who were God's people before Christ's arrival, were they viewed as righteous despite the fact that Christ had not actually atoned for our sins in time and space? (Paul and James seem to indicate that Abraham was.) In our cases, we know that we are "positionally" righteous with God, even though practically speaking we are painfully far away from that as a reality. We also probably agree that while we are justified, God also disciplines us and does indeed see our daily sins against Him. By that I mean that our sinful actions are not "ignored" by God or "invisible" to Him as I hear too many Christians implying; He does indeed care how we live out our Christian lives. So from the perspective of a timeless God, it could be said in a certain sense that outside of time/space, we stand as justified; just as the time/space event of our conversion did not (in an eternal sense) move us out of the unjustified category to the justified one. On the human side of things, justification was made manifest in my life a hanful of years ago. In a historical sense it occurred at Golgotha. From an eternal perspective, God has never counted my sins against me. How is that for an answer? My head is spinning now. I think I need to stop. Happens every time when finite me tries to grasp the infinite. One last point: I do not hold your third option as an alternative, since it still comes to the same conclusion: Christ paid for the sins of those who will be paying for them themselves. And if we are talking about what the most just situation is, we all go to Hell. The Reformed view is not injustice vs. justice; it is mercy vs. justice. The only difference is that we hold that God is not required to show mercy to all (and the Bible clearly shows that He doesn't in the lives of many many individuals and nations). Eagerly awaiting your response! --Joe! |
||||||
1694 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | Reformer Joe | 18875 | ||
Yoshua: Thanks for your comments. Certainly this is a bone of contention among those who profess Christ. A couple of comments: 1. In the earliest days of teh church (at least as far back as the sub-apostolic fathers), the Lord's Day was celebrated as Sunday. Whether that was in addition to celebrating the Sabbath (Saturday) or instead of celebrating the Sabbath is not clear, but it is quite clear from early extant Christian writings that Sunday was celebrated as the Lord's Day. 2. You quote Bullinger here. Is this the reformer Henry Bullinger? If so, you may be interested on another position on the Sabbath. I would encaurage others here to read it as well. http://www.credenda.org/issues/12-2stauron.php Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1695 | Dispensation of Time? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18759 | ||
The chart is definitely detailed, but good? What a mess! For a critique of this chart, feel free to visit http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm --Joe! |
||||||
1696 | What do you object to? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18550 | ||
Ummm...Steve? I think she was talking about the errors of Word-Faith teachers, not hyper-Calvinists... --Joe! |
||||||
1697 | Ending prayers in Jesus Nane. | Col 3:17 | Reformer Joe | 18528 | ||
Charis: I think that Koukl's point about "hurting our prayers" means that by the empty repetition of a phrase in which they put no true significance, many are actually taking the Lord's name in vain. Having listened to his radio program often, I would suggest that he is not suggesting the wholesale abandonment of the phrase itself, but a call to pray thoughtfully, with understanding of what it MEANS to pray in Christ's name. --Joe! |
||||||
1698 | Absolutely perfect? | Deut 32:22 | Reformer Joe | 18493 | ||
Lanny: Thanks for the reply. I am still a little confused, however. You claim to be entirely sanctified, having put all sin away. Then you go on to say that you are not perfect yet. If you are without sin, how can you be imperfect? That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Where do you find scriptural support for "two cleansings"? You say the Church of God teaches the true Gospel, so I assume that the two cleansings can be clearly seen in Scripture. Please give me some verses which illustrate this. You also indicate that someone is "saved" after that first cleansing. Is it possible that that "second cleansing" never comes for some? The thing that causes me the most confusion with your point of view is that Paul refers to fellow believers as saints (i.e. those who already have been sanctified, set apart): "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus" --Ephesians 1:1 "Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons" --Philippians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father." --Colossians 1:1-2 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia" --2 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours" --1 Corinthians 1:2 "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." --1 Corinthians 6:11 So we see that Paul refers to the believers he is addressing as "sanctified." If being sanctified means being sinless, however, why does he spend so much time in his epistles instructing his saints in holy living? Take the Corinthians as a prime example. To those he has called "saints," he has to rebuke them and instruct them in some pretty obvious ways: "I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" --1 Corinthians 3:2-3 "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." --2 Corinthians 7:1 If these people have already been cleansed, having already been sanctified, made sinless in your view, why is Paul still instructing them that there is more cleansing necessary? Those who have received this second cleansing, is it impossible for them to sin now? Where does Paul anywhere in his epistles claim to be without sin? "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." --1 John 1:8 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" --1 John 2:1 So those who are John's children are still capable of sinning. Are these people not saved? I don't think John would agree with that statement: "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake." --1 John 2:12 He also gives commands that would be unnecessary if they were perfect: "Little children, guard yourselves from idols." --1 John 5:21 Please explain to me why we would even need the Bible anymore if we have received a "second cleansing" and have been entirely sanctified. If I were without sin, I would look and act just like Jesus Christ did when he dwelt among us, for he is the only human who has ever lived in moral perfection on the earth. But I don't, and you don't. --Joe! |
||||||
1699 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18363 | ||
Kalos: I found the quote I was talking about in an online review of MacArthur's "Gospel According to Jesus" and Ryrie's "So Great Salvation," which itself was intended to be a rebuttal of MacArthur's work. The quote itself is found on page 45 of Ryrie's book. I would encourage you to read this review, as the problems I had with Ryrie's work are reflected quite well. After reading Ryrie's book, I was left wondering if he and I had ben reading the same book he was talking about. He takes MacArthur's statements out of context and tries to equate "Lordship Salvation" with legalistic works-righteousness, which it is not. In any case, here is the link to the review, which I hope many on this forum will take a glance at the following link, replacing the [TILDE] in the address with a tilde (the Spanish quiggly thing above the 'n" -- the forum won't let us include it in posts) http://www.rapidnet.com/[TILDE]jbeard/bdm/BookReviews/gospel.htm And again, the thing that bothers me the most about RYrie's view that a Christian does not necessarily ever exhibit a changed life are the statements found in 1 John, 1 Peter, Hebrews, James, etc., that place such emphasis on practical righteousness (not SINLESSNESS) as a mark of salvation. I grew up in churches that taught Ryrie's theology; it always seemed that pastors either avoid teaching extensively on these books or go to great links to say, "well, it seems that John was saying this, but what he REALLY meant was that." And that is no way to teach the Bible! --Joe! |
||||||
1700 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18328 | ||
Kalos: Thanks for your reply. While I do not have a direct quote from Ryrie handy, this view is expressed clearly in his book "So Great Salvation" which I do not own but have read in its entirety. Basically, Ryrie's view seemed to be not that there would be NO fruit, but it would be possible for the believer in Christ to bear fruit that would never be detected by him or others. The way he put it in the book was merely that "some how, some way, in some fashion, some fruit would be produced." I am sorry I cannot give you a more precise quote at this time, but I will look into it and get back to you. It isn't a view that he is apologetic or cryptic about, in any case. The problem I have with the view is that it seems that we will know true believers by their fruit. The fruit is there to demonstrate the fitness of the tree to all who are in its presence. I agree that we are justified by faith alone. Where Ryrie differs from me and many others is exactly WHAT the nature of saving faith is. I hold that repentence is not a work, but the "other side of the coin" --turning from embracing ourselves and the world and turning to embrace Christ. I also see no indication that repentance in a Biblical sense is merely "changing one's mind about who Christ is." How does Ryrie support that with Scripture? Repentence always seems to be FROM sins and selfishness, never a solely intellectual exercise. One other thing: I would be interested to understand how you reconcile all of those verses I cited with Ryrie's view? Thanks again. Going to a wedding now. More later! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ] Next > Last [97] >> |