Results 361 - 380 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | Explain this to me | Matt 27:3 | Reformer Joe | 74547 | ||
Of course, we were not talking about challenging the views of another (I assume that you respectfully think others who hold contrary views to yours are wrong, just as I do). What IS a product of his imagination is the supposed ad hominem attacks, at least coming from the direction of John and myself. --Joe! |
||||||
362 | Was Calvin just a slick lawyer? | Matt 27:3 | Reformer Joe | 74533 | ||
'A ready source would be “Church History in Plain Language” by Bruce Shelly published by Nelson Publishers ISBN 0-8499-2906-7 pages 274-281.' A great reference work. However, I do not see anything in there that paints Calvin as you do nor substantiates any of the claims you have made. "If Calvin’s lack of Biblical/Theological original language and exegesis training or a statement of his actual involvement in the reformation insults anyone I’m sorry but facts are facts" Where did you get your info that Calvin was not trained in the languages of Scripture? Being a classical scholar, what languages do you think he learned? Swahili? And, contrary to what you have claimed at least twice, Calvin never became a lawyer. "Your veiled implication that I would manufacture lies and I was a bigot are unjust and unwarranted, and I might add reveals much." John is saying nothing of the kind. He is simply implying what I am saying outright. You and whatever source you are using are just factually incorrect with regard to the events of the Reformation and of Calvin's life. You cited Shelley. Please give us an exact quote from him which substantiates that Calvin was a manipulative lawyer who was hired by anyone to defend Protestants against Rome. It simply is not there. Check your facts before posting them, please. --Joe! |
||||||
363 | Questions??? | Matt 27:3 | Reformer Joe | 74530 | ||
"It was Calvin that brought forth the hypothesis of election to which I and over two thirds of Christianity object." Please see my previous post. You are incorrect. "You know as well as I do when Calvin got involved nearly 100 years after Luther broke from Rome the issues were more social/political than spiritual." Martin Luther's 95 Theses: 1517 Calvin's conversion to Protestantism: ca. 1533 Where did the "100 years" get squeezed in? Do your homework, please, before posting inaccuracies. --Joe! |
||||||
364 | Questions??? | Matt 27:3 | Reformer Joe | 74523 | ||
"Calvin was a lawyer trained to manipulate words and hired to make Rome look bad." Yeah, there was a lot of manipulation needed to accomplish THAT task! ;) "He was not a theologian seeking God's truth." Wow...Ed knows the heart now! (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7) "Give me a break, for 1500 years the doctrinal truths are wrong and along comes Calvin and redefines man from a free will being into a robot forced to choose salvation." Wow...spoken like a true Roman Catholic. I didn't realize that the Assemblies of God were defenders of the RCC "doctrinal truths" that the Reformation challenged. As far as established church doctrine, have you ever read this guy called Augustine? He died a few years before Calvin started "manipulating words" and had a strikingly similar view of Scripture. Ever hear of this guy called Martin Luther? Calvin gets all the credit/blame for the doctrines of grace, but Luther put them forward in a book entitled _The Bondage of the Will._ A quick read of that will (again) correct your erroneous notion that the things you are railing against (again) came out of the head of one well-paid, manipulative lawyer who was not seeking God's truth. Once again, Ed, I admonish you to be more accurate, and to "be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger" (James 1:19). --Joe! |
||||||
365 | God is everywhere? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73923 | ||
Respectfully, Johnny, I think you are misunderstanding Paul's statement to the men of Athens. When he says in Acts 17:24 that God does not dwell in temples made with hands, he is correcting their worldview, not making a statement about God's lack of omnipresence. The Greeks went to temples to worship statues representing their gods. In fact, Paul is using a statue dedicated to an "unknown god" as a jumping-off point for his evangelistic message. Paul is not saying that God is not PRESENT in these temples, but rather that God is not CONFINED to them the way the Greeks consider them to be. The view you are putting forth regarding God is much closer to the one the Greeks had and the one Paul was critiquing -- the notion that gods were finite beings who looked down from on high at everything and came down as necessary. If that is what the true God is like, then Paul's challenge to the Greek pagans makes no sense. Furthermore, Paul asserts that God is not far from us (17:27) and that in Him we live and move and exist (17:28). If God is only in one place at one time like His creation, how can all of us live and move "in Him"? Therefore, Paul is not contending that God is limited in space, but rather that God sets our boundaries (17:26) and we don't set His. --Joe! |
||||||
366 | God is everywhere? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73815 | ||
"For your information I am not make myself wiser that all the Old and New testaments, the scriptures stated that He is in Heaven, even Christ recognize that His Father are in heaven." Please read more carefully. I said that you are setting yourself as wiser than the teaching of the church throughout its entire history. That is arrogance to suggest that because of your two-verse argument, you have "dicovered" the error of countless millions of saints who obviously haven't read the Bible as carefully as you. And no one is disagreeing that God is in heaven. How about the approximately twenty-five verses that I have given that demonstrate that he is simultaneously in other places as well? Like I said before, you are completely ignoring verses which show you to be wrong. And I repeat my question: why do you feel it so important to argue this point so forcefully, as if salvation itself depended on it? --Joe! |
||||||
367 | God is everywhere? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73797 | ||
Once more, Johnny, you have raised an irrelevant question; ignored Scripture after Scripture that point out that while God is indeed in heaven, He is omnipresent; and taken a couple of verses to attempt to make yourself seem wiser than all the Old and New Testament saints. Why? --Joe! |
||||||
368 | God is everywhere? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73793 | ||
Where does God dwell? "They shall know that I am the LORD their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God." --Exodus 29:46 "You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD am dwelling in the midst of the sons of Israel." --Numbers 35:34 "But in the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, "Go and say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD, "Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle."'" --2 Samuel 7:4-6 "And I will avenge their blood which I have not avenged, For the LORD dwells in Zion." --Joel 3:21 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!" --1 Kings 8:27 "David found favor in God's sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob." --Acts 7:46 --Joe! |
||||||
369 | how to be saved | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 73758 | ||
I like the word "King," myself. It's biblical, and it puts out actions in terms of obedience or treason. --Joe! |
||||||
370 | To whom do we belong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73756 | ||
Have you read the book _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ by Keith Mathison? It is one of the best historical analyses of the doctrine, and I like his summary of the doctrine better than any I have seen previously. Mathison sums up sola Scriptura as the teaching that, for the post-apostolic church, the Old and New Testaments are the only source of revelation for God's people, and the only infallible source of authority. --Joe! |
||||||
371 | To whom do we belong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73743 | ||
"Just keeping my nose in God's word, and TRUSTING that the Holy Spirit will give us discernment, and help us spot truth from error, is what is needed today." And when two people claim to be doing just that and arrive at contradictory conclusions, then what? Being taught by the Holy Spirit is no guarantee against error. In such cases, the problem is not the Teacher, but the fallibility of the student. Surely you are not claiming that when it is just you, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit, that you are infallible in your understanding of Scripture. Jesus Christ established the CHURCH for a reason, and while I do not hold any church to be infallible, completely rejecting the church as an interpretive authority in favor of any form of alleged individual infallibilty is simply foolish. "If I sound negative, thats because I only see negative things happening within EVERY church I have tried." One reason for that is that the church is composed of people like you and me. If you are expecting perfection in the church, you will have to wait till we are in heaven. On the other hand, I would not put the doctrine of eternal security/perseverance of the saints in the category of "heretical doctrine," even if I disagreed with it. There are countless saints of God in church history who held to this theological perspective, and whom God used to extend His kingdom in significant ways. --Joe! |
||||||
372 | To whom do we belong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73724 | ||
Ah, yes. The "I follow the Bible, you follow a denomination defense." The Jehovah's Witnesses do it with much more finesse than you do, I am afraid. This form of meaningless attack is used by virtually every single denomination/sect/cult that claims to be Christian. Rather than insulting the intelligence of a brother in Christ, why don't you please stick to the arguments. --Joe! |
||||||
373 | To whom do we belong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 73605 | ||
New Creature: You didn't address anything John said in his previous post at all. Was he wrong about something he said? If so, please point out what the passages he quoted really ARE saying, in your view. One problem that I think that we are having (and by "WE" I mean many of us on the forum not including myself) is a failure to understand the church as a covenantal community. In other words, by our baptism we are brought into the communion of saints, the people of God, whether or not we are truly regenerate at the time. Just as people belonged to the nation of Israel but were not saved, so there are people in the church who are not saved. What the writer of Hebrews is addressing, in my view, are those people who are part of the covenant community by virtue of a PROFESSION of faith. These individuals and their families need to make sure that their profession of faith indeed marks a POSSESSION of faith. The Bible makes it very clear that there are individuals in the church who, rather than being once-saved-then-lost, were never truly saved in the first place. These individuals enjoyed many of the blessings of God by living in God's household, despite the fact that they themselves were never truly God's children. For example, after Paul gets done addressing the condemnation of the majority of the Jews for rejecting the Messiah, he defends his theology against a hypothetical objection: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." --Romans 3:1-2 All members of the Jewish community were entrusted with the oracles of God (the law, the priesthood, the sacrifices, the blessings, etc.). The male Jews became recipients of these blessings by virtue of their circumcision, but having all of these things did not make them saved. Paul goes on to describe his anguish for the unsaved among God's covenant community: "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" --Romans 9:1-6 In the same way, we can that they are not all the church (i.e. the truly saved) who are in the [visible] church. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to suggest that the recipients of Hebrews were church members whose justification would be made manifest through their perseverance. Nowhere does the epistle insist that those once truly born again are in danger of losing that regeneration (becoming "un-born"?). What the writer of the epistle is warning is that the mark, the evidence of being God's true children is covenant-keeping, not covenant-breaking. Those in the covenant community who break the covenant were never His in the first place: "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" --Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus NEVER knew them. --Joe! |
||||||
374 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 73324 | ||
"I didn't say you can now be IMMORAL because the Old Law ended. Moral issues remain the same." The moral issues I mentioned were all included in the "Old" Law. Seems that the old may not be so old after all... "The particulars of how faith is demonstrated are different. Israelites had to be circumcised, go to three yearly feasts, etc." Israelite infants demonstrated their faith by being circumcised? "Abraham had to do the things God called him to do, and he had to do them by faith [i.e. he did not trust that his works saved him]." But we see that Abraham did not always do the things that pleased God. How much working by faith did he have to do before he was declared righteous? What does Romans 4:5 say? You wrote: 'God saves at the point of being baptized in faith. "You are sons of God through faith, for all of you who are baptized into Christ, have clothed yourselves with Christ."' This verse does not say that we are saved at the point of baptism. "The formula you mention has a glaring inconsistency, I think. faith/repentance is no different than saying faith/works." Well, since repentance is a change of mind (Gr. "metanoia"), it is not rightly considered a work, but rather an attitude adjustment in regard to one's personal sin. One could condider repentance to be an aspect of saving faith, since embracing Christ in faith requires a rejection of the previous love of one's sin. However, repentance (like faith) is not a work, but a state of mind that brings about works. But what was credited to Abraham (and to us) as righteousness? You wrote: "Baptism, when properly received, is not a WORK in the negative sense." I don't see anything commanded by God in Scripture that could be considered "a work in the negative sense." What works fall into this category? And where do you see the term "negative works" in Romans 4:1-5? And I say that a "faith" that doesn't result in works is not a real faith at all. Nonetheless, Romans 4 makes it transparent that Abraham was credited with righteousness prior to any works at all -- before circumcision, before the Isaac incident. Again, the order is important. Was Abraham justified before or after circumcision? --Joe! |
||||||
375 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 73303 | ||
"But the particulars of how to demonstrate faith HAVE CHANGED." So the Mosaic law, stating that we should have no other gods besides Yahweh, that we should not murder or steal or commit adultery, has no value for the "New Testament" Christian? Are we no longer to love God wholeheartedly (Deuteronomy 6:5) or to love our neighbor as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18)? The Bible teaches that everyone is instinctively aware of God's will, because they are given a moral sense, a conscience (Romans 2:14-16). The pagan in the deepest reaches of the rain forest is not off the hook because no one has shared God's law with him. The fact is that Romans 4:1-5 points to Abraham as being justified before God as a result of his belief (referring back to Genesis 15). His subsequent obedience in circumcising his offspring and preparing to sacrifice his son were RESULTS of saving faith. They did not contribute to the righteousness already credited to him. "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" --Romans 4:1-5 You can't get much more of a contrast than we see in that verse. While true faith results in works, Paul makes it absolutely, undeniably clear that the works of an individual do not result in the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is faith/repentance YIELDS Christ's righteousness PLUS works and not faith/repentance PLUS works YIELDS Christ's righteousness The order is very important, and the Pharisees and the Judaizers made the fatal mistake of choosing the second formula. Getting back to baptism, it should not be separated from faith and repentance in the unbaptized adult convert. The two are united, and baptism is not optional. However, the distinction must always be made between the two. The union of the sign (baptism) and the thing signified (the "washing of regeneration") must be maintained without claiming that both are the same thing. --Joe! |
||||||
376 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 73241 | ||
"Where there is no law, there is no transgression." So, according to your interpretation of Romans 4:15, was Cain a transgressor? The Ten Commandments had not been issued yet, so how was God just in punishing Cain if there was no official law put on record at that time? Obviously, Romans 4:15 in its context means something else. We get into serious difficulties when we start saying that people were saved differently before the crucifixion than they are after. The very chapter you refer to in the quote above (Romans 4) makes it clear that our justification is identical to that of Abraham (before the Law of Moses) and David (under the Mosaic Covenant). It is contrary to Scripture to suggest that God just whimsically changes what it takes to get to heaven from time to time. --Joe! |
||||||
377 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 73168 | ||
You wrote: "It would be entirely wrong to conclude that the Corinthians weren't baptized because of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1." I never claimed otherwise. You wrote: "What matters is Christ, being baptized into Christ." That matters, but is Paul placing the emphasis on baptism that you are? I would say that he is not. Baptism is assumed, but the heart of the gospel is not water baptism, but "Christ, and Him crucified." You wrote: "Why were you baptized, just curious?" I was baptized to be identified with Christ as a member of His covenant community. I also consider baptism to be a means of grace, through which the Holy Spirit works in order to set me apart as belonging to God. "This is an important question because no where does it say 'baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace that has already occured'." I never used these terms in my post. Why do you attribute them to me? I fully believe that baptism does SOMETHING. I disagree that we are justified by baptism. You wrote: "Nowhere does it say that baptism is intended to be a public testimony that you are a Christian." Verses like these convince me that baptism is a sign pointing to our identification with Christ: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." --Galatians 3:27 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." --1 Corinthians 12:13 --Joe! |
||||||
378 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 72923 | ||
I think the point isn't whether Paul baptized or not. The point is, if the gospel is incomplete without baptism by immersion, why didn't Paul baptize them? Note that I am not assuming that they were not baptized; it is a sign and seal of belonging to Christ's church. I only wonder out loud why Paul didn't baptize so many if he considered it to be the ultimate step in being justified... --Joe! |
||||||
379 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 72865 | ||
"Historically, I don't know where the Christians were. I suppose YOU can 'historically' point to the church of Jesus Christ. Do YOU find the 'historical' church in the words of the post-nicene fathers?" I certainly do. The church certainly isn't infallible, but the redeemed of God had to have lived within the visible church, or else the church did not exist at all. "If so, you must think the reformers were just a lot of troublemakers." Not at all. Well,I guess they WERE, but that is the kind of trouble we all could use. However, the Reformers didnot think that Nicea was the end of the church. Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and the rest pointed to problems that developed much later than the 4th century. The Reformers set out to REFORM a church that had taken some very wrong turns, not to RESTORE a church that had ceased to exist. "Perhaps the true Christians were driven underground-figuratively speaking. Remember how, later on, the 'historical' church had fits when common people wanted to read the Bible? Some of those people were called heretics because they made the Bible available to other common people. The 'historical' church burned some of those people and made people afraid to speak out against the Pope. The inquisitors confiscated property of heretics who didn't believe like the Pope and.... Anyway, that's the only 'historical' church. Suffice to say, I know where the true church was not." You are talking about the interim between Nicea and the Reformation like it was the span of a few years or something. There was a period of about 1200 years between the two. The problems of the RCC that the Reformers pointed out did not spring up overnight. "If you think the Holy Roman Church is the church of the Bible, I think you are mistaken." Take a look at my user name. Read my profile. Do you honestly think I am an advocate for Roman Catholicism? But since you are praising the Reformers and the way they restored the church, please explain to me why Luther and Calvin not only did not get re-baptized after their coversions, but also defended infant baptism. If these men were Christians to be admired and are in heaven now, how did they get there without immersion? --Joe! |
||||||
380 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 72699 | ||
Perhaps you can help me with a question I have yet to have substantially answered by one who holds the view on baptism that you do: Where was the church of Jesus Christ between the third century or so and the Anabaptists of the late 16th century? If I am understanding you correctly, you claim that since the Great Commission, immersion in water is a necessary element of truly being saved. If that is the case, we have a serious church history problem on our hands. Namely, there would be NO church history between the times I mentioned above. Since virtually everyone who carried the name of Christian was "sprinkled as a little bitty baby" (and even adult converts were almost always sprinkled), where was the church? Did everyone claiming to be a Christian for at least 1300 years really go to hell? Wouldn't this mean that the church God promised Peter and the other apostles would prevail actually died out? If so, explain how God would do something in history he had never, ever done before: let His people disappear off the face of the earth. If you disagree that the church died out, please point out to me where we can historically find it during the Middle Ages, or else help me understand how all those sprinkled "Christians" were part of the true church without meeting the requirements you claim the Bible makes. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [97] >> |