Results 521 - 540 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
521 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68651 | ||
'When people point to Adam's having been given "only one wife" as "absolute proof" that God intended it to be this way for all mankind, we are left the idea that we can draw other equally credulous conclusions that have nothing to do with the text in question. The Lord made no mention of what Adam was given was to be a model for all mankind. Such a conclusion is being drawn out of thin air.' How many times is Genesis 2:23 quoted elsewhere in the Bible? Who quotes it, and in what contexts? Is it given as an instructive example, a normative principle, in those instances or not? Thin air? That seems to be where my posts are disappearing before they reach your computer screen, because you haven't addressed a single one of my points yet. I would think that some might be starting to doubt whether it is I who suffers from a "severe lack in reasoning" here... I have one other major objection to your position, but I will wait for your responses to any of my others before "burdening" you any further. --Joe! |
||||||
522 | making wine.Did Jesus make a mistake. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68648 | ||
"My counter grenade toss would be: Which verse specifically commands us not to be gluttons? :-)" It has been a long day on the old Forum, hasn't it? For those of you taking Tim seriously, please see Proverbs 23:20-21 for starters. It connects gluttony and drunkenness as "twin sins." You also wrote: "I tossed the questions out in both fun and seriousness though. Is .005 blood alcohol not a sin, but .006 is a sin? Is drunkeness a state of being or a process?" I wouldn't be legalistic enough to identify a blood alcohol level any more than to set a calorie ceiling for gluttony. The key in both is moderation (not seeing how close one can get to the line without crossing it); and as you pointed out, it is never a sin NOT to casually drink alcohol. I think that drunkenness is both a state and a habit. Lastly, you wrote: "But, as I said many times before, I count this as a personal conviction which I would never force on anyone else. I simply don't see any good in alcohol. It doesn't make me more Christ-like, nor more intelligent (I can't spare any brain cells), so I see no reason to do it and many possible reasons to avoid it." This is the same way I feel about lima beans! This discussion comes up again at an interesting time for me, as I have been studying Romans 14 in my personal devotions and have recently gone through 1 Corinthians 8-10 with my wife. I consider this issue to be one that falls pretty squarely in the "adiaphora" category, and these four chapters have a lot to say about the proper use of our freedom in Christ, and how love for our brethren actually should act as a self-constraint on our liberty. Concern for Christ's honor and our brother's welfare should always be the governing principle in these gray areas. One thing that we can all agree on, hopefully: "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." --1 Corinthians 10:31 --Joe! |
||||||
523 | making wine.Did Jesus make a mistake. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68642 | ||
But the words "sweet" or "new" do not appear in any of the passages I cited except for the one in Acts 2. And the Greek word is different for that instance, anyway, so ruling that one out doesn't really change the meaning of "oinos," which is used quite frequently in the NT in the context of warning of its excesses. My main problem with the whole "non-alcoholic" wine argument centers around two issues: 1. Throughout the history of the church, until the nineteenth-century temperance movement spread like wildfire, all of Christendom used wine in its communion. There is no definitive historical record of anything else but regular alcohol-containing wine being used (no matter what the alcohol percentage may have been). If you are correct about the use of Eucharistic wine, then there was some unexpected "wrong turn" very, very close to the apostolic era, and I am very hesitant to step forward and say that something the church had been doing from almost the very beginning is in error. 2. The Jews still use wine in their Passover. It would be quite interesting to find out how the same alleged move from ultra-weak wine to the stronger stuff we can find today was mirrored by a group that has largely rejected its Messiah. Now, don't get me wrong: I am not asserting my "inalienable right" to drink wine. My freedom should not become a stumbling block for my brother, and it certainly is not a pass to enjoy licentiousness. However, when I get grief for having a thimble-full of the beverage I (along with most of the church throughout history) believe Jesus consecrated to signify His blood by which I was reconciled, I am a little less charitable. The point of Paul's messages on matters of conscience is two-way: the strong should not despise the weak in conscience, and the weaker brother should not judge the strong in these "gray areas." --Joe! |
||||||
524 | making wine.Did Jesus make a mistake. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68605 | ||
"Reformer Joe and I have been around this pole a few times and each time I believe I?m able to prove what Jesus made at the wedding of Cana would not be considered wine by today?s standards." What you haven't been able to show me is how anyone could possibly get drunk off of New Testament wine as you portray it to be. If it is so harmless, how can the apostles be accused of being full of sweet wine when they start speaking in other tongues? Why does Ephesians 5:23 tell us not to be drunk with wine if the alcoholic content of wine was so close to nothing? And why would being addicted to much "grape juice" be a disqualification for an elder (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7)? Ed, I know your bad history with the stuff and praise God from delivering you from your association with it. And, trust me, I would completely be a Romans 14:21 kind of guy around you. I would hope that you would be a Romans 14:3 person toward me. --Joe! |
||||||
525 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68596 | ||
You wrote: "What I?m saying is God in his holiness, justice, and love for us could have made anything the ransom for sin" Paul wrote: "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." --Galatians 2:21 Christ NEEDED to die. "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" --Romans 8:3 "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 The bottom line of your position is that ultimately, Jesus Christ, the holy Son of God, did not have to die for our redemption. Out of a myriad of possibilities that God could have chosen (including painless ones), He sends one who shares His essence with Himself to die an undeserved death, when it all could have been avoided by God saying anything else (or nothing else, as indicated in your last concrete example) could serve as the ground of our justification? It just doesn't wash. And Martin Luther agreed: "Among the distinguished teachers there are some who say that forgiveness of sins and the justification by grace consists entirely of divine imputation, that is in God's accounting it sufficient that he whom he reckons or does not reckon sin is justified or not justified for his sins by this...If this were true, the whole New Testament would be nothing and in vain. And Christ would have labored foolishly and uselessly by suffering for sin." That's basically all I have to say on this matter. You are surprised that I am allegedly limiting God by saying His justice is not trumped by His freedom. I am shocked that you believe God chose what is undoubtedly the most horrific act in the history of the universe as the ground for reconciling us to Himself when He didn't have to. --Joe! |
||||||
526 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68594 | ||
I just started looking more in-depth at this myself when my kooky mother-in-law came to me with her fanciful notion that the "bride of Christ" is a faithful subset of all Christians, and not the church itself. I was as surprised as you seem to be. Just goes to show what we can take for granted... --Joe! |
||||||
527 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68592 | ||
Good answer! Now maybe our polygamous friend can explain to us how God in the Torah regulates something that He hates, and then explain how (by contrast) regulation of plural marriage automatically implies God's approval of it? --Joe! |
||||||
528 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68551 | ||
I think the "bride of Christ" idea finds its support in Ephesians 5, even though the term is not used. --Joe! |
||||||
529 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68550 | ||
You still have not answered my issue I brought up regarding this. Your argument is that if the Mosaic law regulates polygamy, then either God approves of it or at the very least does not disapprove of it. I had responded by asking how God feels about divorce, since it also is regulated by the Torah. And your answer is...? --Joe! |
||||||
530 | making wine.Did Jesus make a mistake. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68548 | ||
How do you determine whether a member of your congregation has committed gluttony or not? How much food crosses the line between enjoyment of God's food and gluttonous greed? Your favorite theological grenade-thrower, --Joe! |
||||||
531 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68547 | ||
"Everyone else appears to be aware of this fact and are avoiding it because of its implications." Ahem, who is avoiding issues here? You seem to be able to answer everyone substantively, but fail to have time for me. I hate to shatter your ego (or libido), but your pro-polygamous position is not nearly as untenable as you are declaring it to be. Let's take a look: 'Nathan then said to David, "You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!'"' --2 Samuel 12:8 What we are seeing here is not an advocacy of polygamy, but rather a declarative statement summarizing the fact that David assumed Saul's position as king of Israel, with all of the material aspects of that position that Saul had possessed. Did God give David those wives? Absolutely, just as everything anyone has is given by God either actively or permissively. In God's economy, "giving" can mean "allowing to have." Here are some examples: "For thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I am going to make you a terror to yourself and to all your friends; and while your eyes look on, they will fall by the sword of their enemies. So I will give over all Judah to the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will carry them away as exiles to Babylon and will slay them with the sword.'" --Jeremiah 20:4 He gives the land of Judah to Babylon not as a reward for Babylon's faithfulness, but as judgment toward Judah. Likewise, Assyria is ordained by God to plunder the land of Israel, but that divinely-ordained gift is really given to ultimately enact judgment on the Assyrians as well (Isaiah 10). Likewise, God gave permission to Satan to torment Job, and in the New Testament, with regard to sinners, "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them." --Romans 1:24 Would you say in this instance that God giving people what they want implies that God approves of what they do? God gave people over to homosexuality...therefore God is happy that they are homosexuals? Ultimately everything falls under the umbrella of God's providence (from the word "provide"), so God giving Saul's wives to David does not necessarily imply an APPROVAL of polygamy, even though in this case he temporarily TOLERATES it. And, when we look at how often Genesis 2 is given as a pattern in the New Testament, it is pretty clear that polygamy is not preferred by God. --Joe! |
||||||
532 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68535 | ||
"But then we get back to election." And I like it there! --Joe! |
||||||
533 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68534 | ||
You wrote: "I’m saying if in fact God had used the Mosaic sacrificial system to provide for our atonement before Hebrews or any other conflicting statements to that method was written and called it just, then to us it would have been just." And this is the heart of our disagreement. You say the just status of God's decrees is determined by him declaring them just. You separate the act from any innate attribute of God. According to you, God could have declared absolutely ANYTHING to be just satisfaction, whether that satisfaction actually cost anyone anything or not. I, however, contend that the justice of God's decrees originate in His very nature. The justice of God's acts does not originate with Him doing them. God's doing the acts that He does originates in His immutable justice, an aspect of His nature. In short, justice begins in God, not outside of Him. "Are you sure your not a Lawyer? I haven't had to weigh every word so carefully since I last talked to one of those sharks." Not a lawyer, just a shark who cares about God's character and the necessity of the Triune God's covenant of redemption decreed from eternity past. --Joe! |
||||||
534 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68514 | ||
"I think you may now see the weakness of the arguement you have presented." Not really, since all of the examples of "wife" (singular) I gave were in the New Testament, and you referred to Hebrew in your so-called "refutation." You keep saying that Hebrew and Greek are not number-specific in their nouns, but you have offered no support for such a statement with regard to Koine Greek. You also wrote: "For instance, when Proverbs instructs a man to raise his "son" (singular) in the ways of righteousness, does that mean that we are all limited to having only one son, or that only one of our sons is to be raised in the ways of righteousness?" No, but when Paul says that each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband (a reciprocal statement), that is putting a little more boundary on it than the verse you cite above. Either that, or polyandry is indeed implied in 1 Corinthians as a suitable option. The "I don't have time to respond" response kind of hurts my feelings, too, since your other posts indeed did NOT address the questions I raised (else I would not have raised them). Since you have written such long and flowing essays in the last several days on the subject, couldn't you do the same for little ol' me? I really would like you to address the specific substance of what I said, addressing the verses and points themselves rather than speaking in generalities. After all, if you have outwitted all of those big, bad, nationally-known Th.D.'s, a commoner like me should be quick work, right? :) --Joe! |
||||||
535 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68505 | ||
...completely dependent on the action or inaction of men? | ||||||
536 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68503 | ||
But you seem to forget that Emmaus believes that INFANT baptism regenerates the recipient... --Joe! |
||||||
537 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68502 | ||
And knowing Joe, it will take on the "WWF" hue rather than the "Greco-Roman" one! --Joe! (a.k.a "El Reformador") |
||||||
538 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68500 | ||
"Back to the track God could have established the parameters of our salvation in many ways. Your assertion that it had to be Jesus is incorrect. However after God had established more definitions your assertion is correct. Example before Gen 3:15 the object of our salvation could have been anything, after Gen 3:15 He had to be human." I disagree. It was humanity that sinned, and therefore a just satisfaction for sin must be made by humanity, before God spoke in Genesis 3:15: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." --Hebrews 10:4 It didn't become true once God said it; it was true prior to God revealing it. "However nothing in nature or creation forced God to supply those definitions other than His desire to accomplish what He wanted in the way He desired." But God's immutable nature plays a part in determining the "HOW" of redemption, even if the "if" and "when" of redemption are unbounded. You seem to suggest that God could have merely said in Genesis 3:15 that the Mosaic sacrificial system (for example) would provide atonement in itself, and that by definition would have been just. You seem to say that it would have been just because God would have said it; I argue that God, in fact, did not say it precisely because it wouldn't have satisfied His justice. I encourage you to take some time to read the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury in his work _Cur Deus Homo?_, which serves as the classic theological treatment of the atonement. I believe his exposition regarding the doctrine of satisfaction fits best with the biblical account. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.html --Joe! |
||||||
539 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68486 | ||
I think it may be somewhat of a stretch to connect the story of Naaman to baptism. The New Testament lists several Old Testament types of baptism, and Naaman is never mentioned among them. The only time in the NT that Naaman is even mentioned is in Luke 4:27, when Jesus is underscoring the relative uniqueness of Naaman's healing (a point I should have been making in the "health-wealth" thread, now that I think about it). While I would consider circumcision and the sacrificial system as likely Old Testament "sacraments," this one-time action of God on behalf of a single human being couldn't rightly be considered sacramental. You wrote: "It was God's grace that saved Naaman from his leprosy, but God chose the water of the Jordan as the means by which to transmit that grace." In this case, yes; but God uses a variety of physical means in single-case healings, and often uses no physical means at all. Elisha threw some stuff in the pot to de-poison it. Jesus used his spit and dirt. However, often healings occurred at the mere speaking of Jesus and the apostles. So, while I agree that God's grace does work in the recipient through the sacraments, it is not a justifying but rather a sanctifying grace, and the grace conferred in the sacraments is efficacious only toward His elect (unlike justifying grace, which is always efficacious -- a TULIP moment for you and yours!). May God bless you richly today! --Joe! |
||||||
540 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68482 | ||
Well, I cannot take complete credit for it. Some of my favorite teachers have written at length about God's covenantal and redemptive model in the family. There is, in fact, a whole chapter on polygamy itself in Douglas Wilson's book, _Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man_. I recommend that book to all the Christian men on this forum. It pulls no punches in convicting us with respect to our duties to be faithful single men and husbands. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ] Next > Last [97] >> |