Results 1441 - 1460 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1441 | Visit other churches? | Rom 16:16 | Reformer Joe | 34451 | ||
My anecdote was not to be a generalization, just an autobiographical sketch. And you must admit in certain circles certain individuals with certain leanings very often dress in a certain way to look a certain part. I have to wonder, Randy, why you had so little to say about what actually WENT ON during that service. Surely you do not find such practices to be truly of the Holy Spirit we see in Scripture. And, assuming that you do not, what is your standard for telling this pastor that he is in the wrong? :) I am happy with the "trend" I fit in. It is a trend which says that the God of the Bible must clearly be revealed as He is. I think it is an oversimplification to place me in one of two categories, for there are a number of ways that I see the whole counsel of God disguised rather than revealed from the pulpit. For example: 1. The category that I have already alluded to (the Bible-waving and getting people excited without actually saying ANYTHING accurate about God). 2. The preaching of the "warm and fuzzy" aspects of God's character and at the same time intentionally hiding those aspects and requirements which rightfully make us uncomfortable (e.g. His holiness and righteous wrath and demand for repentance). 3. Preaching a "gospel" of morality rather than the gospel of the Bible. 4. Preaching a "gospel" of social/political activism rather tham the Gospel of the Bible. 5. Replacing the proclamation of God's Word with adherance to extra-biblical (or even un-biblical) tradition. 6. Replacing the historical gospel of Jesus crucified and resurrected with a "let's all be nice to each other" message. 7. Painting Jesus to be a cosmic therapist to meet our every need (read: our every "want") rather than the Lord of all. So we can see that the misrepresentation of God and His Word crosses all kinds of churches and traditions. It is far too basic to lump Bible abuse into the categories of "orderly" and "free-spirited." I fully agree with you that there is not a tremendous amount of fellowship/dialogue across the "Pentecostal divide." Some are just stereotyping what they have not personally experienced or do not understand. From my own perspective, I can only say that my difficulties with some on the other side of the divide stems from my spiritual gift of discernment and the opposition of many (not ALL) in the other camp to the exercise of that gift (the whole "don't quench the Spirit" thing). You are right that neither has a monopoly on truth. However, it goes deeper than agreeing what the truth is; I perceive the root of the problem being epistemological. That is, how can we know truth? Do we lean heavily on our own subjective experience to assert what God's truth is, or is God's written revelation the ultimate authority in the matter? Neither camp will DENY the importance of God's Word, just as neither group will reject the importance of actually experiencing the Spirit at work in one's life. The tension arises, however, when some incident or experience arises which is attributed to the Spirit by some but argued to be contrary to Scripture by others. In cases like this, do we make the ultimate appeal to the Bible or to our sincere feeling that the situation was a "move of the Spirit"? --Joe! |
||||||
1442 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 48893 | ||
The Holy Spirit which The Father and the Son send to indwell us is none other than the third Person of the Trinity. There is no "holy spirit" distinct from Him. God Himself indwells the believer: "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance." --Acts 2:1-4 "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory." --Ephesians 1:13-14 "So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you." --1 Thessalonians 4:8 "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?" --1 Corinthians 6:19 (A "temple" is a "place of worship") "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" --1 Corinthians 3:16 The "holy spirit field" you talk about seems something like the Force from the Star Wars saga. It bears no resemblance to the God of the universe -- the Holy Spirit -- who indwells the Christian and who is to be obeyed, not "tapped into." The Holy Spirit is not an "it." The Holy Spirit is a "He." --Joe! |
||||||
1443 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49520 | ||
Please re-read my response to your original post, Jeff (5/20/02 8:30 p.m.) regarding your error in saying that there are "two" Holy Spirits. It is illiogical to conclude that the Holy Spirit is "stupid" (not to mention blasphemous to do so) because the Holy Spirit acts not on His own initiative, but that of the Father. Jesus did the same thing during His earthly ministry. Does that make Him stupid? 'Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.' --John 5:19 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." --John 5:30 'Jesus *said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work."' --John 4:34 You wrote: "If the Holy Spirit or holy spirit is God then where is this spirit getting what he hears from? A fourth God?" I don't know what you mean by "a fourth God." Christianity holds that there is only one God. If the Holy Spirit is God (and He is), he "gets what he hears" from God the Father. Another passage which shows that God is three Persons, in one Being. --Joe! |
||||||
1444 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49534 | ||
"Thank you! You just wrote the finest argrument against the theology of the Trinity. My belief is that there 1 God, who is Holy and who is Spirit and had a son, Jesus Christ, and at varying times put His spirit either upon man or in man to do His will. If Jesus Christ looked to God then he is not equal to God therefore he is not God. By your own post you have made Jesus Christ not equal to God. There goes the trinity!" Nice try, but no cigar. The second Person of the Trinity submitting to the first Person of the Trinity does not mean that they are not both one God. There is relationship within the Godhead. No Trinitarian is going to deny that, but readily and forcefully affirm it. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit never have acted independently of one another, and they have always had differing roles within the Godhead. Your oversimplification based on one verse does not sweep the Trinitarian doctrine out the door, sorry. You wrote: "But if you belive in Jesus Christ (which I think you do), then we are brothers." Which Jesus Christ are you talking about? The archangel Michael? The spirit brother of Lucifer? The Jewish "ascended master"? The failed political revolutionary? The virgin-born prophet of Islam? The guru who spent his "lost years" in India? Or very God of very God, the second Person of the Trinity who became flesh to die for the sins of His people? Simply saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ" is not enough. We have to believe in the Jesus Christ who actually exists. If you deny the deity of Christ, then we are not brothers. --Joe! P.S. You still have not responded to my earlier post which clearly shows that there is no "Holy Spirit"/"holy spirit" disctinction. Do you just ignore things which do not harmonize with your pre-conceived views? |
||||||
1445 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49544 | ||
Does this mean that you are sticking around after all? If so, I just want to point out to you one of the terms of posting on this Forum: "2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum." --Joe! |
||||||
1446 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49578 | ||
So what church do you belong to that denies the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit and speaks in tongues? --Joe! |
||||||
1447 | how do you speak in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49579 | ||
The word "charisma" ("gift")is not used in verse 1...you are correct. However, it is used in its plural form 5 times in 1 Corinthians 12 (verses 4, 9, 28, 30, 31), and context clearly shows that the word is applied to tongues as part of a larger list of gifts. It makes no sense whatsoever to remove tongues and tongues alone out of the list of things identified collectively as gifts. The whole chapter is about gifts, and that is why the word is added by most translators to verse 1. And, once again, by looking at 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, we see that God has appointed different roles to different people. He explicitly states that all do not speak in a tongue, due to God's appointment, just like all do not have gifts of healing or teaching or administration or miracles. Just out of curiosity, why don't you try "receiving" those other things on Paul's list? Try receiving the ability to perform miracles. A good resurrection or giving an amputee his legs back would convince us all that you are right about "the holy spirit field." The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 12 is Paul's description of the division of gifts and labor within the body of Christ. Tongues was placed clearly on the list of things that some had and others did not. Only someone trying to proof-text a cherished false teaching would misinterpret Paul's epistle the way you have done. --Joe! |
||||||
1448 | how do you speak in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49586 | ||
So tell us...whom have you healed? --Joe! |
||||||
1449 | how do you speak in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49595 | ||
So you made it up. --Joe! |
||||||
1450 | Asking for gifts of the Spirit? | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49608 | ||
According to 1 Corinthians 7:7 and 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, tongues were NOT available to all believers. Why is this so hard to put together? When someone reads John 3:16, it is very clear what God did and what happens to all who believe in Jesus Christ. Why, when 1 Corinthians 12:28-30 is brought up, suddenly does the very obvious statement of Paul become so ignored/difficult? --Joe! |
||||||
1451 | The gift of Tongues | 1 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 49962 | ||
You (or the person you quoted) wrote: "Denominationalists frequently contend that the Holy Spirit, in a direct and mysterious fashion, operates upon the sinner in the process of conversion." So does the Bible: 'Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."' --John 3:5-8 "You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." --2 Cor 3:3-6 "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" --Titus 3:5 "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure." --1 Peter 1:2 You (or someone else) wrote: "If the Holy Spirit operates upon the soul of the sinner independent of the written Word of God, why is it that not a solitary Christian has ever been discovered in those locales where the gospel has not been proclaimed?" Because the Holy Spirit does not work independently of His word. Normally, those whom God regenerates are among those who hear his word: "A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." --Acts 16:14 " How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" --Romans 10:14 The necessity of gospel preaching is not contrary to the regeneration by the Holy Spirit. It seems that the rest of your post affirms this. The Spirit works through His word to regenerate the sinner. That seems to be what your post is saying. Funny that my DENOMINATION believes that, too... --Joe! |
||||||
1452 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81471 | ||
Very astute observations. Creeds and confessions have been a part of the church since its inception, and they have served a very God-honoring, useful role in the church. We even see examples of first-century confessions in Scripture (Philippians 2:6-12; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:11-13). Far from being divisive in their purpose, creeds (coming from the word "credo" -- "I believe") and confessions articulate the truth in order to guard the purity of the church against error and for the church to rejoice together by proclaiming in unison the wonderful truths revealed in God's word. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" --Hebrews 10:23 --Joe! |
||||||
1453 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81478 | ||
Good questions. There will not be 100 percent disagreement between now and when we dwell in the age to come. We even see disagreements and church councils in the apostolic church, such as in Acts 15, where specific situations had to be addressed by what God had revealed. Did everyone abide by the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem? Paul's rebukes in the book of Galatians would seem to indicate that the answer would be "no." "So how are we to know which is truth and which is error? Both opposing views cannot be true, either one is correct and the other wrong, or both are wrong." Absolutely correct. God has provided us with safeguards against SERIOUS error, however. The primary one is the church. The historic, universal church has been God's means through which the traditions of Christ and the apostles (as found in the Bible) are interpreted. While the church is not infallible, when she stays within the boundaries of interpreting revelation rather than claiming to give additional revelation, she tends to be right on the essentials. When the early church devised creeds like the Apostles and the Nicene, it was for the purpose of standing together in affirming what the Bible says. While I do not hold the ancient creeds and confessions to be inspired or infallible, I do consider that God worked in and through the church so that they would be accurate interpretations of what the Bible says. "The same Holy Spirit CANNOT be claimed to be leading the churches in truth today when they disagree with each other." The Holy Spirit definitely leads in churches devoted to Jesus Christ, even those that disagree on certain issues. The question is to what degree individual denominations and congregations and members FOLLOW His leading. I would contend that every church today contains a mixture of truth and error, because our sinful selves constantly try and remake God in our image rather than conform our theology to His revelation in Scripture. The leading of the Holy Spirit does not insure infallibility of doctrine. Genuine, productive, mutually respecting and loving Christians will genuinely and passionately disagree about certain doctrines. Which brings us to the question of whether Jesus was praying for our doctrinal unity (which certainly is important, but has never, EVER existed in the church) or our unity in love and purpose (i.e. glorifying God and His Son). The Holy Spirit leads. True believers and true churches stumble after Him, sometimes tripping over one another in the process. The good news is that thanks to God's grace we will get to the same glorious destination. The bottom line is that Christianity has never been a solo experience. Too many modern-day Christians are completely ignorant of their heritage and have effectively cut off the theological branches they claim to stand on from the trunk. God has given us His infallible, inerrant word. He has also given us his fallible and sometimes-errant yet Spirit-led church to spend the remaining centuries to collectively teach, dwell upon, and live out what the word means. To disparage the latter is to disparage the former upon which she is founded. --Joe! |
||||||
1454 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81502 | ||
"Don't you think the very essentials of Christianity are violated by the need for statements of belief." Statements of belief (creeds and confessions) have existed as long as the church has. You have them in your church as well. If you sing hymns with any theological statements whatsoever, you are reciting a confession put to music. "No one likes to be told he is wrong yet for each church/denomination felling the need to have their own creed is in effect doing just that." No one likes to be told he is wrong, but Scripture calls for godly men to correct false teaching and wrong-headed ideas. Paul wrote to Timothy that all Scripture is useful for correction. You yourself spend a considerable amount of time telling others on this Forum where you think they are wrong (just as I do). Are you not doing so on the basis of what you believe the Bible teaches? Written or not, that is your creed. --Joe! |
||||||
1455 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81505 | ||
"Someone mentioned the Jerusalem council of Acts 16. They didn't have the Bible to go by yet they were able to resolve the vast differences of theology without dividing into two churches." Since that someone was me, please allow me to point out a few things: 1. They didn't have the New Testament, obviously, but they did have Scripture. James quotes from Amos during the deliberations in support of his decision. 2. The decision of the council was published in written form and was considered binding upon the churches. 3. As we see elsewhere in the New Testament, this written declaration of faith and practice was violated by the Judaizers. I have no idea whether a full-fledged sect separated from the apostles and considered themselves "the true church" as a result of this decision, but the first-century church was certainly not immune to such things. --Joe! |
||||||
1456 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81512 | ||
"And doens't that breed disunity a division in the Body of Christ?" A doctrinal disunity, to be sure, but does difference in non-essentials mean that one cannot function together as the body of Christ? I am a missionary with an organization that crosses denominational lines, and I disagree with many of those who are my co-laborers in Christ. We still manage to get the job done in unity, striving together with one mind for the purpose of evangelizing, discipling, and congregating individuals. "Shouldn't we all be singing from the same song page?" Sure we should, but which one of us is going to "switch hymnals"? :) (Actually, you wouldn't really even have to do that; many of the hymns in your hymnal were written by those on my side of the fence!) And herein lies the problem: we both are equally convinced of our point-of-view, and are equally convinced that the other is not taking all of Scripture into account or reading into it things that are not there. Both of us are Christians, but both of us can't be right on the issues on which we disagree. So do we use that as an excuse to duke it out in front of the watching world, or do we remain content to disagree as brothers in Christ and continue His work? "If Christ walked the earth today would there be 1600 denominations or one?" But He isn't, and no one here and now has the authority that the returning King does. I am sure that he will set both of us straight on a great many things once we are home. "If Paul were alive today would we have Catholics and protestants?" Doubtful, but possible. Paul certainly had his detractors within the church (e.g. the Corinthians, who did so wrongly, but nonetheless were part of the church). "Wasn't this the very thing Paul was denouncing in 1 Cor. 1:12?" I think that Paul was not specifically addressing doctrinal disunity, but rather cults of personality that had formed around the apostles and Christ. Obviously Cephas and Apollos and Paul and Jesus were not doctrinal opponents, but the Corinthians were looking for flowery speakers like the Greek orators that the pagans followed after. The disagreements among the Corinthians seemed to be rooted in greed and other petty vices and not in doctrinal issues. --Joe! |
||||||
1457 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81513 | ||
"And they were denounced for this not accepted. And the true church continued in unity." Right, and what distinguished the true church from the false was its doctrine. Maybe a less-divisive issue would be more instructive. Among the second-century church there is clear indications of both premillennialists and amillennialists. Justin Martyr, a premil himself, acknowledged that there were those among his brethren who rejected a premil view. And yet both of them could not be right. As far as can be seen, no factions or splits occurred over the disagreements (a good thing). Now, if the body claiming to be the true church suddenly started denying the deity of Christ, would it be right or wrong to separate from that body (this is one of the problems that led to the formation of my denomination)? Or what if the church called you a heretic and threatened excommunication if you did not reject the "godless notion" of justification by faith alone? Splits and schisms often occur for horribly pathetic reasons, but that is not to say that all division is unnecessary. I am not terribly familiar with the specifics behind the formation of the Assemblies of God, but I assume that its founders were seeking to return to what they believed ("credere") to be a more biblical practice and doctrine. Do you think that your denomination was founded for good reasons or bad ones? I think mine was founded for good ones, and I praise God that evangelical truth is preserved in the PCA. --Joe! |
||||||
1458 | Which one is cause, which is effect? | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81559 | ||
"Sounds good but is that what Jesus commanded?" Please show me where Jesus commanded doctrinal unity. "Creeds are the result of man viewing his interpretation of the Bible as being more correct than someone else's therefore breeding divison." That is not the origin of creeds, but how are you immune to this? "This all occurs even when we know there is no unresolved conflict within the Bible." Sure there is unresolved conflict in the Bible. Paul's direction regarding matters of conscience could be considered friendly disagreement. He also wrote: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." --Romans 12:18 This implies that in some cases that it will not be possible. It is just necessary that we make every effort to live at peace. But, again, peace does not imply agreement. You didn't really answer Radioman's question, however. You keep saying that the cause of Christ requires perfect doctrinal unity (despite the evidence of history that God works in spite of our disunity), but you have not given a concrete, specific, binding way for this to happen. Doctrinal unity has never happened and is never going to happen in this age, because holders of doctrines are human beings. We can lament this and strive for unity and be open to correction if necessary, but it is a fact of our existence that there are as many personal theological statements of faith as there are Christians. --Joe! |
||||||
1459 | Which one is cause, which is effect? | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81568 | ||
"Why bring it back to the personal level? I never said I was immune to this. I never insinuated I was above it. Why do you ask why I think I'm above this? I have been trying to stimulate thought." My point is the following: there are only two ways to achieve doctrinal unity between me and a person with whom I disagree. 1. Convince me that I am wrong, or 2. Agree with me. Number one is a possibility, but ultimately none of us have control over number 2. "I gave you no reason to try to bring this to a personal level or attempt to bring in a combative nature and you have done both." No, I didn't. --Joe! |
||||||
1460 | Creating converts to Islam? | 1 Cor 1:12 | Reformer Joe | 32468 | ||
Brian: You write: "If this individual is being guided towards a stronger relationship with Christ, by a true Christian denomination - are other Christian denominations justified in creating an environment of confusion and dissatisfaction in which this soul could be lost from Christ." First of all, if the person is truly being guided toward a stronger relationship with Christ, it is very unlikely that an outsider is going to be able to come in and undermine that. Since a relationship with Christ is strengthened primarily by knowing the Word of God and by the Holy Spirit using that means to sanctify us, a person growing in the true faith will not be shaken by the lies of another religion. Secondly, a soul that is chosen by God to be conformed to the image of Christ (2 Timothy 2:10) is not going to "be lost from Christ." God finishes what He starts in us. Lastly, are all those church councils (Jerusalem, Nicaea, Orange, Chalcedon), with all of their debate over what constitutes the Christian faith and the nature of God, examples of creating confusion and dissatisfaction? There is no prohibition against dialogue, discussion, and even debate among religious groups with opposing views (and this includes Christian denominations which differ on the non-salvific issues) becasue we are charged with the task of worshiping God in Spirit and in truth. If I were in theological error (as you think I am), wouldn't it be the most compassionate thing for you to point out the truth to me rather than letting me wallow around in a mire of lies? If momentary confusion led to eventual enlightenment, then it would definitely be worth the effort. Islam is largely converting from churches where individuals are Christians in name only, not from churches with sturdy, biblical foundations. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ] Next > Last [97] >> |