Results 1501 - 1520 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1501 | Why not Brothers? | 1 Cor 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 49993 | ||
'Tis true. --Joe! |
||||||
1502 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Reformer Joe | 79307 | ||
Hi, Taleb. You wrote: 'Had Paul meant “the Christian church at large”, why didn’t he say so?' We need to be careful when using this argument. None of Paul's epistles were written directly to us, but they are all applicable to us or they would not be Scripture. Paul was not necessarily "writing with 2000 years later on his mind," but the Holy Spirit was. --Joe! |
||||||
1503 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Reformer Joe | 79395 | ||
Hi, Taleb. You wrote: 'Isn’t “sharing” the gospel “good work?” Women aren't allowed to do that? I'm not going to tell that to all the woman on this forum that they "aren't allowed" to answer questions, and if they need any answers to ask their husbands. Are you?' If it were biblical, I would. However, Paul was writing of the church service context, first of all, and not the whole sphere of our seven-day-a-week life. And was it just limited to the church of Corinth? "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." --1 Timothy 2:11-12 "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." --1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul cites not cultural stipulations, but rather the Law to support his argument. The question is, however, whether Paul is requiring absolute silence or just refraining from speaking from a position of teaching and/or authority (which would include women pastors/elders). I would say that Paul is NOT directing absolute silence on the part of women in all circumstances, and here is why: "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." --1 Corinthians 11:6 It may be possible for a woman to pray silently, but a silent prophet is no prophet at all. So, apparently Paul did not forbid the speaking of women in all circumstances, but certainly followed the Lord's direction that the household of God, just like other godly households, are to be led by the husbands and fathers. --Joe! |
||||||
1504 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Reformer Joe | 79555 | ||
"Please, where in the law is his argument stated?" First of all, I would like a little more clarification. Are you suggesting that Paul either lies or is mistaken in 1 Corinthians 14:34 when he says: "for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." You also wrote: "Don’t look too hard, because IT IS NOT in Scripture." Paul is largely talking about women being in subjection to their husbands in corporate worship (verse 11:3). We read the following in the Torah: "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." --Genesis 3:16 Granted, this section of 1 Corinthians does require more than just a cursory read to grasp what the problems are that Paul is addressing and their applicability to the church at large, but to quickly conclude either that we put parentheses around these verses or that we are to make all the women wear shawls is not being thorough enough. A couple of things I would like to put forward as we work to unpack the meaning: 1. It seems to me that the problem that Paul was addressing was that the women were trying to be the men in the church. While the head coverings might have been a cultural phenomenon, the fact that women were being told not to go uncovered LIKE THE MEN reveals a deeper principle than just what to wear on Sunday morning. 2. Likewise, while Paul did indeed go Nazirite for a while, I do not think that is what he was addressing when he was speaking of nature and men and long hair. Again, it was culturally inappropriate for men to have long hair. Why? Because that was what the WOMEN did. 3. Therefore, rather than being a 1st-century style guide, Paul was emphasizing the differing roles of men and women, especially in the context of corporate worship. "I'm sticking with my conclusion. Woman don’t HAVE to wear veils, they CAN pray out loud in church, etc." I agree, but that isn't to say that 1 Corinthians 10-14 is irrelevant to us because Paul was addressing specific trouble spots in the Corinthian worship. Leadership and teaching in the corporate worship setting is never extended to women. Indeed we must study the Scriptures with our thinking caps on. That way we avoid the extremes you mention (the "must we raise our hands?" argument) as well as the things at the other end of the spectrum that are equally as wrong (e.g., the idea tthese verses have no doctrinal relevance to the church in the 21st century). Thomas Schreiner wrote a very thorogh examination of these thorny verses and contributed it as a chapter in _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_, ed. Grudem and Piper. You can access the book in PDF form at the link below. Even if you end up disagreeing with the conclusions, it is a very thoughtful study: http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/rbmw.pdf --Joe! |
||||||
1505 | Communion, how often? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Reformer Joe | 4374 | ||
Of course unbelievers should be excluded, as it is a sacrament of the church. We do communion about once a month in my church, but sometimes I would like to see it done more often. I am torn on whether it would breed disrespect due to familiarity or not, but I myself enjoy celebrating both the communion with our Lord Jesus as well as the communion with my brothers and sisters in Christ. | ||||||
1506 | What makes me unworthy of Lords Sup.? | 1 Cor 11:27 | Reformer Joe | 63041 | ||
Searcher: You wrote: "First, no where does it say baptism is a requirement to partake of the Lord's Supper ... one needs to be a Christian." Not that baptism makes one a Christian, but I would say that it is the visible sign and seal of being united to the visible church. Why would one partake in a holy ordinance testifying to one's union with Christ without first being a participant in water baptism? I do not believe in baptismal regeneration by any means, but the "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude toward water baptism for the Christian has absolutely no basis in Scripture. New Testament Christians were baptized Christians. The issue wasn't mentioned because there was no issue to mention. --Joe! |
||||||
1507 | What makes me unworthy of Lords Sup.? | 1 Cor 11:27 | Reformer Joe | 63076 | ||
It is both ordinances which receive such short shrift in much of 21st-century evangelicalism. Try asking twenty professing evangelical Protestants what is the importance of holy communion. I would venture to guess that many wouldn't have the slightest problem with not partaking of it again for the rest of their lives. People just don't get how and why Christ linked water, wine, and bread to spiritual realities. The attitude seems to be, "It doesn't justify me, so what is the big deal?" --Joe! |
||||||
1508 | Joe, baptism required for Lord's Supper? | 1 Cor 11:27 | Reformer Joe | 63090 | ||
"I was saved when I was four, I had to wait until I was nine to be baptized ... and that was younger han the church wanted. I think it was 12." Did you ever ask them why? Did they let you partake of the bread and the cup during that time? --Joe! |
||||||
1509 | Joe, baptism required for Lord's Supper? | 1 Cor 11:27 | Reformer Joe | 63159 | ||
You wrote: "John, do not push that one should be baptized in order to partake of the Lord's Supper." I'll push it, too. "1. It is not in the text." Not in this text, but I have already explained that immediate baptism for adult converts is the biblical model. Baptism is the initiatory rite into the visible church, and to partake of the other sacrament which is a proclamation among the visible church of our interest in Christ, it makes sense that the initiatory rite comes first. As I said previously, it is a testimony to the antinomian tendencies of contemporary evangelicalism that we are even considering such an animal as the "unbaptized Christian." "2. It is a minor doctrinal issue." While it is not an issue directly related to our justification, it is NOT minor. Christian converts get baptized. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests any other scenario. The Holy Spirit makes it clear in every conversion account in Acts that the convert is baptized. It is repeatedly emphasized. I would not call it minor at all. "3. If sin makes us unworthy, we all fail the test." I don't think anyone has to convince John the Calvinist of human depravity. "The diciples were told to baptize (Mat 28:18-20), it was not a command to be baptized." God inspired: 'Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' --Acts 2:37-38 Sounds like a command there. And how did they respond? "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls." --Acts 2:41 "If you say it is a sin not to be baptized, there are others that you and I commit. We all are unworthy, since we all are sinners. There are sins that each one of us think as minor." ...which is a statement not to the actual minor status of a sin, but rather to our wicked hearts trying to rationalize disobedience to God. I, too, experienced a significant gap between the time I converted to Christianity and the time at which I was baptized. I see that as sin on my part, but also a grievous sin on a congregational leadership that never once approached me or even brought up the topic of baptism. Whenever I lead someone to Christ or learn that s/he has become a Christian, one of the first things I ask is whether s/he has been baptized. It is the visible and tangible sign and seal of an inward reality, and the ONLY Christ-ordained means by which one legitimately becomes a part of the visible church. --Joe! |
||||||
1510 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Reformer Joe | 12657 | ||
Charis: Before you start lauding Martin Luther as a type of apostle, perhaps you should read some of his commentaries on the Bible and his views on apostleship and whether it exists today. It wasn't even a debated point in the 16th century that the apostles were a first-century phenomenon. It is not until the 20th century (except in the case of the LDS and other "restorationist" cults of the 19th century) in which we see a sudden frenzy to identify "new apostles." He certainly never placed himself in any apostolic category, while the New testament figures did not hesitate to use the terms for themselves (read almost every salutation of Paul's epistles, for example). It is not a question of humility, because in many ways Luther was not a humble man. Rather, it is a recognition that he was in a completely separate category from those identified in the earlist church as apostles. Incidentally, there is a denomination named after Luther, as he did believe in the organized church as God's primary vehicle for glorifying Himself on earth (as did Calvin and all of the other Reformers, not to mention the apostle Peter in 1 Peter 2:1-10). As someone who attends a non-denominational Bible church myself, I will be the first to attest that while there is no central governing body over all "Bible churches," there certainly does exist a great deal of informal control that transcends particular congregations, almost as if a anti-denominational bias binds such congregations together and leads to rejection of cooperative efforts with denominational churches who are very much Christ-centered (such as the PCA or SBC). Such a mentality limits their mission as well to reach the lost for Christ. Almost seems at times as if there is a separate, "non-denominational denomination." --Joe! |
||||||
1511 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Reformer Joe | 12662 | ||
Well, we have to remember that unity must be bsed on truth, and not just for unity's sake. While I agree with Catholics on many theological issues (the Trinitarian nature of God, for example), there is still much in Roman Catholicism itself which keeps its most faithful adherents out of the Kingdom of God. Any individual who is relying on God's grace plus their merit (Romans 3:10-18,23 pretty much rules this out), or faith plus works (Ephesians 2:8,9), or Christ plus Mary and their own works (1 Timothy 2:5), and Scripture's authority riding side-saddle with that of the Roman church (2 Timothy 3:16,17) are not getting the gospel right, and therefore are not our brothers and sisters in Christ. The Bible makes this so abundantly clear. I am not part of a denomination myself, but I am more than happy to fellowship with those in this forum and in my "real life" who adhere to the essentials of the gospel but differ with me on questions of baptism, divine election, church order, etc. However, we are not to extend the hand of Chritian fellowship to those who claim to be followers of Christ but who reject the truths of Scripture on what and how we are saved by Whom. I am all for fellowship and cooperation among different denominations, but not all groups claiming to be Christian congregations are truly part of the visible church. Biblical unity is always based on embracing and living out common TRUTHS. --Joe! |
||||||
1512 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Reformer Joe | 12671 | ||
You obviously missed my point from church history, as well as the "lostness" of the gospel prior to Luther. God did not use Luther to re-create the church, but rather to reform it. --Joe! |
||||||
1513 | Do holy people have to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28935 | ||
And all of this still does not adequately address Paul's clear teaching on the distribution of different gifts to different believers: "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? ALL DO NOT SPEAK WITH TONGUES, DO THEY? All do not interpret, do they?" --1 Corinthians 12:29-30 All do not speak in tongues. God gave that gift to some in the first-century church. He apparently did not give it to others. Same with the other gifts mentioned (see back in 12:28 that this is the way God APPOINTED it to be). There is no getting around this clearly-worded passage on spiritual gifts without dismantling Paul's whole argument. The over-emphasis on tongues by most in the charismatic/Pentecostal movements is an insult to those whom God has used in a mighty way to preserve His church who never spoke in a tongue (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, etc.). But I suppose that you, Ezekiel, know something that these men of God apparently missed, something that made them ineffective and not led truly led by the Spirit of God. Which brings me back to one of my favorite things to say on this forum: get thee to a church history book, and see how God has REALLY been working between A.D. 100 and A.D. 1905. --Joe! |
||||||
1514 | Do holy people have to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28936 | ||
Actually, the Genesis 3:15-Revelation 22:21 message is the plan of salvation. I think I am going to start numbering the most common errors I see here, since I end up repeating myself so often. Error #1 on Reformer Joe's list of no-no's will be re-interpreting the whole canon of Scripture in light of one verse, citing that verse as the key to understanding everything else in the Bible. We saw with our Zane Hodges reference yesterday, and we see it today with Acts 2:38 being cited as THE key verse in the plan of salvation. What about John 3:16? What about Acts 16:31? What about Ephesians 2:8-9? What about Matthew 28:19-20? What about Romans 3:23-24, or Romans 4:1-6? Or Titus 3:5? One must determine one's understanding of a verse from the context of the whole of Scripture, and not the other way around. --Joe! |
||||||
1515 | your statement | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28937 | ||
"But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!" --Numbers 11:29 What is Moses saying here? Is he saying that all those whom God's Spirit rests will become prophets? The context would seem to indicate nothing of the sort. If you don't mind, start with Numbers 11:25 and relate to us verse by verse that Moses is saying that all who will be indwelt with the Holy Spirit after Pentecost will be prophets. Then tell me why Paul is wrong in 1 Corinthians 12:28-30 and that you are right. Then cite passages which clearly state that God will give everyone what they desire, no matter how corrupt the motives are or self-centered the asking is or how much they want to control the operation of the sovereign Spirit of God, the third person of the Trinity, very God of very God. Radical Pentecostals/charismatics think themselves the kings over the King of Kings. God is the Lord of all, not some genie to grant us whatever we desire. Go read Philippians 1:29 and 2 Timothy 3:14 and see what God promises those who follow him. Of course, this is the desire of the heart which follows Christ (Philippians 3:10). --Joe! |
||||||
1516 | your statement | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28982 | ||
Everyone is a theologian as soon as s/he says ANYTHING about God. The question is whether one is a good theologian or a bad one. I have the Holy Spirit becuase I am a believer in Jesus Christ. What is being asked for in all of those passages you cite cannot be the Holy Spirit because it indwells every believer. "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 One error being made here is the assumption that the Holy Spirit's presence inevitably means tongues and/or prophesying, when there are many other ways that He manifested His presence in Acts. Paul emphatically declares that the gift of tongues was never a gift for all (I did notice that once again 1 Cor. 12:28-30 was ignored yet again). The other problem is that when Jesus and James indicate that we receive by asking, there is absolutely nothing in those passages which indicate that tongues is being referred to. It is a paradigm problem. Too many people see "Holy Spirit" and automatically think "tongues and prophecy." There is no biblical basis for considering those two to be the same thing in all cases. --Joe! |
||||||
1517 | your statement | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28983 | ||
Everyone is a theologian as soon as s/he says ANYTHING about God. The question is whether one is a good theologian or a bad one. I have the Holy Spirit becuase I am a believer in Jesus Christ. What is being asked for in all of those passages you cite cannot be the Holy Spirit because it indwells every believer. "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 One error being made here is the assumption that the Holy Spirit's presence inevitably means tongues and/or prophesying, when there are many other ways that He manifested His presence in Acts. Paul emphatically declares that the gift of tongues was never a gift for all (I did notice that once again 1 Cor. 12:28-30 was ignored yet again). The other problem is that when Jesus and James indicate that we receive by asking, there is absolutely nothing in those passages which indicate that tongues is being referred to. It is a paradigm problem. Too many people see "Holy Spirit" and automatically think "tongues and prophecy." There is no biblical basis for considering those two to be the same thing in all cases. --Joe! |
||||||
1518 | your statement | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28984 | ||
And please answer my questions before we address yours. Please see the post to which you responded. --Joe! |
||||||
1519 | Do holy people have to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28985 | ||
Can you explain to me how people who don't even have the gospel right are praying in tongues? Mormons claim to pray in tongues. Do they have the gift? How do we know that the others do as well? How do you know that what they do is not just a self-assured, self-induced, meaningless babbling? I say this not to start a fight, but to raise a very legitimate question. How do we know that it is real? Until the 20th century, by the way, the gift of tongues was predominantly understood to mean the speaking of unknown languages without having learned them. Therefore, Luther and Calvin addressed them as such. The part that is insulting is insisting, as Ezekiel does, is that tongues is THE sign of the Spirit's working. Therefore, I who do not speak in tongues am not really used by the Spirit of God, and everyone in church history prior to the 1905 Asuza "revival" didn't, either. A good study of the modern Pentecostal movement in light of 2000 years of church history will put all of this into great perspective. God has and does work mightily in the lives of men and through his children apart from the manifestation of sensational gifts. --Joe! |
||||||
1520 | Do holy people have to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 28999 | ||
I agree. I hope I do not come across as a hard-line cessationist, because I do not insist that they CAN'T exist today. My "crusade" here is against the unbiblical notions put forth by most people who claim to speak in tongues. Doctrine is ridiculed or put aside in favor of experience (and a self-centered experience at that). I wish I did know more people who claimed to speak in tongues without all the kooky, unbiblical teaching that almost always accompanies it. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ] Next > Last [97] >> |