Results 161 - 180 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38350 | ||
My problem with your reference to MacArthur is that it is not HIS words you are quoting from his book! --Joe! |
||||||
162 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38351 | ||
My problem with your reference to MacArthur is that it is not HIS words you are quoting from his book! --Joe! |
||||||
163 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38381 | ||
Zach: Since you apparently don't have a copy of the book itself, exactly where did YOU get the quote you posted? Was it from a Web site? If so, please post it so that we can all have a looksie. Thanks for your honesty! --Joe! |
||||||
164 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38382 | ||
Thanks, Ed! --Joe! |
||||||
165 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38391 | ||
My mother-in-law already taught me that one! :) --Joe! |
||||||
166 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38392 | ||
No need to go away, Zach. Just be more careful of your sources, and listen carefully to the points that people make. I would hate for anyone to miss out on insights into God's Word simply because he has already made his mind up as to what the other person is going to say. --Joe! |
||||||
167 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38416 | ||
Mommapbs: There is not and never has been any bitterness on my part. What there was on my part was a concern for the truth of what God's Word does indeed say, and for the reputation of another brother in Christ who had been falsely accused of holding some very unbiblical teachings. We can love one another and still vigorously contend for the truth. I have not suggested that anyone withdraw from the forum, and I would be disappointed if that were to happen. However, correction is called for within the body of Christ, and I would say that the attempted correction started out quite gently. Rebuke is also sometimes necessary within the body of Christ, and that is also very biblically supported. Loving one's brothers and sisters in Christ does not mean allowing them to propagate error. It seems that mercy is one of your spiritual gifts, and it is a very needed one in the communion of saints. However, teaching and knowledge and discernment are also important gifts, all of which I have been given to some degree. The exercise of them is just as crucial as the exercise of mercy and service. I harbor no ill will against anyone, and even if I had felt personally offended (which I did not), what is Christianity without forgiveness? --Joe! |
||||||
168 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38458 | ||
Mommapbs: The quotes attributed to Charles Stanley do indeed reflect his views. If he had read the post, I have no doubt that he would have nodded his head and said, "Yes, that's what I believe the Bible teaches." So, while I disagree with Charles Stanley on this important issue, his point of view was well-represented by the quotes given by Zach. --Joe! |
||||||
169 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38838 | ||
What Scriptures do you use to support such notions that violate in so many ways the historic Christian faith? --Joe! |
||||||
170 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 39710 | ||
Tim: Thanks for this valuable argument for the use of LORD in the OT translations. This is a very valid argument for use with the Jehovah's Witnesses who complain about our "tainted" translations! --Joe! |
||||||
171 | Was Satan on earth before Adam | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40565 | ||
Just out of curiosity, have you ever examined the arguments against the higher criticism and textual criticism that you are supporting on this forum? By that I mean works such as Josh McDowell's _More Evidence that Demands a Verdict_. If so, what do you think of it? The main concern I have with your position is that the scholarship you are referring to exists for the sole purpose of pointing out that the Bible is a product of human hands alone, that they are NOT the words of God. If the Bible has been written and re-written (and by that I assume that you also mean "edited" by human beings over and over again), how can you say that they are indeed the words of God? --Joe! |
||||||
172 | Was Satan on earth before Adam | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40567 | ||
If the authorship of the books of the Law were by someone else other than Moses, then Jesus was a liar: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" --John 5:46-47 So was Jesus mistaken? Or deceptive? --Joe! P.S. I am sure that this has been brought up already, but "all caps" makes for very hard reading. Please use the caps lock sparingly. Thanks! |
||||||
173 | Was Satan on earth before Adam | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40584 | ||
The KJV is not a REWRITE of the Bible, but rather a translation of the Bible from manuscripts in the original languages. The most accurate versions would be in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, not in English or any other modern language. I would recommend the McDowell book, because it is always helpful to look at scholarly work that presents the opposite view of the one which one holds. I know that you said that the Bible is the word of God, but then you say that specific books of the Bible are edits and re-edits and compilations and the efforts of men who lived centuries apart. This is why all of the JEDP "scholars" say that the Bible is NOT the word of God. You claim that Scripture has been proven to be accurate "in your life." Does that mean that if the Qu'ran proved to be accurate in your life (as Muslims claim that it is accurate in theirs), that it would suddenly be the word of God? Either the Bible is what it claims to be or it is not the word of God. Those two points of view are not able to be logically reconciled. --Joe! |
||||||
174 | Crusifiction of Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40967 | ||
There's a lot of troublesome teachings on the Web site you posted, but speaking of the Cross, here is a more accurate rendering of history: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm --Joe! |
||||||
175 | Show in the Bible once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 41386 | ||
Hello; I did a word search on the words "Trinity" and "substitutionary atonement" and didn't find these words either. The term "deity of Christ" didn't show up. Nowhere in Scripture is the term "second coming" used. What does this mean? --Joe! |
||||||
176 | Show in the Bible once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 41395 | ||
Thanks for the theology lesson, Robert. However, I was trying to make the point to "New Creature" that simply because a term does not appear in Scripture, it doesn't mean that the doctrine itself is not there. I already hold to all of the teachings I mentioned in my post, or you shouldn't be calling me "brother"! :) --Joe! |
||||||
177 | Show in the Bible once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 41530 | ||
While I do disagree with you, you do make an excellent point: that true, saving faith is not praying a prayer and then "whatever." True, saving faith is a constant faith, and those who are truly His will endure to the end. I do hold that God does preserve His people until the end, however. It is He that keeps us in a state of grace. But He that justifies also sanctifies. --Joe! |
||||||
178 | Mathew 16:18--what is the "rock"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 41757 | ||
Roman Catholics teach that the Mother Church is founded on Peter the MAN. Hence the Popes are successors to Peter and the bishops are all successors to the apostles, in what is claimed to be an unbroken line. --Joe! |
||||||
179 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42087 | ||
You wrote: "I sure would like to hear what others have to say on this mater!" What I have to say is that most churches practice baptism according to their understanding of Scripture. Protestants who hold to sola Scriptura disagree on the timing and mode of baptism, and yet both are convinced that their way is the biblical one. So for you to simply say, "Just read the Bible" means very little in itself on this issue, because both infant baptizers and believer's baptizers argue that their view is the correct one. And just let me say that while I do hold to one particular view, both groups can make very convincing arguments from Scripture. This is not one of the "clear-as-crystal" issues that many think it is. Those who haven't really examined both sides of this debate may dismiss their opponent's view without really examining it, but the arguments for both sides are very solid ones. Of course, both views cannot be right, but to simply conclude that it is "religion getting in the way of the Bible" is way too simplistic. --Joe! |
||||||
180 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42088 | ||
There are non-Pentecostal Protestants who hold to believer's baptism by immersion as well. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [97] >> |