Results 1721 - 1740 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1721 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | Reformer Joe | 40580 | ||
Johnny: You wrote: "My questioned to you is who sent the Holy Spirit? God the Father, Holy Spirit is not a human form it is Holy Spirit but it is God the Father sent the Holy Spirit. You said they are equal, but Jesus Christ said ":"neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." who do you suggest to me to believed? you or Jesus Christ?" I believe Jesus when He says that He also sends the Spirit: "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me." --John 15:26 Paul alternately refers to both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ to refer to the third person of the Trinity, showing that the Father and the Son share an equal role in the Spirit's work: "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." --Romans 8:9 And Jesus Christ did indeed make himself out to be equal with God. The gospel writer uses those exact words: "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." --John 5:18 The other post I wrote this evening describes the reason Jesus said that he did not know the hour of His return when asked. --Joe! |
||||||
1722 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | Reformer Joe | 40965 | ||
I have a problem with the idea that omniscience was communicated to Jesus' human nature after the Resurrection. Why could we not say, then, that omnipresence was communicated to Jesus' body as well? I know that this is just a quote you posted here, but I don't think Jesus not contradicting Peter means that Jesus in his humanity now suddenly knew all things. Would that mean that we will be omniscient in our glorified state as well? --Joe! |
||||||
1723 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4523 | ||
Sinlessness and perfection are the same thing, in terms of morality. Jesus was tempted, exposed to the opportunities to sin. However, in every way he chose not to do so. Jesus did not stop being God during the incarnation, which means that he did not "become imperfect" in any moral sense of the term. To say that Jesus became imperfect is blasphemy. --Joe! |
||||||
1724 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4744 | ||
So you are saying that Jesus (i.e. God the Son) was not "mature"? To say that "taking on a nature of material flesh means that he had evil to overcome in his own self" has a name. It is Gnosticism. Jesus was tempted EXTERNALLY (for example, Matthew 4). He did not have to combat urges in his own human nature, since he was not under Adam's curse. He was tempted externally for the purpose of demonstrating perfect obedience to the Father so that he would be an acceptable propitiation for OUR sins. --Joe! |
||||||
1725 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4745 | ||
Radioman: It is generally considered to be poor nettiquette to cross-post all over the place. In addition, this forum is for discussion, so debate on important theological issues is why we ARE here. Thirdly, people's opinions DO change (mine did, as a matter of fact), and Christians certainly should in love vigorously debate the Scriptures in order to come to a better understanding of God's nature and activity. Thanks, and I hope you are not a 2 Prov 1:7 kind of guy! :) --Joe! |
||||||
1726 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4820 | ||
I contend that James' epistle is describing succumbing to temptation, not only being tempted by some external source. Remember that Jesus taught us to pray "Lead us not into temptation." It would make no sense that we should pray "Lead us not into being carried away by own own lusts," since God is not the encourager of sinful behavior, as James said in his letter. Therefore, James must have something different in mind, and the context seems to indicate that he is talking about giving into sinfulness which already exists within us, which Jesus did not have, of course. It is always important to remember that while Jesus took on the form of a servant (i.e. took on a human nature), he did not stop BEING God. While he was exposed to every external avenue to sin as we are (and more so, I would contend), it is impossible for God to sin. During his earthly ministry, although he looked like us, morally he was infinitely different from us. Remember that he said that even sinful thoughts carry the weight of actually committing the offense. Therefore, if there was even a shadow, a flicker of immorality even in his thinking, he did not reflect the unchangeable character of our perfect God. Since all Christians acknowledge that he indeed is God the Son, he was completely unable to be swayed even in the briefest of moments from complete obedience in thought, word, and deed to the Father. Thanks to that, we can receive a righteousness not our own -- His. Praise be to God! --Joe! |
||||||
1727 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4833 | ||
Mel: It is really not a question of where I "place Jesus." It is a matter of where the Bible says He is. Very God of very God. Far be it from me or anyone else to try and "redefine" God the Son in a way that would make Him more comfortable for my sinful nature to live with! We cannot reach God. In light of our total depravity and God's infinite holiness, we in our pre-Christian state don't even WANT to. God had to reach down to us. --Joe! |
||||||
1728 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4835 | ||
Who said that he was tempted in the garden of Gethsemane? We are talking about the Son of God knowing exactly what was going to happen to him, not only physically on the cross, but also facing the holy and infinite wrath of God the Father for the sake of all those who will trust in him. The fact that he obeyed God perfectly does not mean that it didn't cause him anguish to know that he would experience the punishment for our sins. After all, who better than God Himself to know exactly to what extent His holy wrath reaches, how horrible it must have been for someone completely holy to "become sin for us." We may be comfortable with our sin nature and quite accustomed to it, in fact. Christ didn't have the same "luxury"; it shouldn't be surprising in the the least that a perfectly obedient Christ would nonetheless feel excruciating anguish knowing all too well the cross he was going to bear for me. I think all believers should take this into account when reading the accounts of the night before the crucifixion, and remember soberly and thankfully that this was Jesus' understanding of price that was to be paid for our salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
1729 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4895 | ||
Paragraphs, man! Why do you still fail to address the fact that the three persons of the Trinity constantly communicated with each other, did things with and to each other? If they are all Jesus, we have a real problem in logic, or at least an apparent deception on God's part. Why would Jesus try so hard to make everyone think that he was talking to the Father and that the Father would give the Spirit and that the Father sent the Son into the world, and that the Son obeyed the Father, and on and on? (John 14:16,17 would be a great couple of verses to unravel. I *AM* listening for any explanation, but you have yet to provide one). I agree with the deity of Jesus, as do you. I agree that the Father is God, as do you. I agree that the Holy Spirit is God, as do you. I believe there is one God, as do you. Oneness stands or falls on the ability to explain the problem stated in the previous paragraph.. Why do you keep dodging that central problem with modalism? --Joe! |
||||||
1730 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4976 | ||
What we do never see in Scripture, RevC, is Jesus saying "I am the Father." He says that the Father and he are one (one God, no problem here--I agree that it doesn't mean simply unity of purpose). Jesus also says that the Father is in Him and he is in the Father. If one takes that to mean that the Jesus is the Father, then we have additional problems to deal with things like John 14:20, where Jesus says He is in his Father and that followers of Jesus are in him and that Jesus is in them. If we are in Jesus and Jesus is in us in the same way that Jesus is in his Father, by your interpretation we are Jesus also, and therefore God! I know you don't believe in the deity of mankind, so how can you interpret Jesus being in the Father one way, and us being in Jesus in a different way within the very same verse? To address your 4 points: 1. Who is this Comforter? The Holy Spirit. So is Jesus sending himself? Is the Father sending himself? If the Holy Spirit is Jesus, what is the point of Him ascending and coming back ten days later? Couldn't he have just "changed offices" here? It seems that if I adopt a Oneness view, Jesus is involved in some big-time slight of hand when a plain reading of the text would indicate a distinction between the three. Why would he be so confusing if you are right? 2. It doesn't say in John 6:44 that the Father alone draws men, but rather no man is drawn unless the Father draws him. Trinitarians have no problem in stating that both the Father and the Son draw men. 3. The Father and the Son raising us together is not a problem for Trinitarians. Incidentally, 1 Cor 6:14 talks about God (the Father) raising the Lord (Jesus). Again we have the subject-object ditinction we see throughout the entire New Testament when it comes to different persons of the Trinity. 4. Again, all three persons have their part in sanctification. That does not mean that they are the same person, only that all three persons are one God. What also concerns me is your last paragraph. You say he "is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son." While I certainly agree that God the Son took on a second nature, are you saying that Jesus' Sonship is only his human nature? Please clarify. --Joe! |
||||||
1731 | Lost my salvation? (Hebrews 6:4-6) | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17824 | ||
Just as a side note, the Calvinists will debate the precise meaning of this passage, but most like me will characterize those being addressed as those who are APPARENTLY Christians, but who do not persevere until the end. The Reformed believe in "once saved, always saved," but in the sense that all of those whom God has regenerated will be preserved to stand firm in their faith until the end (perseverence of the saints). That is not to say that they will not falter in their faith, or that they will not sin, but that no one truly saved will ever finally and fully reject the faith. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whoaccording to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." --1 Peter 1:3-5 --Joe! |
||||||
1732 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17854 | ||
Wow...a lot of what you say sounds very Reformed for a dispensationalist! :) My question about works addresses not that we do it on our own (the Westminster Confession states that it "is the work of God's free grace"), but that sanctification will always accompany justification. Therefore, we can agree with James that "faith" without works is a dead faith which does not save anyone at all. It is our faith that justifies us; but a true, saving faith is ALWAYS accompanied by sanctification. And THAT is something that every Dallas Seminary-trained preacher that I ever sat under denied. --Joe! |
||||||
1733 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17860 | ||
What, then, is the precise difference, in your opinion, from being "reconciled, redeemed, and regenerated" and being "saved." "Reconciled" means that God and I have been brought together again. "Redeemed" means that God has bought me back from the sinfulness to which I was a slave. "Regenerated" means that I have been made a new creation. In what way did Peter not possess these things pre-Crucifixion and still be "saved"? In other words, if his relationship with God were wtill severed, if he still was a slave to sin, and if he were still the same ol' Peter in every way, how can we say that he was saved before Pentecost? An excellent work on the question of faith, works, and assurance can be found by reading a book called Righteous Sinners, by Ron Julian. --Joe! |
||||||
1734 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17897 | ||
Bill: Don't get frustrated with "neat, little boxes." They are merely shorthand to categorize beliefs. The reason I assume that you are a dispensationalist is due to information in your posts and in your profile. You attend a Bible church in Texas, which most likely means that your elders and/or pastor have an affinity for the theological distinctives of Dallas Theological Seminary, making a distinction between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church and characterizing much of Jesus' teachings as "Old Testament," not applicable to "New Testament" believers. That is dispensationalism, in which the Bible is divided into "OT performance" and "NT grace." Now that dispensationalism is defined, you probably don't have a problem with the label so much. My problem with what you have written in this and other posts is that you seem to be trying to ride two horses at the same time. Have all men always been saved by God's grace through faith? I think that what you have stated is that, yes, they are. I agree. So how could the Old Testament be characterized as "performance" and not for the "New Testament believer" if even the Old Testament saints were not saved by the works? I realize the passing away of the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel is concurrent with Christ's atonement; but it has always seemed quite a stretch for me that Jesus was singing one tune during his whole ministry (the OT one), and then suddenly meant everything he spent three years teaching to be null and void after He rose again. --Joe! |
||||||
1735 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17899 | ||
The Reformed perspective takes its name from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. In most people's understanding, the two main branches of the Reformation were that of Martin Luther (from which the Lutherans derive their theology -- well, the ones who didn't fall into the liberal traps a century ago) and the further reforms of Calvin (hence the Calvinists). The name "reformed" usually is synonymous with an adherence to the teachings of Calvin on salvation, taking a high view of the sovereignty of God and centering around the famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) 5 points of Calvinism. By the way, I don't think it is a dumb question. Theology is fascinating, and we all have a theology. The names exist to provide categories for thinking about theology. Your wife being a former Catholic, I would think that she is quite familiar with creeds and confessions. Confessions and creeds, while they certainly do not carry the weight of the inspired Scriptures, serve to establish in writing how one group of people understands the Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a 17th-century document which was drafted to codify the biblical understanding of the Reformed Church in England. Another document which holds to a Calvinist view of salvation is the London Baptist Confession of 1689. The important thing to remember is that while creeds and confessions do indeed divide and set people apart, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Rejecting the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, for example, is to deny the Trinity. And while I do consider many who hold to other confessions to be wrong on certain points (as they do me), I am certainly able to fellowship with a great number of them as brothers and sisters in Christ. In addition, confessions help to keep individuals from being blown about by every "wind of doctrine" that comes along (Ephesians 4:14). The "trustworthy sayings" of Paul to Timothy and passages like Philippians 2:6-11 are considered by many to be segments of creeds as well. Creeds, confessions, and catechisms were drafted by fallible men like we are, but that is not to say that they were not drafted soberly and carefully in councils and committees over considerable periods of time. You say that you do not call yourself a Protestant anymore. While there may be some advantage in using the term "Proclaimer," I would suggest that simply rejecting a title does not make you non-Protestant in beliefs. If you believe that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, apart from any merit or works on our part whatsoever, that makes you a Protestant in your theology. Tht distinguishes you from Roman Catholics who hold that God's grace is added to our faith and works in order that we may merit the Kingdom of God. To those others who have stated in their posts that labels/denominations are bad: would you be comfortable if someone did not classify you as a Christian? What if someone could not "pigeonhole" you as being different from a Hindu or Muslim of Sikh? Religious labels do place people in categories. That does not make us robots, conforming 100 percent to every belief that everyone else in that category happens to hold. Also, classification does not mean all-out conflict between those Christians who happen to be of different denominations. I have serious problems with the Arminian/Wesleyan tradition, but I do not consider fellow posters Nolan and Tim to be false brethren. I reject a lot of the excesses and lack of discernment that is found in the Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations; however, most of them I would consider brothers and sisters in Christ. Labelling me as Reformed or Calvinist does not bother me in the slightest, because it sums up in a word the core of what I hold to be be biblically accurate. Of course, I am always more than happy to explain the disctinctives. For more info on the Reformed tradition in Protestantism, I would point you to these sites: http:///www.reformed.org http://www.pcanet.org http://www.reformedreader.org http://www.markers.com/ink/ --Joe! |
||||||
1736 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17917 | ||
CDBJ: You are right that we seem to have to carve out time in order to study the Word of God. I hope that you go to a church where you are challenged and taught and helped in this regard. I think that the teaching/training function of the American church, in training its members in righteousness, has largely fallen by the wayside. WHile individual study is an essential, the corporate body of believers exists to help one another in this endeavour, for the sake of God's glory. I would heartily recommend that every Christian take the time, however, to learn about church history. It gives us a sense of our heritage, and since we are a "holy nation" ourselves (1 Peter 2:9-10), it is good to know how God has been working though His people from Pentecost to the present day. One of the most readable overviews of church history that I have come across is called "Church History in Plain Language" by Bruce Shelley. It often surprises people to realize that God actually didn't take a break between the Acts of the Apostles and the 20th century! Thanks for your comments... --Joe! |
||||||
1737 | Joe, what is Paul and Hebrews 'the Law'? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17965 | ||
Bill: You wrote: "The key phrase here is not 'until heaven and earth pass away,' the key phrase is 'until all (of the Law) is accomplished.' And Christ did that." Please explain why Christ included the phrase. What does it mean, "until heaven and earth pass away" in the context of what he is saying? You also wrote: "True, God's moral requirements existed before the Mosaic Law. Why? Because they are a reflection of who He is." I wouldn't say that is WHY they exist, even though what you say is true. My question remains: if they did indeed exist apart from the covenant with Israel, why do you insist that those requirements no longer have any meaning for us (like the ceremonial and sacrificial Law of Moses)? It is precisely because the moral law of God existed prior to and beyong the Law of Moses that I hold that God never intended for us to toss out the moral commandments. I also noticed that you didn't comment on Abraham. I would be interested on your thoughts on what I wrote. You wrote: "Faith in Christ alone is what pleases God. Anything else is works." That does not hold up in the New Testament. Our faith enables us to please God. Our faith in Christ is the instrument of our justification. So now that I am a believer, works do not matter at all? I think there are about a dozen epistles that would challenge that view. If all that is required is a "works-less" faith, why does Paul criticize the licentiousness of the Corinthians? What do you make of James 2? God wants faith, but a true, saving faith produces works which are pleasing to God. They are also the mark of a true believer, and Paul tells us to expel those false brethren whose works do not demonstrate a saving faith. How is your faith demonstrated, Bill? Apart from works? Is that a saving faith or a dead one? If it is demonstrated in works, what works are those? The ones that reflect the moral commandments of God? Or something else? --Joe! |
||||||
1738 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17992 | ||
It was to be humorous. Who says that it loses something in posts? I do hope you see the point I was trying to make, however, regarding labels. Abandoning the denominational labels does nothing to take away the diffrences in our theology. --Joe! |
||||||
1739 | Joe, what is Paul and Hebrews 'the Law'? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17995 | ||
Bill: This is a Bible study forum, and we are discussing the Bible. Why are you wanting to take this privately? I have asked you two questions, both based on James 2. The first one had to do with Abraham's faith being demonstrated through his works. The second one has to do with this verse: "But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'" --James 2:18 Notice that James does not say "Christ performing God's works through me." He says MY works. Paul says the same thing in Philippians 2: "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." --Philippians 2:12-13 Yes, God is working in me, conforming me to the image of Christ, but in a very real sense I am "working out my salvation" (not working FOR it, mind you). If it is simply a matter of "letting Christ woirk through us," why does Paul give us such specific commands? "Therefore, laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR, for we are members of one another. BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity. He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need. Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear." --Ephesians 4:25-29 "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." --Galatians 5:13 "But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness... For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." --1 Timothy 4:7,10 "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity." --Colossians 4:5 "Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." --2 Timothy 2:22 Nowhere do we find that it is "Christ doing these things through us." Striving, pursuit, work, labor, service, discipline are all the things which the believer engages in. It is through the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling us that we are given the power to please God (Romans 8:7-9), but it is most definitely we who are active in the deeds of righteousness, thanks to God's sanctifying work in our hearts and our wills. Christ already knows the specifics on how to please the Father. If it were as simple as "letting Christ work through us," we would not need the COMMANDMENTS we find all throughout the epistles. And, personally, I find the idea abhorrent that we as human beings "let" the sovereign Lord of the universe do anything. Who is in charge here, anyway? --Joe! |
||||||
1740 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 34295 | ||
Zach: Thanks for your Spurgeon quote. Knowing that he was a five-point Calvinist who held to the doctrine of preservation of the saints (I prefer that term to "perseverance"), what was his conclusion regarding these verses? He certainly didn't believe that the truly regenerate could go to hell, since that flies in the face of his own beliefs. It would be interesting to know his conclusions in this matter. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ] Next > Last [97] >> |