Results 241 - 260 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48427 | ||
"Am I to understand that you consider Keith Mathison to be infallible?" Please tell me that you are kidding and not really this obtuse. Mathison, while not being infallible (which as I had previously stated, for those with reading comprehension disabilities, is characteristic of the Bible alone), has documented himself superbly and is very persuasive and well-reasoned. His book is not Scripture, but a historical theology work. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that. People can be RIGHT apart from Scripture, but only Scripture is infallible. You wrote: "The Bible says that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets." The verse you refer to is this one: "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone." Jesus Christ is the cornerstone. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of God's household. No Protestant will disagree with this statement. God used people in establishing His church, and part of that establishment was the inscripturation of the apostolic tradition. You seem to think that the writing of the Bible was some kind of unnecessary hobby of the apostles rather than an important element in preserving that apostolic foundation so it would outlive them. You wrote: "The Holy Spirit inhabits people, not books." The Bible is a uniquely "God-breathed" book 92 Timothy 3:16-17). People can err, even Spirit-inhabited people. You do agree with that, right? You closed with this alarming statement: "You ask if the church were to leave the doctrine of the trinity ...? Well, if they did, then we would have to assume that they were doing the right thing, since we are they." And here we have it. The fruit of placing man's traditions and opinions above God's clear self-revelation. Suddenly God's very nature depends on what a human sociological insititution says it does. He could be triune this week and unitarian the next! Jesus: God or not? Well, the church says He is, so He is. It couldn;t have anything to do with the fact that He is God whether the church recognized that fact or not. I guess God must feel pretty small, having everything about Himself being subject to the whims of His creation... --Joe! |
||||||
242 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48435 | ||
Ray: "When we capitalize the word then it is possibly a sign that we worship it as much as the Word Himself." Ray, while I recognize your penchant for capital letters, it is a common custom to stress words by capitalizing them, especially when italics are not available. I think it is pretty clear from my posts that I am not trying to deify everything I capitalize. For example, I have used the personal pronoun "I" in all of my posts (capital letter there), but I do not consider myself to be God. When I start a sentence with a capital letter, I am not attirubuting God-like characteristics to that word. It is pretty clear from the context of the post that I do not consider the Bible to be God. I do find it rather ironic, however, that you complain about me capitalizing the word "word" while you yourself capitalize the word "Bible." You are not Deifying the Bible, are you? ;) --Joe! (not God, just a man with a captitalized proper name) |
||||||
243 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48450 | ||
"So let's tie this together. If Mathison, being persuasive and well reasoned, and having documented his work superbly, began to teach that the doctrine of the trinity was a fabrication and can't be proved historically or in scripture, would you believe him?" Of course not. As I said, the man is not infallible, and the nature of God, when taking infallible Scripture together as a whole, is clearly Trinitarian. And that is true regardless of whether the Council of Nicea was ever convened or not. You wrote: "You see the early church, you know, the guys that actually wrote the NT, didn't teach the doctrine of the trinity." They did teach that there is one God, that the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that Jesus is God. It is also clear from their writings that the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit, and that the Son is not the Spirit. Put 'em together, what do you have? Instant TRINITY! See? The doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of what I am talking about. The Council of Nicea was not a bunch of folks sitting around saying to each other, "I wonder what God is like." It was not some political manuvering or scheming or acquiescence to paganism. It was learned, gifted men of the church coming together, examining the Scriptures, taking into account the writings of the early church fathers (who did express Trinitarian elements), and coming to the conclusion that God is one Being, eternally existing in three Persons. The Council of Nicea was not infallible, but they were right, and they used as their basis the authoritative writings of Scripture, and not merely human conjecture or opinion. "I am not saying that I don't believe in the trinity. I think I have to spell that out for you. You apparently have trouble with hypothetical stuff." My problem is not that I think you deny the Trinity, but that you seem to think that the reason that the Christian God exists in three Persons is because the church says he does, rather than the church saying that God is triune because HE has revealed Himself to be such. Again, the church does not create truth, nor is it infallible. But God has gifted the church so that, using the Scriptures as their sole infallible guide and the sole source of revelation after the apostolic age, they can come to an understanding of the truth. "You say the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, but what do you do if two people disagree about what it says, or what it means? How do you resolve this? Do you appeal to a person, like Mathison?" I did not say that the Bible is the only RELIABLE source. I said it was the only INFALLIBLE source. The church is reliable as far as it adheres to the apostolic tradition, which is infallibly inscripturated in the New Testament. The church does play a very important role in the correct discernment of truth. However, it is not a separate source of revelation nor infallible. And that is the difference between the early church (i.e. pre-medieval) and the later RCC: the more it saw itself as beyond the possibility of error; the more it saw itself not as a community coming to a correct discernment of the truth, but bound by the pronouncements of the Bishop of Rome; and the more it saw itself as a source of God's revealed truth rather than the interpreters of it, the more it drifted from being correct. --Joe! |
||||||
244 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48485 | ||
"You must understand that the reason to have a council of Nicea, or any other council is becaue there was disagreement." Of course there was. The Arians, however, can be shown to be in error by the use of Scripture. Taking the whole counsel of God (i.e. the Old and New Testaments) into account, can anyone come up with a reasonable alternative to the trinitarian doctrine that was formulated? I agree with the majority of the council in saying "no." I am open to arguments against it, but groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses have done a very poor job of making their case if the Arian position is the correct one. "But the bigger question is how do you know they were right?" Because the church has overwhelmingly demonstrated in history that the trinitarian nature of God is the only one that completely conforms to SCRIPTURE. Unitarianism, Arianism, and Oneness have far too many problems when looking at the Biblical text. The church looked at Scripture and reliably interpreted it. "So I guess what you are doing is exhibiting the character of Sola Scriptura, which is I am right no matter what you say." That is not the classical Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. "Sola Scriptura is just a word for everybody interpret what they want and you are right if you say so." No it isn't. "So I am right, and you are right, and we are all right." Good grief! Are you able to follow a logical argument in the slightest? Have I once said that Scriptural truth is based on private opinion? Please go back and carefully read the posts I have made. "Because Sola Scriptura says that all truth is found in the Bible and it is self evident to whoever reads it." This is not biblical, nor does it reflect the classical Protestant position of sola Scriptura. Yes, God has revealed Himself infallibly and as completely as He has desired to do so in the pages of Scripture. It does not follow that the truth is self-evident to all. The unregenerate have their eyes blinded to the truth, and God has gifted some individuals in the church with a higher degree of knowledge and discernment, while giving different gifts to other believers. Let me spell the doctrine out as the Reformers understood it, one more time: 1. The Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE source of authority. 2. The Bible is the sole source of revelation for the church today. 3. The church is an authority, but not an infallible one. The church is reliable as long as it faithfully adheres to the apostolic tradition as it is preserved in the New Testament. 4. The church does not have the authority to deem itself infallible, nor to appoint a single individual as unquestionably infallible, nor to add its own tradition to the apostolic revelation found in Scripture and give it the same weight as God's written revelation, nor to consider itself a source of revelation by virtue of allegedly "occupying the offices" of Peter and the other apostles. These types of errors are what gradually led the Roman church astray over the centuries, when the Bible becomes less and less of an authoritative document. Again, I recommend the Mathison book again if you want to really understand sola Scriptura. Because you don't. You are attacking a mischaracterization of it that I would criticize myself. --Joe! |
||||||
245 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48511 | ||
You wrote: "So, if I said that you were as strong as Hercules, what does that mean? Does that mean that Hercules was a real literal person?" There is a huge difference in comparing one's attributes to a fictional creature and statements like this: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" --Romans 5:12 and "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." --Romans 5:17-19 Paul directly links our fallen natures to the transgression of one man, Adam Over and over he refers to Adam as a single man, tracing the results of sin to one man. Likewise, he links our justification to one man. The construction is a parallel one. One man brings death to the many. One Man brings eternal life to the many. If Adam is an allegory, then we can safely conclude that Jesus is as well. Your comparison to Hercules doesn't fit at all with Paul's arguments. And like I said before, Romans 5 makes no sense if Adam is mythical. You continued: 'It is interesting you quote John, because John says that the "word" was made flesh and dwelt among us. Have you seen any flesh Bibles lately?' Nope, sure haven't. But Jesus was not talking about Himself here. John uses the word "word" in several different ways. To say that every use of "word" can be replaced by Jesus makes verses like John 2:22, 5:24, 8:31, 8:37, 8:43, 10:35, 12:48, 14:24, 15:3, and 15:20 NONSENSICAL. Even if we look at the rest of John 17, it makes no sense to say that the Greek word "logos" is talking about Jesus (John 17:6,14,17,20). You have just clearly demonstrated very poor hermeneutics in implying that Jesus was not talking about God's message rather than God's Son. You also wrote: John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Are you saying then that the comforter is actually the Bible? That the Holy Ghost is actually the Bible?" Pulling arguments out of thin air now? The Comforter is the Holy Spirit. Reading comprehension again. I have never said that the Bible is the Comforter (especially since the Bible was not complete at the speaking of these words and was to be authored in part by those whom He was addressing), and you are again making yourself look foolish by claiming that I even suggested such a thing. Please go back and read my posts again to make sure... Lastly, you wrote: "I still haven't seen any scripture that speaks of the Bible. Remember when the psalms were written, the only scripture was the Torah. Just 5 books. When Paul wrote 2Timothy, there was no New Testament. So when they refer to scripture they aren't refering to the Bible, the Bible didn't exist yet." Last time I checked, the Torah and the Scriptures that Paul referred to were PART of the Bible. Are you suggesting that the Old Testament meets Paul's description of Scripture but that his apostolic writings do not? In any case, I think we can take a very short trip through the epistles and see how Paul identifies himself as being an authoritative source of truth to be followed by virtue of his claims to apostleship. Just out of curiosity, you have claimed that you let the church determine truth for you. Since you have said that you are not Roman Catholic, exactly WHICH church are you referring to as the arbiter of "your truth"? --Joe! |
||||||
246 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48569 | ||
"Not at all. You are real aren't you? Yet Hercules isn't. Jesus can in fact be real even if Adam is a parable." Well, why can't Jesus just be a parable, then? Since you weem to want to insist that when Paul says that sin entered the world through one man (Adam) and that by the transgression of one man (Adam) that he is speaking figuratively; why not join hands and say that the many are made righteous through one "figurative" man, that great parable of a guy named Jesus Christ? By the way, while you ruminated on the question of which "church" of the many with opposing theologies you see as your authority, you gave me no answer. --Joe! |
||||||
247 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48582 | ||
The Genesis 1 account is chronological; the Genesis 2 account is not. Perhaps you need to review the Lockman rules if you decide to continue posting here: "2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum." --Joe! |
||||||
248 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48595 | ||
"Chronoogical or not, it clearly says what day Adam was created in." Genesis 1 does, yes. Day 6. Genesis 2 says nothing about which day. What it does say is that no plants of teh field had sprouted, and that there were no shrubs of the field (Genesis 2:5). However, there apparently was some vegetative processes going on, for God was causing a mist to rise out of the earth to water the whole surface of the ground (Genesis 2:6). Therefore, it is not far-fetched at all to assume that while there was no developed, grown plants of the field, that vegetative life existed prior to this point. Not that my arguments are going to be carefully weighed by you or anything, but there they are in any case. You wrote: "You know, like Sola Scriptura. I still haven't seen the scriptural evidence. Can anybody produce it? Why do you keep avoiding this question? How can you say you believe in the authority of the Bible when you desparately hang on to a doctrine that is not supported by the Bible." I have produced a great deal of evidence from Scripture speaking of the authority of God's word. You have alternatively cut it out of your responses, dismissed it, or said that it doesn't apply to the Bible at all because ALL of the Bible wasn't written yet. You have clearly shown that you do not understand sola Scriptura as it was articulated by the Reformers, choosing instead to attack a straw-man version of it that I would reject myself. I have pointed you to more than one source that demonstrates from history that the position of the early church was one of sola Scriptura. You responded by ad hominem arguments, suggesting that I consider secondary sources to be, avoiding the material arguments themselves made by these scholars. You have shown a misunderstanding of what the very word "infallible" means according to both Protestants AND Roman Catholics. Yes, even a good Roman Catholic would say that you don't get what they mean when they speak of the church and the pope being infallible. You claim that the church is the final authority, but you cannot even point out to me WHICH church you consider to be the authoritative, final authority. If someone were to come up to you and ask you personally where one can go in your city for the unquestionable truth about God, what would you tell them? So you are not sure who God's infallible people are, but you are dead set against giving Scripture the authority that God lends to it. I have shown you how the apostle Paul held to a literal Adam in his theological discourse in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, and you have shown yourself unable to even analyze a handful of verses with clarity, ignoring my very clear arguments which demonstrate that we might as well tear entire chapters out of the New Testament if Adam is not ONE MAN by whose ONE transgression the many were made sinners. All this, and you still ask me, "Where is the evidence?" Is there anyone else reading these posts who thinks that I have been evasive? You wrote: "I don't mean to attack anybody, nor the authority of the Bible." Well you are doing a bang-up job of the latter. Please tell me what authority the Bible has in itself? You have said that without the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer, that the Bible is "nothing." You have twisted the very words of Jesus in his High Priestly Prayer of John 17 to argue that Jesus was talking about the "Word made flesh" (i.e. Himself) rather than God's message. You have little or no regard for the Bible other than a nice book which has no bearing on our lives except where the church assigns it that authority (whatever the "church" is in your mind). I will let you have the last word as far as this discussion goes. Not much more can be said than has been said here, and I will be delighted to see which sentence you take out of context to form another straw-man to knock down. --Joe! |
||||||
249 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48597 | ||
"Then you are saying that the Bible itself is not sufficient?" No, I am saying that the ability of an unregenerate, fallen human being is insufficient to understand and embrace the truth. The problem is not with the Bible, but with the noetic effects of the Fall. "It needs some contribution from it's reader?" Well, it needs to be READ, yes, which requires a human being. It also requires the enlightenment of the mind that comes from the Holy Spirit's operation in the lives of God's people. However, if I am an unbeliever and reject the truth of the Bible, does it make it any less of a true revelation in itself? "Is this gifting fond to be in certain members of the church and not others?" Well, I wouldn't say it is non-existant in anyone, but Scripture is clear that there are those among God's children who have been bestowed a gift of teaching and/or a gift of knowledge and/or a gift of discernment regarding the Bible. That does not make such people infallible, however, merely better equipped to handle the word of truth as a teaching and corrective tool within the church. "Are you one of the gifted ones? Am I? How does one tell who are the gifted ones and who are not?" Well, we have to examine the Scriptures together to come to the right conclusions. Many of the issues have been adequately settled by the church, using the Scriptures alone as their guide. We do not need to re-hash the Trinity argument in every new generation of the church, because the church has examined God's infallible word and discerned that God is triune. The church used her gifts to interpret Scripture correctly, without looking to opinion or conjecture or the daily newspaper as secondary sources of revelation. However, the issue that I am raising is not the correct interpretation of Scripture, but the development of extra-biblical teaching which has no historical links whatsoever to the traditions of the apostles. It is the Matthew 15:7-9 syndrome, which Jesus rebuked harshly throughout his earthly ministry. --Joe! |
||||||
250 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48811 | ||
"The Bible apparently isn't sufficient to resolve this issue. So how should it be resolved?" I give up. How? Your previous suggestion was "the church." But as you said, "if you say that the church has resolved this you are just out of touch with anything real." So again, we have three options: 1. Scripture is sufficient, but at least one group is in error in its historical interpretation (i.e. in interpreting the original apostolic revelation). 2. Scripture is insufficient, and the church cannot agree on on the issue, meaning the church is insufficient. 3. Scripture and the church are insufficient, so we all go with our own understanding or "gut feeling" or whatever. So, citing your source of authority, tell us definitively whether infants should be baptized or not. You wrote: "But if someone who has studied the Bible disagrees with you, how can you say the scripture is sufficient?" We do it on this forum all the time. For example, Tim Moran is Arminian. I am Calvinist. We both agree on the sufficiency of Scripture and claim it as the only infallible authory available to us regarding the things of God. We both study the Scriptures, and we disagree with each other. Tim thinks the problem is not with Scripture but with me. I know, however, that my brother is mistaken. :) During our debating, which in the past has been quite extensive, we have not argued on which sounds more pleasing or which church teaches which thing. We have looked at the Scriptures together. That is what the church does. And while we remain divided on this important but secondary issue, we both stand together in affirming that the Bible is God's sole revelation to the post-apostolic church. The problem is that one of us is wrong about what it says. --Joe! |
||||||
251 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48846 | ||
So answer my question, then, instead of constantly dodging it. What is YOUR authority? And answer my question regarding infant baptism, citing your authority as the source. You are a confusing individual. You say in one part of your post, in criticizing whatyou think is sola Scriptura: 'What it does is it gives every person the "authority" to decide for themsleves what is right. This is what we got kicked out of the Garden for." So you disapprove of people deciding for themselves what is right. Then you say, "But I don't believe in it's sufficiency, because it isn't a matter of sufficiency, or right and wrong. It is a matter of one's pride and willingness to submit." So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you think someone else should decide for us what is right? So, who? Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Muslims? Baha'i? Christian Scientists? Baptists? Catholics? Presbyterians? Anglicans? Methodists? the Way International? To whom do you humbly and willingly submit?!? --Joe! |
||||||
252 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48848 | ||
"Sola Scriptura is not taught in the scriptures. It was an invention in response to the oppresion of the Catholic hierarchy." No it wasn't. Learn your church history. "The reformers thought that if every man could read and decide for himself what the Bible said, then we would be free." This is not what the Reformers taught. Try reading Luther and Calvin and their views of Scripture and the church. "My suspicion is that if Luther couls see the state of the church today, he would second guess is beliefs." Knowing Luther from his own writings, and his understanding of sola Scriptura, and his own rebuking response to the "enthusiasts" of his day who adopted the erroneous understanding of sola Scriptura that you are attacking, I suspect you would be wrong. --Joe! |
||||||
253 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48862 | ||
"My authority is Jesus Christ. He is not dead, but He is alive and He reigns in and through His church." What if I attend a church that teaches the bodily resurrection never took place? Who are you to tell me that he is alive? Which church is the one He reigns through? The Protestant one? The Catholic one? The Orthodox one? The Coptic one? The Church Universal and Triumphant? You can't answer that, so in effect you are saying that there is no clear authority. "To the degree that we claim to be right we in a sense are simply trying to justify ourselves." Nonsense. Paul considered himself to be right. So did Jesus. Were they just trying to justify themselves? God revealed truth to us. God wants us to apprehend the truth and live by it. You say the church (whichever one of the contenders is "the church") defines truth. "But we are justified by faith, not by being right." Many churches teach that we are justified by our works. Are they right? If not, why not? "You listed a bunch of different groups. These could be likened to the Samaratins of Jesus' day. They had a resemblence to the true religion, but had been corrupted by the many pagen beliefs. Yet Jesus on several occasions used the Samaratins to convict the Jews." Yet Jesus never approved the beliefs of the Samaritans. Jesus taught truth. Jesus did not teach obscurity. In the same way that God judged Israel in the Old Testament using pagan nations, Jesus the Son had every precedent for shaming the self-righteous by the use of unbelievers in the truth. "We are justified by faith in Christ, not by being right." Again with that statement? Do you mean faith alone? Or faith plus something else? And do you mean Christ the great human teacher, or Christ the created angelic being, or Christ the spirit brother of Lucifer, or Christ the ascended master, or Christ the second person of the Trinity? Where is the identity and nature of jesus of Nazareth authoritatively revealed? "Faith in Christ means trusting that He is faithful when we are not" Where do you get that definition? What if my church defines faith differently? Are we at a stalemate? "So my trust is in Him, not the Bible or any particular interpretation of it." And where do you get your information about Jesus Christ. How do you know it is reliable? What if you are worshiping a false god? Should Jesus even be worshiped? Who says, and why should I listen to that church? "But can we still trust that as the church, we are justified?" Well, you still haven't defined what "the church" is, so I will have to refrain from answering. And dince differing groups define justifcation differently, I can't know if I am justified because I can't get a clear fix on what it means. See, I have this book which defines pretty clearly what it means to be justified, and who Jesus is and what God is like and what faith is and exactly who and what we should put our faith in. It defines what the church is, and tells me a great deal about human nature and this place called heaven. However, you seem to think that none of that information should be trusted (that "crutch" thing, you know), and that we should just have faith (whatever that is) in Christ (whoever He is) and trust that we are justified (whatever that means) and submit humbly to the church (whatever that is). "It is a scary thing to not have all the right answers" You should be a very frightened human being, then! --Joe! |
||||||
254 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48870 | ||
You responded to my saying that you think that the information in the Bible should not be trusted in this way: "That is not what I have said at all." However, in the post immediately previous to this one, you said: "Faith in Christ means trusting that He is faithful when we are not. That He is right when we are not. So my trust is in Him, not the Bible or any particular interpretation of it." Again, you said that you trust Christ, not the Bible, as if they communicated different things. You wrote: "The battles over doctrine are nothing more than human pride." Paul wrote (not that it matters to you): "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them." --Romans 16:17 "If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain." --1 Timothy 6:3-5 "For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." --Titus 1:7-9 "But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine." --Titus 2:1 John agrees: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." --2 John 1:9 There is a direct link between sound teaching and doctrine and having Christ. Striving over truth and doctrine are not "sources of pride," but the key to truly knowing Christ. You wrote: "You see, you missed it again. The Bible says there is only one church, one faith, one baptism." Yes, so in your opinion that means that ANY groupd that identifies itself as "the church" is indeed the church? Where is the deviding line between those who are Christians (i.e. in the church) and those who are not? Different organizations calling themselves "the Church" have contradictory answers? You keep avoiding that issue. Please define for us what is "THE CHURCH." No circumlocution, no frittering around the issue. According to you, what is the church, and what is your authority for defining what the church is? Regarding the use of the word profitable in other contexts, you wrote: "Niether of them mention scripture. They are more concerned with our behavior than our Biblical knowledge." So what? 2 Timothy 3:16 connects it directly with Scripture. Scripture is profitable. Lastly, if you think that sound teaching and proper knowledge about the things of God is not important to Paul, then you have no understanding whatsoever of the bulk of Paul's epistles. Go read Romans 1-11. Pure, unadulterated theology. The directions for living come later, but the first eleven chapters are nothing but information about God, information about us, information about Jesus Christ and what He accomplished, original sin, the role of God's law, the life of the redeeemed and our struggle with sin, our future hope, God's sovereign choice, the nation of Israel and how it fits into the grand scheme of redemption. And you think that truth is secondary to Paul...Looking at the structure of the epistles, we have Paul giving biblical TRUTH and then telling believers to LIVE according to that theological truth. That is so obvious to anyone who takes the time to look that this doesn't even merit debate. You wrote: 'I believe the scriptures are inspired and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".' Do you believe the Scriptures are uniquely "God-breathed"? No, your posts show your confidence that someone today could write something on par with Scripture. To you they are merely good books. Not the very words of God. If you are rejecting the authority of God's message, I must say that you are seriously in trouble and, yes, in need of the correction Paul mentioned in the passages above. --Joe! |
||||||
255 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49078 | ||
You wrote: "God has a free will as he gave us a free will.He let Adam and eve have there own free will.Just as he does us." What Scripture says that we have a free will? Perhaps that is "man's teaching." You wrote: "People takes the scripture (Eph.1:4,5) and said God all ready knows he choice from the beganing.Thats not what was said in this verse.Paul was talking to christian people telling them that God has chosen us all from the world to be saved not just them but every soul a live." "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will," --Ephesians 1:4-5 God chose EVERYONE (I don't see how that is "choosing," myself)? EVERYONE will be holy and blameless before Him? He predestined EVERYONE to adoption as sons? And you say that an omniscient God doesn't "all ready knows he choice from the beganing"? Dangerous theological ground there. You also wrote: "I pray you put a side that which you have been tought by man" I really wish this statement would be banned from churches. Every time you want to question any teaching whatsoever, just play the "man's teaching" card and watch every mouth close for fear of being classified as "spiritually dead." Yes, everything that isn't taught by my church or my preacher (oops...MEN!) is by its very nature "man's teaching." Put it away! Agree with me! The Holy Ghost is on my side, after all! I can feel it. You can too, CAN'T YOU?!? --Joe! |
||||||
256 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49110 | ||
You wrote: "But to say God chose some and not some.Would be saying,You can be saved and not your friend." No it doesn't. It is saying that God will save those whom He will. He can save me and has done so. He can save my friend, but He may not. Those whom he has predestined will come to Christ. Those whom He has not will continue to reject Him. There is no one who really wants to be saved to whom God says, "no." You wrote: '"Whosoever(Anyone) call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved."That means God did not pick who would be saved.' No it doesn't. It means exactly what it says: all those who embrace Jesus Christ as Savior will be saved. It says nothing about who will trust in Christ, who is morally capable of trusting in Christ, or whom God has or has not chosen for salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
257 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49215 | ||
You wrote: 'The word "trinty" is from the roman catholic church.' It is a doctrine held by every true church of Jesus Christ. None of the verses you cited are anti-Trinitarian. "And it is utter most important to belieave that God is Jesus." It is more precise to say that "Jesus is God." You wrote: 'To help you in your walk with God,There is a book called,"Without controversy" If you are seeking God fullness and seem some what confussed call this Church ask for Pastor Strawcutter,' Oh, no....this wouldn't be "MAN'S TEACHING," would it? --Joe! |
||||||
258 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49367 | ||
Maybe so...as Reformed as I am, I would rather be lumped in with Roman Catholicism (wrong theological turns and all) than with a heretical movement that started in the 1910s. --Joe! |
||||||
259 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49377 | ||
So you aren't a Trinitarian, either? I thought you were "done with me," in any case. --Joe! |
||||||
260 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49650 | ||
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal... Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered" --1 Corinthians 13:1,4-5 "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men." --Titus 3:1-2 --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [97] >> |