Results 301 - 320 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51522 | ||
You keep dodging the question, so maybe I had better make it simple: What is the means by which Abraham was declared righteous by God? By obedience or by belief? What is the means by which the Israelites were declared righteous by God? By works of the Law or by faith? What is the means by which I am declared righteous by God? By obedience to God's righteous commands or by faith? (Hint: Paul's point is that the answer for all three is the same.) --Joe! |
||||||
302 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51524 | ||
I agree with most of what you say here, which is making me wonder why we are in such seeming disagreement. You wrote: "(where is your fruit?) This individual is not bearing the fruit of his salvation. He is claiming faith, but is not displaying any." Exactly. And Jesus said that we will know the tree by their fruits. No works? No faith. But the works and the faith are not the same thing, but as you correctly put it, works are the EVIDENCE of saving faith. You wrote: "(again, bearing fruit, serving, doing what is expected of one claiming Christ) If I don’t bear fruit-will this affect my salvation?" No it won't effect your salvation; it will show that you never truly possessed saving faith to begin with. I will stand with you 100 percent in saying that God-honoring works are the fruit and evidence/proof of saving faith. But it is the faith through which we are saved, not works. You have the order all wrong. You wrote: "So is baptism. Faith in what God has commanded is going to do what He says it will." We are not saved by "faith in what God commanded"; we are saved by faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished on our behalf. The idea of having faith in a commandment doesn't even make any sense. We can have faith in the outcome of obeying a commandment, but if I tell my student to turn in his homework, there is nothing there to have faith in. Believer's baptism is a response to faith, not something that is an aspect of faith. Even you agree that we have faith BEFORE we are baptized, so obviously one is the result of the other. You wrote: 'So, did the Israelites need to “outwardly manifest” obedience with circumcision? God sought to put Moses to death for failing to circumcise his son. Exodus 4:24-26 And before you cry irrelevant, is it not a parallel to your claim above?' Why would I cry irrelevant? I hold that much more of the Old Testament is relevant than you hold it to be. The Israelites needed to "outwardly manifest" circumcision. Absolutely. Like baptism, it is a commandment of God and following it in faith (not as an empty ritual like many Jews took it to be) was a demonstration of the belief in God's promise that pre-existed the circumcision. And it was the belief that saved them. Moses had disobeyed God, and you are right that the Scriptures showed God seeking to kill him for his disobedience. It is a very stupid thing to disobey God, especially when you are God's appointed deliverer for His people. We are not clear on what exactly God did to demonstrate that He was seeking Moses' life, but we do no several things, going from the "sum" of Scripture. First, since Moses was the one called to deliver Israel according to God's decree, Moses was going to live. Therefore, God's death-stalking, whatever form it took, got its intended result: to bring Moses' family into obedience. We see nothing regarding Moses' eternal destiny in Exodus 4. And it is parallel to my claim above. Circumcision was an outward mark of belonging to the people of God. So is baptism. Circumcision didn't save anyone, but rather was a demonstration of the faith that was already present on the part of the parents. The faith and the sign should never be separated, and those who refused to follow God's commands regarding circumcision should not be counted among God's people. However, I trust we do not need to examine all of the passages in the New Testament which clearly point out that circumcision did not save anyone. Likewise, believer's baptism is a sign and seal of God's promise. It is an outward sign pointing to the fact that the recipient is to be counted among God's people. It is also a commandment and a demonstration of true saving faith for adults who receive it. If someone does not get baptized, I would wonder if that person's faith was genuine, and with good reason. However, baptism is not faith. It is not belief. It is an outward manifestation of that belief, and therefore the result of justification, not a means to it. --Joe! |
||||||
303 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51530 | ||
You wrote: 'You wrote: "We are justified through FAITH." Faith in the promise fulfilled by Christ.' Precisely. You wrote: 'You wrote:"We are sons of God through FAITH in Christ Jesus. " Wouldn't tht require obedience to His word?' As a result. Obedience is the result of faith. We do not obey in order to possess faith. And again, since Christians still disobey God, how much obedience is required in your book to be justified? You wrote: 'You wrote: "All of those whom Paul is addressing were baptized." Why if it was not essential?' Because God commanded it. It also is a sacrament, a sign and seal pointing to the inward transformation that had already taken place among the believers. It is necessary that believing Christians be baptized as a sign of justification, but it is not the justification itself. The two, while they should never be separated in conversion, should never be confused as being the same thing. You wrote: "You wrote: "The Israelites were declared righteous not by following the Law of Moses,but by believing God." huh? Believing and obeying." Huh? Please use complete sentences so I will know what you are confused about. Are you saying that the Israelites were justified by the works of the Law? 'You wrote: "It says 3 times in this passage alone that faith is the instrument God uses for our justification and adoption. Where is the word "alone" found?' I never said the word "alone" was found there. I sure don't see anything else listed. I believe that Jesus rose from the grave "alone," despite the word not being there. I believe that Jesus "alone" atoned for my sin, even though I can't think of a passage using that exact word. I think that Daniel was thrown into the lion's den "alone," because there is no mention of any other human being down there. Likewise, due to the fact that dozens of verses in the NT use the words or idea that we are justified/saved by faith/belief, many of those excluding works, never mentioning baptism or anything else definitively as a means to being declared righteous (and that includes the questionable Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 with its ambiguous preposition -- the only two verses in which there can be any misconstruing that baptism precedes justification), I come to the wild and zany conclusion that baptism is a mark of salvation and not salvation itself. Lastly, you wrote: "What is justification? Doesn't justification and forgiveness equate? Romans 4:1-8. Baptism is linked with forgiveness." I may be going blind, but no form of the word "baptism" appears in Romans 4:1-8. All I see there is righteousness being credited APART from works, based on belief (and the word appears alone AGAIN). --Joe! |
||||||
304 | Rom 7:9 What's it mean? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51566 | ||
Respectfully, I do think that baptismal regeneration does contradict four of the five "alones" that were hallmarks of the Reformation. If we say that we do anything to "seal the deal," then we are not saved by God's grace alone. Even if we call God allowing undeserving sinners to be saved by getting baptized "grace," it isn;t "grace alone." Nor is it "faith alone," as the Church of Christ folks on here have agreed. Faith is required, but it is faith plus something we do (actually many somethings, since they include an undetermined amount of obedience in the mix). Nor are we saved because of Christ alone if we hold to baptismal regeneration. As one poster put it: "God has done all He is going to do; it is up to us to do the rest." Hardly Christ alone! And if we are saved in part by what we do, then the glory does not go to God alone. Having us as the deal makers/breakers in salvation gives us a spot in the limelight as well. I could point out that "Scripture alone" is also questionable, but the length of this thread is already making my computer smoke every time I load it! I do see baptism as necessary, by the way, just not salvific. --Joe! |
||||||
305 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51584 | ||
Emmaus: I was wondering where you were during this discussion! Just to encourage you, my prayers have been with the Catholic church a great deal lately in light of the current crisis. You wrote: "If one acknowledges Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification, does that of necessity rule out water baptism as an effective and ordinary means of transmitting the grace of justification won by Christ's sacrifice on the cross?" There are two main problems I have with that orientation: 1. The case of the Old Testaments saints (especially the case of Abraham) being clearly declared righteous on the basis of belief. 2. When one says that baptism is an "ordinary" means of justifying grace, that leaves the door open to saying that there are a number of ways that we can be justified. I am not saying that it is impossible for God to work that way, only that there doesn't seem to be any biblical support to suggest He does. I see that the work of Christ on the Cross as the grounds of my justification (the reason why I am justified). God's grace is the cause and my faith is the means by which I am declared righteous. You wrote: 'But I sense something more at work here. I sense a particular priciple at work in this debate, which I have followed in only a cursory manner. That principle is the principle of exclusion or separation; the principle of "either or." It is the priciple of "faith or works", "Scripture or Tradition", "spiritual or physical."' At least in my case, it is not one to the exclusion of the other. It is putting everything in its proper place. Tradition encapsulated in and grounded in Scripture. Works of obedience as a result of justifying faith. Physical elements of the sacraments pointing to and sealing spiritual realities rather than being/causing them ex opare operato. I take a much more sacramental view of baptism and the Lord's Supper than many other Protestants do. While I obviously disagree with you on transubstantiation, I also believe that the Lord's Supper is not just a bare memorial, but is a sacrament that conveys "confirming grace." Likewise, baptism is a mystery that is inextricably linked to our justification but not to be confused as an element of it. We see this in other aspects of our common beliefs as well, such as in the Definition of Chalcedon. Is Christ God or man? He is both. However, he is not a mix of the two. The physical nature of Jesus Christ is forever united to His divinity, but distinct from it. No separation between the two natures, even communication between the two natures, but still two distinct natures. That is similar to how I view the sacraments: linked by virtue of the words of institution to the spiritual realities to which they are connected, but not the same thing. I do agree that many Protestants have a much too Platonic/gnostic view toward the physical. The fact is, however, that Jesus was very physical not only in the incarnation, but in His ministry. He constantly made use of matter to convey truths about Himself. The feeding of the five thousand in John 6 and His subsequent comments is one of my favorites. --Joe! |
||||||
306 | Do we as men dictate the terms of Salv? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51842 | ||
No, the reality is that that entire segment of Mark does not appear in many of the earliest manuscripts. That is not come anti-"Church of Christ" ploy. That is a reality. Those verses, like some from the gospel of John, are in question. I have no doubt that the verse in Mark you base your whole theology on is here to stay, but that doesn't change the fact that it will always be in question whether God inspired it or not. You wrote: "Mark 16:16 is viewed the same way today, by those who want to throw it out, instead of obeying what it says!" Okay, this is really getting redundant. What Christian does not want to obey the command to get baptized? You seem to think that there is a world of professing Christians out there saying, "HA HA! You won't baptize ME!" Are you really that out-of-touch? "Your above statement says baptism is a sign, baptism takes faith just like all spoken words from God's book, you have to believe in the power of what God said it for." Okay...I think this is my last post on the subject because you are apparently too in the dark to make this simple distinction: Obedience TAKES faith, yes. Obedience is NOT faith. Just as one needs water to swim, but swimming is not water. Just like one needs fire to cook something, but cooking is not fire. Just like someone needs money to purchase something, but purchasing is not money. Just like someone needs a reasoning mind to understand an argument, but understanding an argument is not the same thing as possessing a reasoning mind. Feel free to have the last word. --Joe! |
||||||
307 | Rom 7:9 What's it mean? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51856 | ||
You didn't address much of what I wrote at all... You wrote: 'As I understand the "Doctrine" of original sin, we are conceived in sin. Not that a conceptus has done anything wrong, but is bathed in spiritual depravity.' I would argue that that is not the best way of looking at it. It is not the human act of reproduction that makes a baby sinful in nature. Our sinful nature is part of the curse resulting from the Fall: "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. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." --Romans 5:19-21 There is no getting around the clear teaching of Paul that our sinful tendency existed prior to the giving of the commandments (we were made sinners long before we were born or conceived). The Law just gave something for our sinful natures to clearly work against, a blueprint for what we should do so that we, being dead in sins, will do the opposite or do the Law outwardly to glorify ourselves rather than God. The result? Transgressions increased! You wrote: '"I was once alive apart from the Law" can only mean that whether or not the law existed elsewhere, it was not alive in Paul.' Well, it COULD mean something else. We know that Paul, being a Jew, was BORN under the Law (while I as a Gentile was not), so from his circumcision he was made a participant in the Sinaitic Covenant (the Law). So he didn't have much of a long life apart from the Law. What this could mean is that Paul, not having committed any ACTUAL sins, could have been considered alive "in practice." Whether or not that is the case, we see that the sinful passions which caused Paul to sin against the Law and "die" were already present within him. The Law did not cause them to come into existence, but merely aroused them and "brought them to life." No external entity introduced sinful desires into a previously "neutral" or "good" Paul. They were there all along, and the Law brought them out to play. One thing that can be clearly seen: the Law may have come from the outside, but sin originated from within. And that is what the doctrine of original sin holds: not that we were born having committed actual sins, but that we were born with a disposition to do nothing that pleases God (Romans 8:6-9). --Joe! |
||||||
308 | Traditional vs. Contemporary | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 52017 | ||
First of all, let me go on record that I am absolutely no fan of the vapid, emotional, man-centered, theologically-empty stuff that passes for "worship" in many circles today. That having been said, you wrote: "how do you think based on scripture the Lord views hand claping, raising hands and arms above the head and swaying in your seat?" Like this: "O clap your hands, all peoples; Shout to God with the voice of joy." --Psalm 47:1 "So I will bless You as long as I live; I will lift up my hands in Your name." --Psalm 63:4 "Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension." --1 Timothy 2:8 --Joe! |
||||||
309 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 53008 | ||
Just out of curiosity, what in Dake's notes DO you like? :) --Joe! |
||||||
310 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 53010 | ||
No Reformation Study Bible?!? Now I know what I am getting you for Christmas... :) --Joe! |
||||||
311 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 53024 | ||
Yes, that's the one, but I had you down for a leather-bound edition of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Oh, well. Guess that will have to go to Tim! :) --Joe! |
||||||
312 | Luther's 95 Theses | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 53263 | ||
There are indeed so many books, and I have to avoid falling into that trap! :) "But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body." --Ecclesiastes 12:12 However, hoping that a few recommendations will not put you in the excessive category, I will recommend an excellent and very readable book which covers church history from the Ascension to the late 20th century. It is called, quite appropriately, _Chruch History in Plain Language_ by Bruce Shelley. I can honestly say that reading this book left me praising God for His sovereign guidance of the history of His people, despite the sinfulness of His people! :) For more on Luther and the Roman Church, _Faith Alone_ by R.C. Sproul is a good read, and one of the best biographies of Luther out there is called _Here I Stand_ by Roland Bainton. I encourage you to investigate the history of God's people, because it is the history of our people. Such a study really puts one in touch with the rich spiritual heritage in which God has included us, and gives us a real sense of the importance of being involved in passing the truth to the next generation (a la 2 Timothy 2:2). --Joe! |
||||||
313 | Has anyone noticed? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 53593 | ||
The verse is there to illustrate the reason why these ordinances were commanded of the Gentiles. With synagogues in the cities where Gentiles were becoming Christians, it was important for Jewish believers and Christian ones to have some unity. |
||||||
314 | Has anyone noticed? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 53634 | ||
Of course they were, until they were driven out for their claims that Jesus was the Messiah and for their claim that the New Covenant is a better one, as Hebrews tells us. However, we have absolutely no indication of Gentile believers either attending the synagogues on a regular basis nor being commanded/encouraged to do so. | ||||||
315 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 54076 | ||
Scribe: "If Dake's notes incurr such a hostile response I wonder if maybe he had some really life changing truths to bring out and the devil would have us not read them." Just remember that it is important to keep in mind the source of the "hostile responses." Paul had some very direct and scathing responses to things in his day, and it was not because he was ruffled by the truth of what they were saying. :) My personal problem with Dake is not primarily focused on his tongues position, but on all sorts of other novel ideas such as there being some thirty or so different dispensations, the pre-existence of man, the idea that God has a body, twenty-three different things one must do to go to heaven. etc. etc. I encourage you to link to this Web site: http://sundial.net/[TILDE]snrgraff/articles/dake.html Replace [TILDE] above with the squiggly thing above the tab key. The bottom line is that so many seminaries disagree with Dake not because he is proving them wrong, but rather because he is wrong about the very nature of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and how one must be saved. Once you get the nature of God wrong, that is the first domino to a whole host of false teaching. The debatable "tongues issue" is nothing compared to what one finds in his notes. --Joe! |
||||||
316 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 54291 | ||
Blast! I always miss these things! :) Of course, it is important to note that what Martin states is that Jesus did not EXERCISE these traits of deity, not that he didn't POSSESS them. Also, before you criticize all of us "heresy hunters," keep in mind that discernment is a spiritual gift and Robert Bowman himself is a countercult apologist who will call heresy "heresy" when he sees it. You wrote: "I've studied the subject a good deal. Heresy is a very serious charge. The history of heresy hunting goes back several years. It began because some people seriously opposed healing and prosperity. To prove those two subjects heretical, one must prove the source is heretical." I am not sure what you mean by that last sentence, but "heresy hunting," or apologetics/polemics, has a much more ancient heritage. Paul and John both wrote against false teachings (the Judaizing heresy and gnosticism) in the New Testament epistles. The 2nd-century apologist Ireneaus wrote "Against Heresies." Other famous "heresy Hunters" include Athanasius (who defended the Trinity), Augustine (who defended the necessity of God's grace in salvation), Martin Luther (who contended with the "enthusiasts" of his own day), and on down the line. Opposition to heresy certainly didn't start in the 20th century, although with the modern day proliferation of pseudo-Christian and New Age cults here in the United States, they certainly have their work cut out for them! Please let me know what you mean when you say that to show something to be heresy one must show the source to be heretical. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
317 | can women be pastors | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 54897 | ||
Who led the woman to Christ? No male missionarieson the team who followed God's commandment to not just evangelize, but to make disciples? Any woman or man not connected to an already-existent Christian congregation, whatever form that may take, is not following the Biblical models of missionary work, in any case. And I am less concerned with hypotheticals and what denominations say one must do as much as I am the clear biblical mandates that have been consistently followed by the church between New Testament times and the nineteenth century. | ||||||
318 | Having been on the losing side | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 54905 | ||
I am glad that you liked Doug Wilson. He is the editor of a magazine entitled Credenda/Agenda. While it does hit a little too close to home at times, it definitely makes one think! You can access it online at http://www.credenda.org Thanks for taking the time to look at the "other side" on this debate! --Joe! |
||||||
319 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 57267 | ||
You wrote: "In reading their books, I've noticed that they dig really deep to find hidden meanings in all that is said by the WofF. But they never have to dig so deep with morms jws etc." The Word of Faith movement is not such a "deep dig" as you assert. With people like Paul Crouch announcing on TBN that we are as divine as Jesus himself was when he was walking the earth, the heresy just bubbles right on up to the surface. "However, in the Catholic Church, It's not hard to find numerous doctrinal heresies without having to look so hard. I just pulled this off the internet. A prayer to Mary..." You are not going to find any of the apologists you mentioned defending the theological distinctives of Roman Catholicism. Obviously you have not read very much of them at all nor listened to their radio programs if you think that they are defenders of the Church of Rome. They do acknowledge (as I do) that some Catholics (like some Protestants) are justified before God and some are not. But these men will acknowledge the same thing regarding followers of the Word of Faith movement as well. While the "Toronto Blessing" was anything but, that is not to say that everyone there is on their way to hell. They are just dreadfully wrong about the word of God. "I'm sorry. These are much worse than things than anything WofF comes up with." So because some expressions of Roman Catholicism and much of their theology is wrong, that makes the Word of Faith movement CORRECT? The Bible shows them BOTH to be wrong. --Joe! |
||||||
320 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60033 | ||
"John I love you man! Your the only person I know that could steer a discussion on the Left Behind series of books to election of the saints." I am hurt! What am I, chopped liver?? :) --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [97] >> |