Results 321 - 340 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60037 | ||
"Someone posted that the proposed number of volumes in the series is 18. I've heard 12. Do you happen to know which number is correct?" Well, if it is 18, then you have me spooked. After all, 18 is three 6's. 666. It is definitely a sign of something. I would tell you here on the forum, but I have my own book coming out in the next month or so which explains EVERYTHING down to the last detail, and how Tim LaHaye is playing right into the hands of the real Antichrist, Martha Stewart. Go out and buy it! :) --Joe! |
||||||
322 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60038 | ||
"I have heard more than one person exclaim they hope they get left behind so they can really serve the Lord. That thought pattern scares me." Why doesn't that individual pray for damnation so s/he can witness to the souls in hell, too? They REALLY need Jesus! Never ceases to amaze me... --Joe! |
||||||
323 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60039 | ||
"But even repentance follows salvation." Does repentance FOLLOW salvation, or accompany it? Seems to me that when repentance is mentioned in connection with justification, it is mentioned first. The confusion on most people's part seems to come from trying to classify repentance as a "work." "Grace plus nothing is salvation." Grace alone is the CAUSE of salvation, but we are justified through faith (and I believe repentance is an aspect of saving faith) because of Christ's work. Therefore, more is involved in salvation than grace alone. I do hold, however, that the sole reason I have repented in saving faith is due to God's unfailing grace, and that it was God's grace that motivated Him to not spare His own Son. --Joe! |
||||||
324 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60040 | ||
"I don't see how anyone can read the series and not be moved or stirred in his heart to be ready." Well, if one believes that the Tribulation is a past event rather than a future one, the series might not do much for them. I myself am much more motivated by Jesus' warnings in the gospels to be ready than the thrilling techno-ride of LaHaye and Jenkins. I am sure you are, as well. 'I say if the series scares people, that's OK -- let it. While I wouldn't use fear to manipulate people into "making a decision" or getting saved, it is nevertheless true that people need to take the endtime prophecies seriously.' Yes, fear can be a manipulator, but the unregenerate have much to fear. My biggest problem with the Left Behind series (aside from the fact I find it to be pretty mediocre writing) is the fact that many "modern" churches treat the eternal wrath of God in an unrelenting, everlasting hell as a taboo subject for sermons (even if they officially believe it), but they can talk all day long about "not getting left behind." Even if the pre-Tribulational model is the accurate one, it may be countless years before such events actually take place. In the meantime, people are dying apart from Christ every minute, facing not a hell-on-earth, but awaiting judgment and sentenceing to the hell of all hells. And that is something that the lost should be afraid of. And proclaiming God's just wrath to the unregenerate is not being manipulative if we are telling the truth. --Joe! |
||||||
325 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60179 | ||
The really not-so-funny part of it is is the underlying assumption that it will take a vanishing church to put one in a position to serve our Lord. Rather than desiring to be "left behind," why doesn't this individual see the God-ordained mandate and unsurpassed value of serving in the context of the visible church NOW to extend God's kingdom? --Joe! |
||||||
326 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60181 | ||
You are obviously ignoring the apocryphal/Gnostic episodes that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Some narrow-minded Left Behind literalists dispute them, but I believe that they contain valuable information that shows the true, historical tribulation that the funadmentalists LaHaye-ites try to suppress. :) Good to be back! --Joe! |
||||||
327 | The "branches" of Romans 11 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60276 | ||
I agree completely. I am encouraged to see how Bible Study Fellowship has been a benefit to you! --Joe! |
||||||
328 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60277 | ||
"These all indicate that repentance takes place prior to regeneration." Well, logically prior to justification, anyway... :) --Joe! |
||||||
329 | complete return to biblical Christianity | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 62360 | ||
Consubstantiation is not the Roman Catholic view, nor was it the view of Calvin. The timing and nature of baptism is also a much more complex argument than you acknowledge it to be. The Reformers carried other "baggage" over from the RCC like the Trinity and the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. Perhaps they should have abandoned those, too...? While I am certainly not Catholic, the Roman Catholic Church was/is not wrong on EVERYTHING. --Joe! |
||||||
330 | complete return to biblical Christianity | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 62537 | ||
"After the invention of the printing press Catholic as well as Protestant laity have always had access to scripture." But that isn't to say that the RCC liked it! --Joe! |
||||||
331 | DO WE KNOW EACH OTHER IN HEAVEN | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 64802 | ||
Why do you think we would not? --Joe! |
||||||
332 | Understanding The Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 65910 | ||
You wrote: "Why do we need new versions?" Same reason we need any versions at all. Language changes. Why don't you read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Why do Spanish speakers not read the KJV? Because it is hard/impossible for them to understand. Now why "modern" translations? Because the English language is significantly different than it was in 1611, and many of the words in the KJV are archaic and other words have different connotations. As with the translation of any document from one language to another, no translation can be said to be "perfect." And when you factor in the antiquity of the languages in which God inspired its authors to write, Bible translation becomes a discipline, not an exact science. "It has never failed me. It has fed my soul. I do have trouble understanding it at times, but the trouble is with me and not the translation." But the trouble is not necessarily with your moral condition but with the fact that you live in the 21st century and not the early 17th. --Joe! |
||||||
333 | help with a group paper on nat.selection | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 66029 | ||
You wrote: "Examples of humans not nursing weak: ...Giving children up to adoption. If a child is born with cerebral palsy or a birth defect, it may end up on the list of children to adopt. If not, the parents may have a hard time finding enough money to pay for medications this child needs to stay alive." I would consider this as an example in many circumstances of doing what is best for the child. --Joe! |
||||||
334 | help with a group paper on nat.selection | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 66273 | ||
Please describe for me the "psychological trauma" that a newborn has in being adopted from a single teenage mother into a Christian home. Please describe for me how the "psychological trauma" that a child has in being adopted is more traumatic than remaining in a home facing physical, emotional and sexual abuse, as well as neglect. There are a lot of reasons besides poverty which lead to adoption. And considering that adoption by God is a very biblical concept, the concept can hardly be a hateful one. --Joe! |
||||||
335 | What does Bible teach on election? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 67921 | ||
You ask some very good questions here. Let me try to answer them briefly without creating a firestorm! :) First of all, let me cite the Westminster Larger Catechism, which is one of the classic Reformed/Calvinist standards dating to the 1640s: "Q. 67. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God?s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein." You asked: "I must be missing something? If we are all predestined - than what is the use of witnessing? My question is that if someone is not (to my knowledge) a Christian, why should I share the gospel with them?" 1. Because God has commanded you to do so. 2. Because it glorifies God whether regardless of the response of the hearer of the message. 3. Because God may have chosen to use YOU to bring the message through which the sinner will repent and trust in Jesus Christ. You also said: "If they are predestined and I dont, then someone else will." You are correct. However, here's the deal: God has not published His directory of the elect and handed it to churches. From a human perspective, we have no idea whether the person we are speaking to is one of God's predestined people or not. When I am sharing my faith, I am confident that God will do what He will with the message I am giving (Isaiah 55:11). In addition, while I do not know whether the person I am evangelizing is one of the elect or not, I DO know that those who do not get the gospel are lost. As the catechism question above states, the Holy Spirit works alongside and through the outward, univeral call to repentance and faith. He has chosen to work through preaching, so in preaching I am providing the medium through which God will do his work. So, simply put (I hope), God from His perspective will accomplish what he will accomplish with or without us; but from a finite human view we are not aware of which unsaved people are predestined or not, and we have been commanded to proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into His marveous light (1 Peter 2:9). Of course, it is not just a duty for those that love God; it is a privilege to be a part of God's redemptive work. Lastly, you wrote: "I chose to ask Christ into my heart and save me. In return, I beleive he accepted(or chose) me." The classical Reformation view also holds that you choose God. We just believe that you have the order reversed. God chose us, and in return we are persuaded to choose Him. Hope this helps clear it up without re-hashing too much. For a further explanation, I would do a Web search for "Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards, and take a couple of hours to pore over that. In Christ's unfailing grip, --Joe! |
||||||
336 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68259 | ||
Hello, Rob: Boy, you sure dug into the archives for this one! You wrote: "1. Is the universe completely determined because God has seen it? Yes." You are confusing foresight with predetermination. Does the Bible teach that God merely passively foresees everything, or that God is constantly active and sovereign over every last aspect of His creation? "2. Do we share this ultimate knowledge of all events with God? No." Again, is God someone who just KNOWS, or someone who CAUSES? "3. Do the choices we make directly affect our lives, and the lives of others? Yes." Those who believe in the biblical doctrine of election do not deny this. "4. Is accepting Christ a choice? Yes." Every Christian would agree with this as well. "5. Do we have complete free will to choose then? Absolutely." I don't see where you get the "then" here. The fact that at some point a person freely embraces Christ does not mean that every individual (including the convert) was BORN with that ability. One of the best treatments of the freedom of the will in Christian history was written by Jonathan Edwards. I warmly encourage you (and everyone else) to give it a read: http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/will/home.html --Joe! |
||||||
337 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68276 | ||
Rob: This is a forum for discussing ideas, not a mutual admiration society. If the latter were the case, I would have been voted out long ago! Disagreement is going to occur among people on this forum. That is historically the way the church has gathered to hammer out sound theology. You wrote: "Your objection to my first question actually limits God by attributing "foresight" to Him instead of complete omniscience." No, I did not limit God's omniscience (a biblically supported concept) to mere foresight. What I DID imply that God's omniscience is not the same thing as God's foreordination of all events (another concept supported by the Bible). God at the same time knows all things and sovereignly governs them. You then wrote: "Your objection to my second question misses the point completely, I asked if we share omniscience with God, in which the answer is no. You however pose a senseless objection in the form of a question: Again, is God someone who just KNOWS, or someone who CAUSES? The question is whether or not we share the knowledge of all events with God." It wasn't senseless at all. I agree with your second point completely, but it has nothing to do with whether we have a nature that is morally capable of embracing God. Our lack of omniscience contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion of human free will. "Your objection to my fifth question is because I used the word "then" at the end of my sentence: Do we have complete free will to choose then? Absolutely. I used "then" to signify the culmination of my line of questioning (the end that was gradually led to)." And that is precisely what I hold as being erroneous. The conclusion you reach in no way logically and inescapably follows the four previous statements. You wrote: "To make a long story short, it is possible to have a universe completely predetermined and known by One Being, while at the same time giving His creations free-will. This only seems to be a paradox to us, but it's not to God." But the one thing I have not seen you address is what the Bible actually teaches about our moral ability to come to Jesus Christ. Even the classical Arminian declares it to be impossible without "prevenient grace" from God. What you are asserting is what can be considered to be (at the very least) semi-Pelagianism. You wrote: "Note: Quantum physics predicts that if an outcome is observed by anyone, it collapses all other possiblities and makes the outcome a reality. Ponder that for a moment." Quantum physics is not science; it is theoretical philosophy. And it runs counter to the biblical assertion of an ontological reality apart from our perceptions. Quantum physics goes farther than what you stated above; quantum physics states that our observation of things MAKES something real. Reality does not depend on our observations of it, no matter what people may say about the sounds trees make when falling in isolated forests. If YOU wish to ponder both quantum physics and chaos theory from a biblical perspective, I recommend R.C. Sproul's book, _Not a Chance._ Lastly, you wrote: "Take care everyone. I won't be posting anymore. I can't say anything without having my words picked apart." And neither can I. Welcome to public discourse. --Joe! |
||||||
338 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68309 | ||
Rob: I, for one, am glad you have decided to stick around. feel free to pick apart anything I write whenever you perceive me to be in error. Just don't expect me to take it lying down... :) --Joe! |
||||||
339 | Bible books deleted Jehovah is now God | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68310 | ||
Hi, kalos: Just posted this to hopefully get your attention. I pray everything is going well for you! --Joe! |
||||||
340 | What are Calvins and Arminians? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 68345 | ||
Peronally, I do not mind the labels at all, in that they help to serve as shorthand for my particular beliefs. It is not that I think that those holding my theology are the only ones who are God's children, but in our day and age, the label "Christian" has largely lost its meaning to the wider culture. For example, are Mormons Christians? They claim that they are. So do people in all sorts of denominations who deny the deity, sinless life, substitutionary death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I do not mind calling myself a Protestant when asked, because my beliefs fall into that category, distinguishing my views on Scripture, the church, the grounds and means of justification (or even what the term "justification" means), the nature and role of the sacraments, where Mary fits into the picture, etc., from the views held by Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. For "those in the know," it helps them understand where I am coming from in a single word. For those who do not know the distinctions, often it does not matter to them, and when it does pique their curiosity I am always happy to make the distinctions known to them regarding what I believe the Bible teaches. I have had several opportunities to evangelize my public-school students by answering their questions regarding the differences (and most of these students were not practicing members of any of these traditions). Likewise, terms like "Reformed" or "Calvinist" or "Presbyterian" also serve as springboards for theological discussion, not only with other Christians, but also with those who do not know Jesus Christ. While I explain to them that these terms in themselves do not distinguish between Christians and non-Christians, I also have the chance to share the gospel with them in my explanation of the beliefs of these particular subgroups to which I belong. Of course, I am first and foremost a disciple of the risen Savior, like yourself, and I don't start off by saying, "Hello, I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, a confessional Protestant denomination in the Reformed/Calvinist tradition." The labels fit, however, and they do serve a good purpose when explaining the "ins and outs" of my theology. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [97] >> |