Results 401 - 420 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Are gays/lesbians bound for hell? | OT general | Reformer Joe | 54535 | ||
"All are sinners and all sins are equal" All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), but from what Scripture do you get the statement you made above? --Joe! |
||||||
402 | How did Paul know they were checking? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 8103 | ||
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. About the essentials of the Christian faith? I hope so, since a good chunk of the New Testament has his name on the by-line. I hold that his words in the epistles were divinely superintended rather than brought about by convincing arguments from other infallible people. 4. "If he was wrong"? Where do we ever get the slightest hint from Acts 17 that the Bereans proved Paul wrong about anything? They examined his words in light of the Scriptures, and -- surprise -- it checked out! Therefore, many became believers. That is all he wrote. 5. Yes, and I also know what Peter wrote about them in 2 Peter 2. Much more colorful, in my opinion. Still, I don't know where this question fits into your argument. What we have here is an extreme leap in logic. Examination does not equal correction. If I come to you and insist that sinners are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and then you go examine my claims for yourself in the Bible, does that mean I am wrong? --Joe! |
||||||
403 | Churchianity to be answered: | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 8243 | ||
Actually, I attend a non-denominational church, but I myself am not anti-denominational. I think most true followers of Christ in denominations would not say, "Upon the (insert denom here) I stand." My point was that the church was established by Christ, and that the visible church does operate best when it is organized. And it indeed does keep out heresy when operating correctly. Imagine where we would be if in the first five centuries of Christianity we did not have councils which recognized Gentile believers, fixed the canon of Scripture, codified the Trinity, recognized original sin as a doctrine of the Bible and recognized the need for God's grace, etc. etc. All were done by organized groups of believers to resist Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, etc. Also, the Reformers acted as an organized group as well, giving us back our Bible and reacquinting the world with justification theough faith alone in Christ alone. God indeed works theough organized groups of believers to keep the faith pure. "Every man for himself" leads to chaos. Just check the last verse of Judges. --Joe! |
||||||
404 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24145 | ||
Of course, there is also the view that apostasy means "never saved in the first place." In this view, falling away is simply showing yourself to be unregenerate. Assuming that you hold to the view that those truly saved can truly fall away, how does one fall from grace? --Joe! |
||||||
405 | baptism requied or not, by immersion | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24147 | ||
It is to wrongly divide the Scriptures to state that people in the Old Testament were saved differently than in the New. Paul dispels this wrong-headed idea in Romans 4 by citing the case of Abraham as justified by faith alone, just as we are. To say that Paul was trying to make some other point just does violence to this chapter, because we see the theme repeated in Galatians 3. Paul indicates that none are saved by following the Law, since Abraham was justified through faith alone in God's promise. According to your view, just how were people saved from eternal damnation before Acts 2? By the way, please note that I am not arguing that baptism is just a "picture" of what God has done. I just would like a clear idea of how "New Testament" salvation differs from "Old Testament" salvation. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
406 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24344 | ||
Brian: Why do you have such a hard time answering a simple question? Is the Catechism a true representation of the teachings of the Catholic Church or not? If so, then you need to explain what Norrie brought up. It is an indisputable fact that Roman Catholicism teaches that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church except in cases of "invincible ignorance" (i.e. unaware of the Roman Catholic teaching on Jesus Christ). Therefore, everyone who has heard the teachings of Catholicism and reject them are considered anathema. Yes, there are individual Catholics who do not believe this, but to reject this doctrine is to reject official church teaching. So, at the risk of being accused of being an evil "harasser" by you again, please (with sugar on top) clear up this inconsistency that Norrie has brought up. --Joe! |
||||||
407 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24361 | ||
Hello, Lisa. How do you distinguish between salvation and forgiveness of sins? Also, Constantine did call the Council of Nicea, but he did not write the creed himself. You have correctly stated that a lot of the differences between Catholics and Protestants hinge on the Protestant Reformation. Don't feel out of place for not knowing about the Reformation; I would say that most 21-st century Protestants couldn't comment on it very thoroughly at all either, despite the fact that for us it should be considered one of the most important periods of history. For a very thorough understanding of the Reformation, I recommend a book entitled "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul. It comes from a Protestant perspective, but gives a very fair presentation of the view of the Catholic side of things as well. To sum it up briefly, the difference between the Reformers and the Pope centered around the word "alone." The Reformers held that Scripture alone is our sole authority for faith and practice as Christians. Rome holds that the church's official pronouncements also carry the same weight as Scripture. The Reformers held that we are saved by God's grace alone. Rome holds that we are saved by our own merit, assisted by God's grace (which usually means receiving the sacraments). Catholicism holds that we do need grace, but denies that on our own we can never merit salvation in the slightest from a holy God. The Reformers held that we are saved through faith alone. Works are important to Protestants, but they do not form the basis of our justification (being declared righteous by God). This is in keeping with Ephesians 2:8-10, where we see that Christians are saved FOR good works, but that the salvation that comes by God's grace through faith is a gift, completely unearned (and unearnable) by sinful humanity. In keeping weith that, our faith must be in Christ alone. It is his sacrifice once for all (and not any repetition of his sacrifice in the Mass) which serves as the complete payment for the sins of those who trust in Him completely. Nothing else but Christ's sinless life, substitutionary death, and Resurrection makes sinners justified before a holy God. Some Reformers such as myself hold that baptism and communion are sacraments, but Protestants do not see them as something that makes a person bound for heaven. Lastly, we hold that God has accomplished our salvation ultimately for His glory alone. Those are what are called the five "solas" of the Reformation, coming from the word in Latin for "alone": Sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, sola Scriptura, and soli Deo gloria. Even if you come away disagreeing with the Protestant view, it is always helpful to analyze the differences between the Reformers and Rome, and realize that each party held the other to be teaching damnable doctrine. In other words, both parties saw this difference to be so essential that one could not be saved if one rejected their view. Hope this helps a little. Church history is a fascinating study, because above all things it shows our sovereign God at work through (and in spite of) a fallen humanity. --Joe! |
||||||
408 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24363 | ||
No no no. Romans 4. Go read it. Abraham was decalred righteous not because of the good things he had done, but rather his faith in God's promise to Him. No, he did not have the name of Christ to trust in, but what was revealed to Him by God is what he placed his complete trust in. This was the Gospel, although not in its fullness. The Gospel was first proclaimed in Scripture in Genesis 3:15, right after the fall, and the only way that people have been saved from their sins in human history is by God's grace alone through faith alone in God's gracious deliverance through a Redeemer. Understanding that we are not saved by our goodness, but rather God's mercy through Christ, is the only way to be saved (Titus 3:5). The Gospel is not a "New Testament" thing any more than the law of God is an "Old Testament" thing. Both are interwoven throughout the canon of the Bible. The elder brother was wrong to get upset, but there is only one way that one can come to the Father (John 14:6). That is Christ. Romans 1:18 ff. says that because of God's revelation of Himself in creation, everyone is without excuse for rejecting God the Father. Even Hindus. Even the savage in the deepest, darkest jungle of Africa. God graciously saves some of these people; but he does so by bringing them out of Hinduism or tribal beliefs and causing them to embrace Christ. Why? Because salvation is clearly through Christ alone. Deny that, and you might as well throw out your Bible, because no message is proclaimed more clearly than that one. --Joe! |
||||||
409 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24422 | ||
Lisa: I think you misread me. The elder brother was indeed wrong to be upset, but this tale has no connection to getting to heaven by another, "non-Jesus" route, as Brian was implying. You also are absolutely right that God does not send innocent people to Hell. I agree 100 percent. The problem, however, is that no one falls into the "innocent person" category. Read Romans 3:10-18 and you get an excellent assessment by God of just how "innocent" we are. And Romans 1 also deals with the "unreachable by God's Word" scenario: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." --Romans 1:18-20 All people are without excuse. Why? Because God has revealed the truth of himself in His creation. Because of our innate sinfulness, however, we "suppress the truth" of God's righteousness. In other words, all humans have the truth of God literally all around them, but our unregenerate spirits are constantly saying, "I am not listening! I am not listening!" until God changes the disposition of their hearts. --Joe! |
||||||
410 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24568 | ||
Brian: Thanks. So looking at questions 846 and 847, am I to understand you as saying that, as a Protestant, Catholicism considers me as part of "the Church which is his Body"? That certainly wasn't the church position in the 1500s. So which "official church teaching" am I supposed to believe? That of Trent or that of Brian? You wrote: "And, basicly, any other practices beyond the beliefs of the creed, was unimportant." That is so completely false. If this is true, then why was there a great schism between the eastern and Western churches? Why was there a Protestant Reformation? Neither the Reformers nor the Eastern Orthodox church has ever denied the points of the Apostle's Creed. History simply proves you wrong. --Joe! |
||||||
411 | Is this the 'Complete Christian'? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24569 | ||
Lisa: I am not sure of the point of your question. Brian has indicated that adherence to the Apostle's Creed is what makes one a Christian. I replied that the Apostle's creed is true, but there are many people who believe the points who are not Christians. Why? Because if you are wrong on salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, you are doomed. That is not mentioned in the creed at all. As for your other question, are you implying that damnation is not a reality? What could judgment be but the condemnation of the guilty? --Joe! |
||||||
412 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24570 | ||
Those who have not heard the word of God ARE without Jesus. Therefore, they are not saved! That is my whole point. I understand Brian quite well. He's just wrong. I was not stating that we were born with an innate need to know God (even though I hold that to be true). Rather, I cited Scripture showing how God has already revealed Himself through creation, and that sinful humanity has rejected that, to their own eternal peril. The one who has not heard the Gospel preached to them in words is still without excuse before a holy God. --Joe! |
||||||
413 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24602 | ||
Brian: You wrote: "Did you get that part in the middle: Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'" I got it, and I want you to know that I personally reject any communion, perfect or imperfect, with the human organization known as the Church of Rome. Nor would the church of Rome allow me to receive the Sacrament. Therefore, where is there communion? Complete nonsense! "I should be working side-by-side with other Christians in showing non-Christians, God's plan of salvation." If you are adhering to official Catholic teaching, you do not have God's plan of salvation. The very fact that your catechism changes with such regularity shows that your church does indeed reverse itself. Trent held that Protestants are not part of the Church. The current catechism does ("imperfectly," even though the Protestant rejects communion for the same reason they did in the 1500's). So which is it? Did God change his mind? Am I part of his church or not? Both are official church pronouncements, and they contradict each other regarding the status of Protestants (even though the same problems of the Reformation still exist,a nd Protestants have not changed their positions on the things which caused the proclamations of anathema in the first place). And what problem is that? That the clear biblical gospel of salvation by God's grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ's sinless life, death and resurrection ALONE is not proclaimed. That is a different gospel than the one we have spelled out in Scripture. The Catholic church says that it is baptism which forgives us of original sin and "turns a man back toward God" (Catholic Catchism Par. 405). The Bible and Protestantism disagree. It is repentance and faith, not baptism, which justifies a sinner before God. The Catholic Church that one's sins are not completely forgiven by the substitutionary death of Christ, but requires the sacrament of Reconciliation in order for the sins of the believer to be forgiven. Again, the Bible and Protestantism disagree by insisting that Christ's death accomplished the forgiveness of all sins (past, present, future) of all those who exercise saving faith in Christ: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;" --1 Peter 3:18 "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." --Hebrews 10:10 (See also Romans 6:10.) The Catholic Church continues to insist that the "Eucharist makes the church" (CCC Par. 1396). The Bible and Protestantism again disagree. Therefore, while many Christian groups, non-Christian groups, and even a large number of cults would affirm their understanding of the Apostle's Creed, the contents of the creed are not sufficient enough to define who is a Christian and who is not. --Joe! |
||||||
414 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24605 | ||
Norrie: To be perfectly fair to all concerned, no one can admit, "I was wrong!" in a theological sense except by the change wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. You do bring up a most excellent point: how God's Spirit works through the proclamation of Scripture. Your story should be a lesson to us not to rely on style and technique and emotional appeals in evangelism, and instead stand firmly upon God's revealed truth. --Joe! |
||||||
415 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24617 | ||
Thank you for condeding my point! :) Now I encourage you to repent of relying on your own good works and merit and on human institutions and rely on the completed work of Christ alone for your salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
416 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24790 | ||
A belated "thank-you" for your encouragement! --Joe! |
||||||
417 | Is this the 'Complete Christian'? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24929 | ||
Lisa: I think a lot of it is not a lack of understanding, but rather plain, old-fashioned disagreement. Brian and I are not saying the same thing using different terminology; he is saying one thing, and I am saying its opposite. It happens, even among people who understand the other's position completely. That means that one of us is wrong regarding on a very crucial point: what makes a person a Christian? The best way to combat misunderstanding is by more thorough explanation. For example, you wrote: "I don't see damnation of other included in the creed. I'm guessing you mean judgement of the living and the dead. How is it that you equate that to damnation?" I will try and clear up misunderstanding by asking you what the judgment is, and what the end result of the judgment will be. If not damnation, what? --Joe! |
||||||
418 | Renewal AGAIN to repentance? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25027 | ||
GloriaLynn: If that idea boggles your mind, you ought to take a stroll through some of the REAL kookiness that has shown its face on this forum. I actually hold that those who "fall away" were never truly saved in the first place, which is the traditional Protestant understanding of the perseverance of the saints. This doctrine is based on the Scripture passages that all those who are justified in Christ will endure to the end (2 Timothy 2:12; Hebrews 3:12). Those who do not endure were never of the elect in the first place (1 John 2:19). My two questions for you: since we never attain sinlessness in this life, where do you consider to be the line between sinful acts as a believer in Christ and being apostate from the faith? Secondly, since Hebrews 6:6 seems to indicate that those who have fallen away cannot be brought back to repentance, how do you justify a claim that we can be saved, lose our salvation, and then get it back again. Your claim seems to be a direct contradiction of this verse. --Joe! |
||||||
419 | Renewal AGAIN to repentance? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25028 | ||
GloriaLynn: If that idea boggles your mind, you ought to take a stroll through some of the REAL kookiness that has shown its face on this forum. I actually hold that those who "fall away" were never truly saved in the first place, which is the traditional Protestant understanding of the perseverance of the saints. This doctrine is based on the Scripture passages that all those who are justified in Christ will endure to the end (2 Timothy 2:12; Hebrews 3:12). Those who do not endure were never of the elect in the first place (1 John 2:19). My two questions for you: since we never attain sinlessness in this life, where do you consider to be the line between sinful acts as a believer in Christ and being apostate from the faith? Secondly, since Hebrews 6:6 seems to indicate that those who have fallen away cannot be brought back to repentance, how do you justify a claim that we can be saved, lose our salvation, and then get it back again. Your claim seems to be a direct contradiction of this verse. --Joe! |
||||||
420 | 491? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25036 | ||
Now you are asking a completely different question. Must we confess each and every individual sin in order to be saved? Which of my sins did Christ die for on the Cross? "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." --Hebrews 7:27 All of my sins are atoned for already. Christ's self-sacrifice accomplished its goal. While the Christian's life is one of continual repentance, my justification is already complete. In addition, if one holds that one must confess each and every sin when it is committed, then we are all in trouble. There is no way in our pride that we recognize each and every offense against God's law or our shortcomings in complying fully with it. Therefore, we all live without recognizing each and every specific sinful thought, word, and action that we have committed since receiving Christ. Those who say they do are either underestimating their sinfulness or greatly reducing to more manageable terms what exactly sin is. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [97] >> |