Results 421 - 440 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | Renewal AGAIN to repentance? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25085 | ||
Tim: "Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end..." Hebrews 3:12-14 We are partakers of Christ if we hold fast to the end (i.e. "not fall away"). By logical deduction, those who do not hold fast to the end are not partakers of Christ (and never were, according to my understanding of Scripture). I hold 2 Timothy 2:12 to use "if" in a conditional sense, since it would be illogical to tell a congregation "since we endure, we will also reign with Him; since we deny Him, He will also deny us." Endurance to the end is a hallmark of the believer in Christ. God preserves me in my faith, showing me and the world that I am truly His. That is not to say that I am perfect, but my general orientation toward sin is hatred of it (hopefully more and more each day), a la Romans 7:19. --Joe! |
||||||
422 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25500 | ||
Hank: I read an interesting article about the 21st-century church's adoration of the first-century one. Certainly it had the apostles, but we can see from the epistles that right from the beginning how easily heresy and error began creeping in. From Judaizers to gnostics to recovering idol worshipers in the early church to false teachers to false brethren, the first-century apostolic church had them all. The Evil One has been there from Pentecost trying to cause as much trouble for Christ's bride as he can. We all should stop and think before we start wishing that the church was "the way it used to be." I much prefer to think of how the church should be from the error correction we find in the New Testament. --Joe! |
||||||
423 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25557 | ||
Brian: You wrote: "The Church has long recognized that it must continuously adapt the method of conveying the message of Christ, to the community in which the message is being heard. Example, the Mass was changed from Latin, to the language of the community - English, Spanish, and so on." Just what WAS the purpose of keeping the Mass in Latin until the 1960s, anyway? No one has ever been able to explain that to me at all (and I wouldn't call the last four decades as "long recognizing" anything considering we are talking on the order of milennia). You also wrote: "Today's method of teaching the word of God, would never have been comprehended 500 years ago." Sure it was. We call it the Protestant Reformation. Started in 1517. And it is still going on today. You continued by writing: "Let's look at Christian theology. Every Christian religion today is built upon the theological principles defined by the Catholic Church over the past 2,000 years. Was the theology completely correct - no, but the Church was constantly asking the questions, and still is, to fullfill its role." You are saying that the Catholic Church was incorrect in its theology? What about papal infallibility? You don't hold to that? Now this is getting confusing. Is Church tradition fallible or not? This was one of Luther's main sticking points, you know. Incidentally, the Reformation was largely based on the truth of what you said, that the church originally taught what was correct. Luther appealed heavily to Augustine in showing that the medieval Church had departed from the Biblical truth of justification by faith alone. So in asking this question of you, I am not trying to start a skirmish, but what you have said leaves a lot to be settled. If the theology of Rome was not completely correct, why can we trust that what we have now is correct? If the standard of Rome is changing, does that mean that God is communicating imperfectly through the Roman Catholic Church? If we cannot be sure whether the Chruch's theology is correct at any given time, where can we find an unchanging standard? Psssst...think "sola Scriptura." --Joe! |
||||||
424 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25560 | ||
Lisa: Romans 14 is talking about eating and drinking, not true and false teaching. Paul has a great deal to say about making sure the doctrine of the church is pure. --Joe! |
||||||
425 | Parable fo the Good Samaritan - Evaluate | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25608 | ||
You are quite welcome. Of course, it helps that our pastor spoke on this passage the Sunday before last, so the implications of this passage have been turning over in my head a lot the last week and a half. :) Once we take passages like this into account and understand just what it means to please God, it is a very humbling thing. Then to realize that Jesus not only said this, but He DID it in the most complete and perfect sense...well, that is just mind-boggling, and passages like Philippians 2:5-11 and Romans 5:6-8 just reinforce my conviction that people have to have rocks in their head if they think that they have come anywhere close to Jesus' absolute obedience to God's commandments. Grace becomes that much more amazing to me when I realize just how far away I am from God's standard of obedience. There is simply no way I could merit heaven by my works, even as a follower of Jesus Christ. Thanks be to God that Christ accomplished it all on my behalf! "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." --Romans 8:3-4 --Joe! |
||||||
426 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25615 | ||
Hank: It is perfectly understandable. Like I said, this point was driven home to me just this last weekend thanks to an article I read. I recently left a church that shifted its focus completely in order to grab hold of what the elders consider to be an "Acts 2" church model. My response was similar to yours, in that the modern church is post-apostolic and multi-ethnic, which is something we didn't have in Acts 2. Of course, I don't think man-centered, theologically-empty songs and a "felt-needs" approach to preaching was consistent with Acts, in any case. However, that is a story for another post... As I said, the obvious was also pointed out to me by way of the article I had mentioned. The article in question is in this month's Tabletalk magazine, and it is written by Douglas Wilson. It is chock full of little gems like this: "One view is that the modern church is a restoration -- the original church all but disappeared, but God has brought it back. This restorationist mindset sees the work of God on this continent in the past two centuries as God starting over. Then the question is asked, 'Where was your church before (insert the date of your denomination's founding)?' the usual answer is "The first century." But the classical Protestant, when asked where his church was before the Reformation, replies by asking, 'Where was your face before you washed it?'" Wilson rightly suggests that it is a complete lack of historical literacy which contributes to our viewing of the first-century church as somehow idealistically "closer to God." While God certainly did give the apostles to the early church, we in turn have the benefit of His eternal written Word, which was largely written in response to the error and lack of Christ-likeness that was present then. One thing that particularly alarms me about the idea that the first-century church needs to be "recovered" or "restored" is that such an approach has led to the founding of many cults here in the United States. The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were both founded on the notion that the church as a whole had become 100 percent apostate and had disappeared shortly after the apostles died. The distinctive practices and beliefs of these cults are supposedly things that have been "lost" for nearly two milennia, but that God finally decided to restore through their organization alone. This also ties into the idea of baptismal regeneration. Whether one thinks that the proper biblical mode of baptism is immersion or not, one has to concede that until the Anabaptists came along after the Reformation, pretty much everyone was sprinkled or poured upon. If the only people saved are the ones who are immersed, then what one in effect is saying is that the Church of Christ (ahem) disappeared completely off the face of the earth for a period of time on the order of centuries. Is that consistent with a sovereign God who has always maintained a remnant of people for His own? Same thing for people saying that speaking in tongues is a prerequisite for salvation... Wow...lots of implications of a restorationist view. I would encourage everyone who visits this group to take the time to get an overview of chruch history (a good place to start is "Church History in Plain Language" by Bruce Shelley). I remain firmly convinced that knowing where we have come from as God's people would eliminate a lot of the error that we allow into the congragation of God's people today. It also gives us a sense of community with the saints of God who came before, a connection to our Christian heritage (after all, we are a "chosen NATION" --1 Peter 2:9), and a very clear picture of how our sovereign Lord fulfills his purposes through a VERY imperfect church (which causes me to marvel all the more at His works!). --Joe! |
||||||
427 | Parable fo the Good Samaritan - Evaluate | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25724 | ||
Brian: I am not attempting to deny God any rights of His (as if I were in the slightest position to do such a thing). I fully believe that God saves whom He will. I am a Calvinist, after all! The way God saves people is NOT through Islam or any other false belief system. The way God saves false people is by bringing them to faith in Jesus Christ, for that is the only place where His just punishment for sin and His grace and mercy meet...at the Cross. Jesus didn't embrace a Samaritan for salvation here, Brian. It is a parable, a STORY Jesus told to illustrate a theological truth. Don't read into it more than that is there. The Samaritans were evangelized by Philip the apostle, and he certainly didn't say, "Stay as you are and you will be saved." The Bible doesn't contradict itself, so faith in Christ alone IS the only way to salvation. Other religions are the wide path to destruction: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." --Acts 4:12 (That is your "first pope" speaking, by the way) "Jesus *said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'" --John 14:6 God saves Muslims all the time, by bringing them OUT of Islam and into faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. --Joe! P.S. What did you think of the interpretation I gave? |
||||||
428 | Parable fo the Good Samaritan - Evaluate | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25846 | ||
Thanks, Brian. But what do you think of the interpretation of the parable? --Joe! |
||||||
429 | Parable fo the Good Samaritan - Evaluate | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25847 | ||
And, lest we forget, God was not REQUIRED to save humanity at all...the one way He provided was one more than any of us deserve! --Joe! |
||||||
430 | Parable fo the Good Samaritan - Evaluate | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25862 | ||
Brian: Excellent question! First of all, if someone had throughout their entire life lived in thought, word, or deed lived up to the standard set by the Samaritan in this one instance, then they would be a true neighbor to their fellow man and thus fulfill the second part of the answer to the question Jesus was asked (loving one's neighbor as oneself). Two points to be made here: 1. No one aside from Jesus has done that in human history. Romans 3:10-18 clearly shows what the nature of all Jews and Gentiles is like. Then we come across passages like this: "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." --Romans 8:7-9 The only ones who are not in the flesh are the ones in whom the Spirit of God/Christ dwells (i.e. Christians). Those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God and does not subject itself to God's law. Those who are non-Christians have not done a single thing in their entire existence that pleases God in the slightest. Even our overtly "good" acts as non-Christians were not done with the motive of honoring God. The Bible condemns our so-called "righteousness" as nothing good at all, and the non-Christian is just storing up wrath from himself or herself. (Romans 2:5) "We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." --1 John 4:16 We see again that only those in whom God abides (Christians) are capable of the love that God requires. 2. Then, of course, we have the other issue: the greatest commandment, to love God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength. That is a different issue than the one addressed by the Good Samaritan parable (not the question posed by the lawyer: "Who is my neighbor?") The non-Christian rejects God the Father because the only way to God the Father is through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Rejecting God and loving God do not seem to be synonymous to me. The bottom line is that Christ is the only one who has fulfilled the Law of God, and we receive eternal life not because of our works, but of our faith in His perfect work. That is what it means to be in Christ; and that is what it means to be saved. The Bible leaves no other option for human beings. --Joe! |
||||||
431 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34558 | ||
Zach: Some of the very verses you cite would be disastrous in themselves if we were to understand that "all" meant "each and every." Take 1 Corinthians 15:22. Is every human truly made alive because of what Christ did? That seems to smack of universalism. The unrepentant atheist, the Muslim, the Hindu, and the cultist are all made alive in Christ? Matthew 9:26 is another example. With God all things are possible. Is it possible for God to lie? (Numbers 23:19) Clearly Jesus is not saying that God can sin or not be all powerful or not be omniscient or all-wise or perfect. As we can see, there are all sorts of qualified "all's" in Scripture. It is a leap in logic, however, to say, if one reasonably concludes from the context that "all" does not mean "each and every" in one case that one can indiscriminately dismiss this use in all cases (and by that I DO mean "each and every case"). Paul spends the first 2.5 chapters of Romans elaborating how indeed each and every human being has sinned and falls short of God's glory. However, he does not teach universalism, so any reference to ALL being saved cannot mean that every single human being will be in Heaven. Therefore, the following statement you made does not logically follow: 'In each of the above verses the same Greek word "pas" is used, so to replace it in one verse would mean you have to replace it in all these verses.' The term "limited atonement" (I prefer "particular redemption" myself to avoid misunderstanding) means that His saving grace is limited in its SCOPE, not in its power or efficacy. In other words, Christ's sinless life, death, and resurrection accomplished completely and totally everything that the Triune God intended it to accomplish. What slanders God, in my opinion, is any view which says that God doesn't ultimately get His own way in every way with His creation. --Joe! |
||||||
432 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 35451 | ||
I didn't think you held to universalism, Zach. I was just using 1 Corinthians 15:22 as an example of how the word "all" in Scripture must be qualified by its context. It is far too simplistic to argue that because the word "all" is used that it must mean "every single human being" in every verse in which it appears. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. The question is whether the immediate context and the context of the whole canon of Scripture qualifies the "all" or not. Clear thinking and fruitful discussion can be muddled by oversimplifying the arguments. --Joe! |
||||||
433 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37794 | ||
As a courtesy, please try to use paragraphs more. You wrote: 'The writer above has it correct by quoting Rom 3:28, but on the flip-side of the coin, James 2:24 says EXPLICITLY that "... a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" There is a huge difference between being justified by faith and being justified by faith ALONE.' That is what James writes, and Paul writes: 'What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" --Romans 4:1-5 So we have Paul saying that Abraham is saved through faith APART FROM works, and James saying that Abraham is justified BY his works. How do you reconcile these two passages? I would recommend a book entitled _Righteous Sinners_ by Ron Julian, to examine the dynamic between God's grace, our faith, and our works. He analyzes both Paul's commentary of Abraham and James' commentary of Abraham. --Joe! |
||||||
434 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37802 | ||
I agree completely that true faith will result in works. But Paul is very clear in stating that it is the faith by which we are saved, and not the works. Christ's righteousness is credited to us not on the basis of us earning it or deserving it in the slightest (Romans 8:7-9 makes that pretty impossible), but on the basis of faith. Works are the evidence of our salvation, not the basis of it. That is true Christianity, standing firmly between legalism on one extreme and antinomianism on the other. Best way I can put it? We are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, but no works means no true faith. --Joe! |
||||||
435 | "Sons" of perdition? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38641 | ||
Love Fountain: You wrote: "I always thought the Holy Spirit was the author of the whole Bible, but you are saying that John and 2Thes had two different authors? Yes. John was written by John. Second Thessalonians was written by Paul. You do believe that, do you not? You wrote: "To this I ask you, has not Jesus overcome satan and satan has thereby been given over to Christ?" To the first question, yes. To the second question, I have no idea what you mean by "given over to Christ." In any sense, go back and read the context of John 17. Jesus has lost someone. That is what the word "perdition" really means, by the way. Did God give Satan to Jesus, and then He lost him? Does that really make sense to you? It is quite clear from the context of the prayer that Jesus is referring to Judas, the one who betrayed him. It is also very clear that the one being referred to in 2 Thessalonians is the one referred to by most as the Antichrist. Notice that it is a MAN of lawlessness. Satan is a fallen angel. Context, context, context! Even though the Hebrew idiom "son of perdition" is used in both places, it does not necessarily refer to the same person. In fact, the term "son of perdition" could refer to a great many individuals, when you get right down to it. But neither in John nor in 2 Thessalonians does it refer to Satan himself. --Joe! |
||||||
436 | "Sons" of perdition? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38701 | ||
Love Fountain: You wrote: "Joe, I do believe Johns pen inked John and Pauls pen inked 2Thes, however I do not think the words written were Pauls nor Johns, do you?" Yes I do. The word written were of the human authors, with their own style. We see a very different style and syntax between the gospel of John and his epistles, and those epistles that Paul penned. What the doctrine of inspiration holds is not that the Holy Spirit took possession of the hands of human beings, making them some kind fo "automatic writers." Rather, The Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of Scripture to keep it from error and to reveal what God wasnted to reveal. Therefore, we can say that the words of 2 Thessalonians are indeed Paul's words, and at the same time say that it is the infallible message of God. You wrote: "This is new to me, I have only seen one being sentenced(judged), to eternally perish within the whole context of Scripture, please show me who else is judged to eternal spiritual death besides satan,within Scripture." Everyone who is not in Christ: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." --John 3:36 "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die." --Ezekiel 18:4 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." --John 5:24 "Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" --Romans 6:16 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." --Romans 6:23 "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death." --1 John 3:14 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." --John 3:18 Lastly, please note that I did not say that the term "son of perdition" as used in John and Thessalonians could refer to anyone. As I previously stated, they refer to specific individuals. But neither of these individuals are Satan, and they are not the same individual. --Joe! |
||||||
437 | "Sons" of perdition? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38759 | ||
You are just wrong regarding inspiration and the identity of the "sons of perdition," but you apprently think that repeating your erroneous arguments makes you right, so there really isn't any pointin discussing it further. You have been adequately shown from the context that despite the fact that the term is used in two separate places that it could not possibly refer to the being that you say it refers to. However, if you want to remain unteachable and not listen to sound biblical exposition from a number of individuals on this forum, that is up to you. --Joe! |
||||||
438 | Identity of Mary Magdalene | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40482 | ||
Rahab wasn't a harlot? Joshua 2:1; Joshua 6:25 --Joe! |
||||||
439 | National God?! | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 63903 | ||
Steve: You wrote: "Answer: As God's covenant people, Israel had first right to the promised kingdom of God. Jesus offered that kingdom to Israel. When He was rejected, the offer went to the Gentiles. Read Romans 11 on this." A couple of things to be careful about, as I am sure you are aware: 1. Saving Gentiles was not "plan B." 2. Not all Israel has rejected their Messiah. --Joe! |
||||||
440 | What is the people sin? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 67369 | ||
You wrote: "[My response]1. No one MADE Adam and Eve sin. Nor are we victims when we sin. We sin because we want to sin. They can sin because they are been created if not they cannot so again no one will suffer here and in hell" You are right: if we were never created we couldn't sin (or do anything else, for that matter). That doesn't change the fact that you sin because you desire to do so. You wrote: "[My response]2. If the way to stay out of hell is by following God's commandments, then we are all going to hell (Romans 3:23). That is why i find that I am a victim, being born is not man choice, but if the man born he already a victim of battle of God and satan." Again, you sin because you want to. Your being born in sin is a result of Adam's rebellion against God. Basically, our first parents declared war on God. You didn't ask to be born in a state of war against the Creator, but you yourself have participated quite willingly in your rebellion against the good King. "It is likely that God pleases with the outcome of His creation? Too many die in wars, sickness shortage of food is He very happy of what the world today?" God was pleased with His creation when He created it. He is not pleased with man's rebellion and all of the results of that. Humanity is under a curse because humanity as a whole is at war with God. "He pleases with the suffering here and there, killing rape, extortion and other form of evil that we have now all over the world?" Did I say this? God hates sin, including yours. God was pleased with His creation at the outset. He is pleased with how the entire creation will be at the end of the age, and the Bible says he was also pleased to provide the means for redeeming His rebellious creation. Speaking of Jesus Christ, God says: "But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." --Isaiah 53:10 You wrote: "God did this because he created man, I think it His responsibilities to save His creation and besides it is all His ideas to create." Do you blame your mother for your sin, too, because she gave birth to you? After all, if she hadn't conceived, you couldn't sin, either. Then there are your grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. Humanity being created did not mean that humanity HAD to sin. Speaking of responsibility, you need to start taking responsibility for your own guilt in your WILLING disobedience to God. You are the perpetrator, not the victim. And God is not REQUIRED to save His rebellious humanity, although in his KINDNESS he provided the means by which we can have peace with Him and have His justice satisfied at the same time. Again, God sent His Son, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation [a sacrifice to appease the just wrath of God] in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." --Romans 3:25-26 Either Jesus Christ died for the sins that you willingly committed, or you will pay for them for them in hell. If the former, it will be a gift from God in His grace. If the latter, it will be what you deserve. I encourage you to embrace Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross as payment for your sins, and have peace with God (Romans 5:1). --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [97] >> |