Results 461 - 480 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | And what about those who will die before | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98270 | ||
"God is too big to fit into one religion." --Robert A. Heinlein Another insightful theological quote from the sci-fi writer extraordinaire! :) --Joe! |
||||||
462 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98555 | ||
"It's been some time since I did a systematic study of WCF and I forget the precise definition of 'elect infants' in 10.3." Well, I think that this paragraph is intentionally vague, since there isn't a lot in the "source material" (i.e. the Holy Scriptures) on an "age of accountability." It is based on covenant theology, which holds that children of believers (esp. those who are baptized) are "set apart" from the world by virtue of their parents' belief and commitment to raise them as followers of Christ. Those who hold to this understanding look to passages such as Deuteronomy 6, with its attendant blessings and curses, and Acts 2:39 with its promises to the promises to believers and their children. At the end, we know that the infant is not cognitively capable of a reasoning faith in Christ. We also know that no one comes into this world "innocent." However, we also know that the infant is not cognitively capable of committing reasoning acts of sin, and we can see from examples like David and Bathsheba's first child that at least some infants go to heaven. I think it would be going too far outside the bounds of Scripture to conclude that EVERY dead baby is therefore carried up to heaven (since God does work covenantally, in my view, what about those who fell under God's judgment when He has the Israelites kill them along with their Baal-worshipping parents?), but we cannot say much more than the Westminster guys did when they said that "the Spirit...works when, and where, and how He pleases." --Joe! |
||||||
463 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98561 | ||
"BTW, you're back from your summer at Vandy I presume?" You presume correctly. It was a great experience, and with your literary training I bet you would have appreciated the comparative lit seminar in which I participated. The seminar did convince me even further of one important thing: there need to be more thinking Christians glorifying God in the realm of academia. --Joe! |
||||||
464 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98637 | ||
"BUT it raises a question what about the child/baby who is not one of the elect" If they are not saved, then it seems that they will be in hell. "how do you know which child is one of the elect" Outside of assuming the children of faithful believers in Christ are among the elect, we cannot be sure. The bottom line is that the Bible would seem to indicate that some are saved (such as the child conceived in sin between David and Bathsheba), but there is no indication that all are saved (what about Canaanite children executed by the Israelites?). --Joe! |
||||||
465 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98723 | ||
You wrote: "There are many passages that state there is only one God yes... but where in the Bible does it state this is the "Trinity" and the Godhead is no where explained as that of the "Trinity" in the Nicene Creed" The Trinity is the understanding and synthesis of separate teachings, all of which are found in Scripture: 1. There is one God. 2. The Father is considered to be God. 3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is considered to be God. 4. The Holy Spirit is referred to as "God." 5. The Father is not the Son, nor is He the Holy Spirit. 6. The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. 7. In many, many places in the New Testament the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are placed in conjunction with each other on equally authoritative footing (most notably in Christian baptism). If all of those statements are demonstrated in the Bible, what other formulation could the church have codified but the Trinity? Therefore, the Trinity is taught in Scripture; it just isn't taught in one single, isolated verse. Like other biblical doctrines, it requires a little work on the part of God's people to grasp it. --Joe! |
||||||
466 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98725 | ||
"And back to the origanal topic... Since when in the Bible was it taught that there are to be no more Apostles or Prophets, it doesn't..." And yet the LDS gets it backward, placing the Prophet (why only one?) on a higher authoritative ground than the Quorum of the Apostles. I think it is clear from the New Testament that the apostles were the leaders of the church, not the prophets. "I know you will quote those same verses, but then I quote Acts 7:55-56... but if the Bible does not contradict itself, how can Christ stand on the right hand of the Father if they are the same..." Because Christ and the Father are NOT the same. You misunderstand the church's doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is God; the Son is God; but the Father is not the Son. "So if we can do this, why should we not have Apostles and Prophets to settle these petty doctrinal issues?" Because they are not needed. We have the teachings of the apostles inscripturated in the New Testament. The church plays a role in interpreting the Scriptures (albeit imperfectly). The LDS errs in allegedly providing additional revelation above and beyond (and in contradiction to) what God has already revealed. We do not need "another testament" or any other supposed teaching from God; what he gave us in the Old and New Testaments is absolutely, 100 percent sufficient for the church and for the individual disciple of Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
467 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98726 | ||
You wrote: "Now, my point, the Mormon definition of Salvation is equal to what the rest of the world calls Sanctification... and every church I've studied believes Sanctification can only be obtained through their Church... so where are the Mormons so wrong in their understanding of salvation?" Because biblically, sanctification (our being made righteous in practice) is subsequent to justification (being pardoned and declared righteous because of Christ's obedience and sacrifice for His people). I am going to heaven because of what Jesus did for me, not because of what I did for myself. My best actions are imperfectly good ones, and our infinitely holy God accepts nothing less than perfect obedience; that is, obedience like Christ provided on my behalf. Therefore, the LDS version of salvation is like sanctification, but according to the Bible our progressive sanctification is the EVIDENCE and FRUIT of being saved, not the BASIS of me being saved. --Joe! |
||||||
468 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98832 | ||
"So when talking about an equally worth of a destination the LDS and the general Christians all agree... Faith alone will get you there..." Actually, Mormons teach that almost everyone will be going to one of the three heavens. Other than apostate Mormons and "anti's" like me, hell (the "outer darkness") is pretty empty. I am aware of the way cults like the LDS manipulate Christian terminology to mean something different. Most aberrant groups have their own jargon, "code" vocabulary, or altered definitions of theological terms that lexically isolates their members from having meaningful theological conversations outside the group. Defining terms is indeed important. The LDS has defined them incorrectly. --Joe! |
||||||
469 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98834 | ||
"If the Father is, and the Son is God, and there is but one God, and they not the same, then what you're statement is saying is that there is one Title of God" God is one being, eternally existent in three persons. Jesus and the Father are two personages, but they are the same being. Difficult for the finite human being to grasp? Sure, but that is how God has revealed Himself to be. "How ever the Trinity does teach that the Father is the Son and also the Ghost, stating that they are all each other... this is contrary to what you just said..." The historic doctrine of the Trinity does NOT say that they are all each other. This is a heresy known as modalism or "oneness." Go read the Athanasian Creed: http://www.reformed.org/documents/athanasian.html "And Why back on the Mormons? Did I not say to leave them out of this?" Because you are promoting LDS theology, whether you label it as such or not. --Joe! |
||||||
470 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99027 | ||
In any case, Mormon hell is pretty empty. Not the way Jesus described it at all. --Joe! |
||||||
471 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99848 | ||
"Salvation, for anyone, wasn't even made availabble for anyone at this point in time." So no one before the resurrection was saved?!? --Joe! |
||||||
472 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99849 | ||
"But that is Calvinism through and through and not Biblical at all. [see forum rules]" Yes, please see forum rules. A disposition against Calvinism is a denominational bias. Please refrain from it. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
473 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99875 | ||
'Didn't say that. I made reference to the children of "unregenerate", "unelect" parents. Since Jesus made no distinctions, why should we?' Who said we should, with regard to evangelism? And how do you know that the parents were unregenerate? They were bringing their children to Jesus, after all. Lastly, Jesus said: "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" The kingdom belongs to SUCH as these, not specifically to them (necessarily). By the way, this is one of the passages that some use to support the baptism of infants, since the kingdom of God belongs not only to those old enough to profess their faith yet. --Joe! |
||||||
474 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99922 | ||
"I disagree Ken Hepting stated fact, the Westminster Confession is not Biblical nor scripture." I agree that it is not Scripture. However, the statement that the WCF is not biblical (i..e. that its contents are contrary to the Bible) is a reflection of denominational bias. Please refrain from it. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
475 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99923 | ||
'There is a difference between innocence and purity. A baby is innocent. Purity is from nuturing and not a given but must be learned in innocence. Jesus saves to make innocence by virtue of the new birth. Purity happens when we abide and are nutured into "son-ship".' What Scriptures inform this perspective? --Joe! |
||||||
476 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99930 | ||
"It is based on man's interpretation not what the Bible says therefore calling it not biblical is not reflecting a denominational bias. " Then the sermons at your church are not biblical either, and neither are your posts. ALL interpretations of Scripture are given by men. Therefore, let's shut the Forum down because all we have since the apostles wrote down the NT is "man's interpretation." --Joe! |
||||||
477 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99981 | ||
"The spirit of the rules are to keep tensions down so this is a desirable Forum to contribute in." I agree. I am in no way intolerant of opposing views, and I never would have appealed to the new moderator of this Forum to have our new headline established, no matter how much I disagree with those Christians who hold a view opposite to mine. "The letter of the rules and inforcing every dot and stroke will only add to the argument you are having, which is not the intention of the rules." Of course it's not. My responses are intended to facetiously reveal the ridiculousness of trying to say ANYTHING theological without stating something along the way that another Christian will disagree with. "Think about it, who is getting the glory by whats being said." Scripture is rife with satire and sarcasm. Glorifying God and ridiculing the silly behavior of our brothers in Christ are not always mutually exclusive propositions. "Are we reflecting Jesus to others now?" I think Jesus would be a lot more critical of what we are seeing here than I am. He certainly wasn't Pollyana when confronting hypocrisy. --Joe! |
||||||
478 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100005 | ||
"How so? WCF is an 'interpretation' of that which is Biblical and therefore is open to challenge." Oh, so now we CAN challenge things that we consider to be contrary to Scripture? (The previous statement is directed toward the entire Forum). I was under the impression that critique of other points-of-view within Christian orthodoxy were forbidden now, because a DENOMINATION ("gasp!") might happen to teach it... Listen: I have no problem with my views being challenged. In fact, I welcome it. And I wish others on this Forum had less of a problem with their own views being challenged. "Make sense?" Makes perfect sense to me. You're preaching to the choir. :) --Joe! |
||||||
479 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100006 | ||
'While you're thinking consider all the bad thoughts you still entertain then think about your own "purity" and ask a few questions of yourself. The first one maybe should be, "How come if Jesus saved me"?' Romans 7 answers that one. --Joe! |
||||||
480 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100007 | ||
"Your right sermons are not Biblical they are Biblically based and hopefully are founded on Biblical principals and rooted in truth. However I have heard many that were Biblically based but not founded on Biblical principals and therefore rooted in false doctrine." All of us have. "Let us not elevate a doctrine of man to level it does not deserve. It may quote scripture, it may contain Biblical truths but it is not scripture it is nothing more that a Biblically bases opinion/statement constructed by man." Yes, I agree again. Now, which of us is committing that error? If I had a dime for every time my wife heard "that's MAN's doctrine" or "that's MAN's teaching" or "that's MAN's interpretation" while growing up in churches of your denomination, I could retire today. It seems that every time certain people want to put their point of view above critique, they play the "MAN's doctrine" card, thereby implying that they are promoting "GOD's truth." "Why do you want to shut down the forum. It seems that since Lockman has made an effort to relieve the forum of the burden of redundant endless arguing certain groups have launched a campaign to harm the forum rather than abide by it’s rules and terms." Are you really that incapable of detecting satire? You must have a hard time with 2 Corinthians. I have "launched a campaign" now? Come on, man! :) "Anytime you modify a word of scripture to suit your understanding of scripture then I think it is fair to say your applying man's interpretation to scripture. However when you apply a literal interpretation then you doing nothing more than repeating scripture." I disagree. It is more than repeating Scripture. If that were so, then there would be no need to do anything from the pulpit than just open the Bible and start reading. EVERYONE interprets. The question is, "Who is interpreting correctly?" --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] Next > Last [97] >> |