Results 481 - 500 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100010 | ||
"Joe, specifically what hypocrisy, and whose hypocrisy, are you alluding to here?" The hypocrisy of those who think that their own views are not "denominational views" and therefore are above critique, and who try to squelch opposing points of view that fall within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy while they want free rein to post their own. Hypocrisy. "And are you presuming to speak for Jesus?" Of course I am. I am Christ's ambassador. "What do you think He would be critical of -- the posting of the notice banning Calvinism/Arminianism debates perhaps?" I would say what I think he would be critical of, but that is now "VERBOTEN"... :) --Joe! |
||||||
482 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100024 | ||
The pursuit of holiness is a lifelong struggle of waging a fierce war against one's sin (1 Peter 2:11) and putting one's sin to death (Colossians 3). It is effort on our part (hence all the New Testament commands to "strive" and "press on" and "labor"), but the strength comes from the Spirit of God (Colossians 1:29) and it is God working within us through the means He provides to change our disposition and give us resolve to obey Him (Philippians 2:12-13), all for His glory. --Joe! |
||||||
483 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100032 | ||
'Your the one raising the fuss over someone calling the Westminister Confession doctrine of man. So what is your point?' A fuss? Is it a "campaign" or a "fuss"? :) I thought my point was obvious: 'EVERYONE interprets. The question is, "Who is interpreting correctly?"' --Joe! |
||||||
484 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100040 | ||
"That isn't the point at all. The thing that started this discussion was John Hepting calling the WCF nothing more than an opinion of man (my wording)." That is your wording (which, incidentally, is very different from the manifesto found in your profile). His was that what I believe is "not Biblical at all." Those are very different statements. "Then you and John jumped on him crying foul, saying the forum header prohibits that." Please understand: I am not crying foul. I am wholeheartedly making fun. The people who think that their own opinions do not reflect denominational biases are doofuses (is that the plural? or is it "doofi"?) Those who appealed to the new moderator to "put a stop" to skirmishes that they too frequently initiate(after the previous moderator had already handed down a "ruling" on this one) are just plain silly. Maybe you know some of those people... The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. However, I hope you think it is biblical and "more than an opinion of man." --Joe! |
||||||
485 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100050 | ||
"Easy now, what about those now dead who have never heard to name of Christ yet lived righteous lives? Where are they and why?" Hell, because no one is righteous (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:9 ff.) and: "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 "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified." --Romans 2:12-13 --Joe! |
||||||
486 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100057 | ||
'Once again you bring it down to a personal level. "Doofuses" and "silly" certainly aren't endearing terms.' They weren't meant to be. Neither is referring to people as "vipers" and "blind guides" and "whitewashed tombs" or "ravenous wolves" or "hypocrites," nor telling people that they are Satan or that their daddy is the devil, nor suggesting that those who insist on circumcision should completely emasculate themselves, nor referring to one's parishoners as "foolish." Sometimes "endearing" just isn't appropriate, and good old biblically sanctioned satire is called for. "May I answer? NOTHING. What has been the outcome? Animosity, anger, hatefulness, hurt, bitterness and the things we want so much to display to the world watching how Christians shoot other Christians" Then stop debating. --Joe! |
||||||
487 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100059 | ||
"OOOOH!! Ouch!!" Good point for discussion. How do you reconcile these quotes with the ones I gave? --Joe! |
||||||
488 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100072 | ||
You didn't really answer my question. The Bible referred to certain people as "righteous," and then in other places say that "no one is righteous." If we assume that the Bible gives a consistent message, how can we conclude that both statements are true? --Joe! |
||||||
489 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100078 | ||
"I wasn't debating I was trying to keep the record straight." What a coincidence! Me, too! :) "Joe call it humor, call it satire, call it anything you want, but you know exactly what you were doing using those terms and this new list is even worst." You do know where I got the "new list," right? :) I wasn't directing the other "epithets" at anyone in particular, just providing them by way of illustration. I do stand by "doofus," however. :) --Joe! |
||||||
490 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100090 | ||
"By reading the verses in context." I guess that's what I get for trying to engage in serious discussion around here. This is like talking to the high-school freshmen I teach. Let's try again, just for fun: What does the Bible mean when it calls Noah and Lot "righteous"? Is that righteousness different from the righteousness that the OT and Paul declares that "no one is"? If so, how? Answer in an essay of 50-100 words, please. "Answer me this question: Were there the "Elect" in the Old Testament?" Yes. :) --Joe! |
||||||
491 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100098 | ||
"How could there be? No salvation by the Christ" No one has ever been saved apart from Christ. Ever. Abraham was saved by Christ. So was David, even if they didn't have the fulness of God's revelation, they were saved by the promise of God's redemption (Romans 4). 'No "coming unto the Father except the Spirit draw him"...cause He hadn't been given yet' The Spirit had not been given in the sense that He was at Pentecost, but one can be drawn by the Spirit without being indwelt by the Spirit. Since Jesus himself said the words you quoted above (and he did so before his crucifixion), apparently this was an OT principle as well as an NT principle (as if these were two different things). "If you say there was none righteous" I didn't say it; David did, and Paul quoted him. "then please explain a few people to me. David, Daniel, Jeremiah...Need I go on?" Yes you do, because I still don't know what you think Paul meant when he quoted Psalm 14 in Romans 3. I am not arguing that the Bible didn't call men "righteous"; it certainly does (don't forget to include Lot, by the way). Now, what about what Paul said? --Joe! |
||||||
492 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100101 | ||
"But then, on the other hand, if you say God chose first strictly for His good pleasure then what you are saying is God is a respector of persons. But then that's not so, correct?" Not with regard to his holy judgment. Every time the KJV speaks of God not being a respecter of persons, it is in reference to His justice. Check it out for yourself. God's divine justice is the same for all persons; otherwise it would not be justice. All of us deserve to go to hell because of our sins. God punishes the sins of all human beings. God does show mercy to some that He withholds from others. He is not morally obligated to extend mercy equally to all His enemies, nor does He do so. --Joe! |
||||||
493 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100118 | ||
You wrote: "In principle I agree but the specifics are to vague." Huh? You wrote: 'So when you speak of the pursuit of holiness it must mean the pursuit of Christ who produces in me the 'fruit' of His Spirit one of which is "Holiness", His.' What does Scripture say? "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." --Hebrews 12:14 'As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."' --1 Peter 1:14-16 You wrote: "Today my need may be to be holy but tomorrow what will my need be? Patience? Long suffering? Joy?" The patience which God produces in us ia a holy patience. The joy produced is a holy joy. Holiness is characteristic of all of the fruits of our sanctification. --Joe! |
||||||
494 | Did Adam die lost? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 12890 | ||
What is most likely is that God called Abram (Genesis 12:1-2), who was most likely a polytheist, like the rest of his community, before God intervened. Abram's heart was far from the one, true God, just like all of ours are before being called. There is no evidence that Paul was the author of Hebrews, by the way. Most scholars believe otherwise, in fact. In any case, I don't think that the Hebrews 11 "hall of faith" should be considered an exhaustive list. We see that despite Adam's sin, and that God provided for him and for Eve (Genesis 3:21, for example). It isn't conclusive proof, but there is a sense of restoration after the rebellion. In any case, I don't think anyone could look at what was recorded about Adam in the biblical narrative and conclude that he is a shining example of faithfulness in his deeds. Abel does serve as much more of a clear example, from his faithful obedience, which is the point of Hebrews 11 -- that true faith displays itself in action (look at v. 6 for that point to be made). --Joe! |
||||||
495 | Why did God permit Abram to lie? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 16081 | ||
It was still a deception. | ||||||
496 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 25977 | ||
Okay, Paul, I'll bite (pardon the pun). What do you mean when you say that God maintained "a pure PHYSICAL lineage from Adam to our Lord"? You keep repeating this, so what is the purity of which you speak? Do you mean that all of those between Adam and Jesus were morally perfect? Please explain yourself here. Now, since you have brought up the parable of the sowers, let's take a look at that more closely to see what the point is of Jesus' parable. I assume that you are referring to what is commonly referred to as the parable of the wheat and the tares, found in Matthew 13:24 and following. There are actually several parables in this chapter which have an agricultural theme. In each one, the sower is sowing the word of God (Matthew 13:20). The seed of the good sower is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then we come to verse 24: "Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away." If the good seed is the true gospel, what is the seed of the enemy sown in the same field? The fasle gospels. "But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also." One was able to tell something wasn't right in the field when the results of the sowing of good seed and bad seed became evident from the plants themselves. "The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves *said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.'" Therefore, the tares those who grow up among the wheat (the false teachers and those who adhere to a false gospel) are allowed to grow up alongside the wheat (those spinging up from the seed of the true gospel of God). The two plants rememble each other in the beginning, but the it will become evident to the servants of the landowner (God) which ones truly are of his seed and those who have impersonated the wheat will be burned. Please connect this parable to your views. The spiritual connection between the "children of God" and the "children of the devil" in John's first epistle can be clearly demonstrated to be spiritual based on a parallel passage in his gospel, and not physical. In John 8, we see Jesus calling the Pharisees children of the devil (John 8:44) while at the same time acknowledging that they are physical descendants of Abraham like He is (John 8:37) The Pharisees and Christ share a common physical lineage, but they are children of the devil and he is the Son of God. The Bible also says that we are ALL by nature children of the devil until God saves us and adopts us into His family (see Ephesians 2:3 to see our common spiritual parentage). --Joe! |
||||||
497 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 25978 | ||
Show us from Genesis 1 that the trees were spiritual beings. If the tree of life is Jesus, why did God say that Adam and Eve could eat from ANY tree except that of the knowledge of good and evil. So Eve could have "fornicated" with all trees except Satan?!? Your interpretation just doesn't hold any water at all... --Joe! |
||||||
498 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26053 | ||
The only thought that I have, Paul, is that there is absolutely no legitimate reason to believe that the trees and fruit are anything else than what the Bible clearly reveals them to be. The best way of interpreting Scripture is by taking things at face value unless a literal rendering would be too ridiculous and nonsensical to accept. I just don't see that here, and the view you present here smacks of Gnostic "secret, hidden meanings" behind every text. Taken at face value, there is no disharmony with the rest of Scripture, so that is what I will stick to. Now if you can show me where it is completely unreasonable to believe that the trees are just trees and the fruit just fruit in Genesis 1, then please enlighten us. --Joe! |
||||||
499 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26073 | ||
I guess we do leave it here for now, but I pray that you will sincerely ask yourself whether your belief has basis in reality. There is a lot of concern I have with William Branham's interpretation of Scripture, and if you are inclined to be open-minded enough to discuss those specific issues (now that I know where you are coming from), I would be more than happy to touch on Branham and where I think he is wrong. --Joe! |
||||||
500 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26076 | ||
Paul: Sorry...I still am confused with your answer to my question about the "pure lineage." Is there a sinless lineage from Adam to Christ? What exactly does this "purity" consist in? William Braham taught that Cain was the serpent's son. Speaking of the serpent, Branham preached: "What did he do? He begin making love to Eve. And he lived with her as a husband. And she saw it was pleasant, so she went and told her husband; but she was already pregnant by Satan. And she brought forth her first son whose name was Cain, the son of Satan." However, my Bible says the following: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, 'I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.'" --Genesis 4:1 Who is right? Branham or the Bible? Branham taught that species interbreeding created different species, including humanity: "You can cross animals. They kept getting higher blood, higher form of life, higher form, till it climbs up into the man realm. But the last connection here between here was cut off. How many knows that science can't find the missing link? All of you know that. Why? Here he is, the serpent." The Bible teaches that man did not evolve from a series of animal interbreedings: "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." --Genesis 2:7 Who is right? Branham or the Bible? I pray that you will read the Bible apart from the "revelations" of William Branham, and I pray that the REAL Holy Spirit will enlighten you to what is the truth, Paul. Everything said by human beings needs to be weighed against the content of the whole of Scripture to see if it is reasonable. Branham demonstrated that he wasn't a prophet of God by denying the very truths found in the Word of God. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] Next > Last [97] >> |