Results 381 - 400 of 500
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Predestination summary | Eph 1:3 | Reformer Joe | 64285 | ||
The Canons of Dort http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html That's not much of a summary...more like an extended explanation. A somewhat shorter explanation (although Hank is right about this not being a "sound-byte" kind of thing) can be found here: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/summary.html http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html My private email is in my info if you want to discuss it further, but it has really been throughly discussed here already. --Joe! |
||||||
382 | Predestination VS. Free will? | Eph 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 75798 | ||
You can find a lot of discussion (both heat and light) in various threads on this Forum. I would suggest typing the following terms in the Quisk Search box: elect election choose predestination free will Calvin Calvinism Arminian After your head stops spinning from the plethora of posts, feel free to email me if you need anything else (address in profile). Hope this gets you started! --Joe! |
||||||
383 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5180 | ||
Two very informative books to read in order to understand Dispensationalism are by Charles Ryrie, entitled _Dispensationalism Today_ and _So Great Salvation_. Likewise, John Waalvoord and Zane Hodges are also a well-respected authors among Dispensationalists. As far as understanding and getting a grip of Covenant/Reformed theology, there is no modern writer who has done more to expound clearly on this theology than R.C. Sproul. One of the best works in recent years which introduces the principal tenets of Reformed theology is Sproul's _Grace Unknown_. Also, works by the late James Montgomery Boice, J.I. Packer, Jeames R. White, and John Piper will give you a lot of insight into the distinctives of Reformed theology. Just this week, I finished reading Boice's final book, _Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?_. It sums up very well the reasons why I adhere to a Calvinist/Reformed theology today, despite the fact that I have attended churches with a Dispensationalist outlook all my life (and in fact still do). Dispensationalists and Covenental types would agree on these five points: 1. Scripture alone as our source of authority 2. God's grace alone as the reason for our salvation, rather than any merit on our part 3. Faith in Christ's sinless life, substitutionary death, and resurrection as the only means of our justification; works in no way form the basis of our imputed "right standing" with God. 4. Christ's sacrifice alone is the sole mechanism by which God provides forgiveness of sins; there is "no other way" (John 14:6) 5. The glory for all of this goes completely and totally to God alone. So where is the problem? In my view, it is the emphasis or understanding that the two camps give these 5 "solas" ("sola" means "alone"). For example, most Dispensationalists stress defend the Biblical revelation of "faith alone" to the extent that most will contend that it is entirely possible to place one's faith in Christ and never be outwardly changed in the slightest as a result of the new birth. I always had a problem with the fact that Dispensationalist preachers always seemed to be uncomfortable with James 2, and especially the Gospels, where Jesus constantly tell his followers that following Christ entails obedience to him. Most Dispensationalists feel much more comfortable with John than Matthew, because John stresses that belief is the ground of our faith, but Matthew talks so much about being a disciple of Christ and eternal suffering awaiting even those who claim to be of Christ but whose deeds do not point that out. Therefore, while works are not the BASIS of salvation, true saving faith always RESULTS in works -- a concept that many Dispensationalists deny. In addition, here are other reasons why I have come to adhere to covenental theology: 1. Its strong intellectual and historical tradition, which places an emphasis not only on the "end times," but also a great emphasis on glorifying God here on earth, taking seriously the mandates God has for his church. 2. Its undeniable clinging to the sovereignty and the holiness of God, and consequently the spiritual deadness and depravity of the unregenerate. God micromanages the universe in a Reformed view, and even man's will is subjected to his control, which I think is the most clearly Biblical position. The Bible is a book primarily about God, not a book about us. 3. Dispensationalism has only come into vogue in the last 150 years or so, which doesn't make it wrong in itself; but one has to question a view that basically says that almost everyone from the earliest church Fathers through the Reformers up until the small groups in mid-1800's never adopted a pre-tribulational, Dispensationalist view. 4. I cannot be convinced that "carnal Christianity" is in the slightest a permanent condition to which God calls individuals. How does that bring glory to God? If someone asks me if James is telling us that a "dead faith" can save us, I think the context pretty clearly says "no." Therefore, the Reformer's view of faith goes beyond mere intellectual agreement with Christ's death and resurrection, but carries with it the idea of new birth (regeneration) from above, which leads to not only justification but also the bearing of fruit. But enough of me for now. Let's let someone else talk. Hope this helps start us off! --Joe! |
||||||
384 | Do you have a say in being adopted? | Eph 1:11 | Reformer Joe | 25737 | ||
How does an infant give consent? --Joe! |
||||||
385 | Do you have a say in being adopted? | Eph 1:11 | Reformer Joe | 25739 | ||
Oops...sorry...misread your post! Here is how the Westminster Shorter Catechism interprets Scripture: Q. 31. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them. Q. 34. What is adoption? A. Adoption is an act of God’s free grace,a whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of the sons of God. Effectual calling is God persuading us and enabling us to embrace Christ. One of the results of us being called is adoption. --Joe! |
||||||
386 | Lucid? | Eph 1:13 | Reformer Joe | 27814 | ||
Yes...see my direct response! :) | ||||||
387 | "objects of wrath" revisted | Eph 2:3 | Reformer Joe | 99232 | ||
Actually, Paul uses the term "children of wrath" in Ephesians 2:3, and includes everyone in that category as being formerly in that category or still in that category ("We all"). He is also referring to our natures, not referring to God's purpose in election. Even if I was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world and my sins were atoned for by Christ centuries before my birth, in my nature I was (i.e. before conversion) just like those who will be in hell. Therefore, I can say that I was formerly a child of wrath and never a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. --Joe! |
||||||
388 | If we are saved by grace alone through f | Eph 2:8 | Reformer Joe | 55350 | ||
The gospel IS the message of God's grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone. It is through the communication of this "good news" that His Spirit renews the will and enlightens the mind, causing His people to embrace this message. --Joe! |
||||||
389 | Should we use the word "alone"? | Eph 2:8 | Reformer Joe | 55502 | ||
Yes. | ||||||
390 | and to me if all of us believe the same | Eph 2:8 | Reformer Joe | 55503 | ||
Now that is a good question! First of all, we do not all believe precisely the same thing. While Hank and Tim and Makarios and kalos and cyclist and other posters here are fellow Christians, we do differ on a number of issues. We share a belief in the essentials, the defining points of what makes one a believer in Christ. However, we do disagree on what the Bible says in other areas at the same time that we commonly hold the Bible to be the infallible word of God. In addition, we may prefer different styles of worship while having agreement on the essentials. For example, you will see a much more traditional service where I worship, complete with organ and sometimes an orchestra accompaniment, singing hymns and responsive readings and confessing our sins and our faith in unison, corporately. While I adore the grandeur of God that is conveyed in such a setting, others prefer to give worship to God in a different environment. Cultural and ethnic backgrounds often contribute to preferred settings as well. One day all Christians will be together and worship God in the same way for all eternity. Just remember that all the division we see now does not automatically translate to "disunity." What is essential is finding a church where God's word (and the message of Jesus Christ dying on behalf of sinners and rising again) is proclaimed and cherished as infallible and sufficient to transform God's people into what He wants us to be . Secondly, it must be a church where the ordinances Jesus Christ established (baptism and communion) are practiced. Thirdly, it is a great advantage to attend a church where there is a plurality of people governing the flock, and where church discipline exists to keep God's doctrine and reputation pure. There are many churches fitting this description, and feel free to email me if you could use some help in finding a good place to worship God or investigate more about what Christianity is! --Joe! |
||||||
391 | Sent from where? Is the bible saying tha | Eph 2:8 | Reformer Joe | 55504 | ||
It seems from the context of Romans 10 that the specific preaching referred to here is evangelistic preaching, where the preacher is sent from the household of God (the church) to unreached parts of the earth to extend God's kingdom through proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ. We see in Titus that preachers/teachers/elders to congregations are selected from among believers but not really "sent" in the same sense. They do not "go out," but rather equip the saints through teaching God's word, the Bible. Evangelists by nature must come from among God's people, and God's people should be involved in sending them to glorify Him where His name is not known. --Joe! |
||||||
392 | salvation and sanctification | Eph 2:10 | Reformer Joe | 22373 | ||
Here is how the Westmisnter Larger Catchism explains it: Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ? A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification of his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection. In other words, justification is a declaration of righteousness, where Christ's righteousness is put to our account once and for all. This is what peopel commonly mean when they say that they are "saved." Sanctification begins at salvation (sanctification means "being set apart") and is the process by which God makes us more like Christ in practice. Of course, this process is not instantaneous and continues throughout the life of the believer. Both are works of God, and one is not sanctified without first being justified. Nor is anyone truly justified who under ordinary circumstances does not eventually exhibit the fruits of sanctification. The two go hand in hand, but are different things. Sanctification will be complete once we stand before Christ. |
||||||
393 | Lionstrong, who is the world? | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 18248 | ||
Bill: This Calvinist would be happy to debate limited atonement with you, but that subject has been addressed quite thoroughly on here. Try typing "Christ and elect" or "limited atonement" in the search box, and you will find a plethora of posts from every perspective! --Joe! |
||||||
394 | Doctrine of Election, Yes or No? | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 18250 | ||
Try the thread: "Christ dying only for elect?" --Joe! |
||||||
395 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 18927 | ||
justification: being declared righteous That is salvation. Christ's righteousness imputed to our account. Those who are justified are saved. Those who are not justified are not saved. We have two options: 1. Christ died for a particular group of individuals. Those who will come to faith in Christ are the only ones whose sins are paid for, and those who die without Christ will pay the penalty for their own sins. 2. Christ paid the penalty for the sin of all human beings, and those who die without Christ pay it again. Double jeopardy. In the case of these individuals, Christ suffered needlessly. Hardly sounds like justice to me. --Joe! |
||||||
396 | Joe, how righteous are you? | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19214 | ||
Bill: These are great questions, and were addressed between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation. You write: "So, in practical terms, I am declared righteous before God. This means that that is how God sees me, right?" God sees me clothed in Christ's righteousness (cf. Zechariah 3). He knows that there is no righteousness in my own standing, but I have a FOREIGN righteousness, a righteousness not my own. You would agree that God still realizes that we sin, right? He would not be omniscient if He couldn't "see" that. You wrote: "It would not benefit me in the least if God declared me righteous and then said, 'Well, Bill, I've declared you righteous, but you're not really that way. I'm just pretending that you are for legal purposes.'" This was precisely Rome's argument against Luther. They accused him of fabricating a "legal fiction." However, as Luther stated, God is not pretending that we are righteous in ourselves. God looks at Christ's sacrifice as sufficient payment for our sins, and Christ's righteousness as our own. That is not to say that we are PRACTICALLY righteous, because you and I and God know that we still commit sins on a painfully frequent basis. This is what Luther meant by the phrase "simul iustus et peccator" -- at the same time just and a sinner. We have been declared righteous, but we have not yet been MADE righteous. Being forgiven does not make us intrinsically better, although the Spirit of God works within us to gradually make us more like Christ in practice -- sanctification. I agree wholeheartedly that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone. Yet again I emphatically state that the Protestant Reformation was anything but a defense of works-righteousness. I simply disagree with the anti-Reformation view of Rome that we are actually, instantly transformed into righteous people rather than declared so on the basis of Christ's righteousness. To answer your question, on October 14, I am presented before God as righteous by Him in whom I have placed my faith. I am more intrisically righteous, thanks to the Spirit's work within me, than I was on the day of my conversion; and I look forward to being truly righteous in my own right when I am glorified before my holy God. --Joe! |
||||||
397 | what is the reason his talking about | Eph 3:14 | Reformer Joe | 54078 | ||
"For this reason" refers mainly to the first two chapters, that God has chosen the Gentiles for salvation, made one new people for Himself from among both Jews and Gentiles, and appointed Paul as a minister and apostle chiefly to the Gentiles. For this reason he bows before God and prays for the sanctification and blessing of the Ephesians. --Joe! |
||||||
398 | How do I find a fellowship? | Eph 4:11 | Reformer Joe | 45912 | ||
Yes, there are different denominations and sects, and many of them do disagree with each other on important doctrines. Some of the differences are not so major (i.e. fall into the category of seriously false teachings), and many differences stem from differences in practice and not in doctrine. My wife and I left the church we had been attending because of an irreconcilable difficulty with the general direction that the church was heading. I understand what you are talking about when you say that it is difficult to find a good church which holds firmly to the whole counsel of God. We have found what I hold to be a very biblically-functioning church in the denomination we are members of now (see my profile if you are interested in knowing which one). One is not going to agree 100 percent with all of the practices/doctrines of any church, in my opinion, and even within denominations there are differences of opinion. In any case, God instructs us to be in communion with the body of Christ, so we have to discern what the most important doctrines and practices of a church are and then seek God's help in finding one that matches up. --Joe! |
||||||
399 | Do you know a good Bible commentary? | Eph 4:11 | Reformer Joe | 69241 | ||
For one on the whole Bible, I would look for Matthew Henry's. It is an oldie but a goodie. If you are studying particular books, there are also a great deal of good, in-depth commentaries on specific books. I would recommend the Crossway Classic Commentary Series or Crossway's Preaching the Word commentary series. --Joe! |
||||||
400 | Who is the bride of Christ | Eph 5:25 | Reformer Joe | 27563 | ||
The church. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [25] >> |