Results 861 - 880 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
861 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Radioman2 | 76524 | ||
"snipe — v.i. (...) "3. to attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. anonymously or from a safe distance." (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0659446.html) |
||||||
862 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Radioman2 | 76619 | ||
Sniper: Please accept my sincere apology for the tone and content of my earlier post. There is no excuse for my behavior. I am truly sorry. God bless you! Radioman2 |
||||||
863 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Radioman2 | 76671 | ||
Sniper: What follows is my best attempt to answer your questions. Nothing in this post is intended to be argumentative or offensive. :-) Your question: 'You allude to a freewill. You call it a "willful rejection" or "sensing personal need". But, then you turn around and say the following. '"Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin-including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin." 'How is there a willful rejection if the sin is inherent and original? Where is scripture clear about this? Please support.' An answer: I didn't say or mean that babies made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ. Nor did I say or mean that babies were condemned or lost. Therefore, as to your question "How is there a willful rejection if the sin is inherent and original?": there may be some contradiction in what I posted, but I honestly don't see any. As far as scriptural support for my position, I have no other scriptures to cite other than those I've already cited. You also write: "You allude to a freewill." Perhaps I did, but let me emphasize: "freewill" is one word I never use lightly or carelessly. Thank you for your question and interest. Radioman2 |
||||||
864 | Seventh-Day Adventism | Rom 3:28 | Radioman2 | 84297 | ||
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM: CHRISTIAN OR CULTIC? 'Seventh-day Adventism has remained a controversial and misunderstood group throughout its history. Evangelicals have often been divided as to how Adventism should be classified. Adventism has long born the stigma of being called a cult. Since Seventh-day Adventism does officially accept the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity (the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the Trinity, Christ's true deity, His bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith) we do not believe that it should be classified as a cult. It is our conviction that one cannot be a true Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Christian Scientist, etc., and be a practicing Christian in the biblical sense of the word; but it is possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and a true follower of Jesus, despite certain distinctive Adventist doctrines which we consider to be unbiblical.' ____________________ To read more go to: (http://www.equip.org/free/CP0602.pdf) |
||||||
865 | Seventh-Day Adventism | Rom 3:28 | Radioman2 | 84480 | ||
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM: CHRISTIAN OR CULTIC? 'Seventh-day Adventism has remained a controversial and misunderstood group throughout its history. Evangelicals have often been divided as to how Adventism should be classified. Adventism has long born the stigma of being called a cult. Since Seventh-day Adventism does officially accept the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity (the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the Trinity, Christ's true deity, His bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith) we do not believe that it should be classified as a cult. It is our conviction that one cannot be a true Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Christian Scientist, etc., and be a practicing Christian in the biblical sense of the word; but it is possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and a true follower of Jesus, despite certain distinctive Adventist doctrines which we consider to be unbiblical.' ____________________ To read more go to: (http://www.equip.org/free/CP0602.pdf) |
||||||
866 | Must we keep the law to be saved? | Rom 3:28 | Radioman2 | 88972 | ||
We must keep the law in order to be saved? [Note: All of the following is a direct quote from (www.carm.org/dialogues/keep_law.htm)] This short dialogue was in a chat room on paltalk.com. He was rabidly against the teaching of once saved always saved. I began this dialogue with him after he said the following: If Calvinism is the gospel or supported the gospel, then it's followers could correctly call themselves Christians, but because it DENIES the gospel, then it's ANOTHER Gospel I'm not here to defend or deny Calvinism per se, but Calvinism does not deny the gospel which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The gospel is what saves us (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Larry (not his real name) is simply wrong. I began to dialogue with him about this issue and he said "Preachers today are teaching people to sin by teaching Luther and Calvin." Of course, this intrigued me and I began a conversation with him after he started talking about it being necessary to keep the law to be saved. Following is the brief conversation before he stopped talking to me. Matt: Must we keep the commandments of God to be saved? Larry: Yes, you must. Matt: Okay, then may I ask which commandments we must keep in order to become saved? Larry: All of them. Matt: Are you keeping all the commandments? Larry: I strive. Matt: Excuse me, but if you are striving, that means you are not keeping them all. Then doesn't that mean you are not saved? Larry: Why not let God judge? Matt: But, if you must keep all the commandments to be saved, and you are not keeping them, then doesn't that mean you aren't saved? Larry: Rahab lied to hide the spies, did she perish for lying? Matt: Are you saying it was okay for Rahab to lie? After all, if she did and she didn't go to hell, then she stayed saved without keeping the commandments. Larry: That's right. Matt: But isn't that a contradiction? You said you must keep the commandments and yet she did not and she is saved. So which is it? Must we keep the commandments to be saved or not? Larry: Go search out the book of the Lord and read. Matt: Are we justified by faith or by keeping the commandments? Larry: I already showed you the truth that Rahab lied and was JUSTIFIED for her faith, Matt: I know, but please be patient with me. Was Rahab's lie NOT a sin? Larry: No, it was not sin. Matt: If the Bible says to not lie and she lied, how could it not be a sin? Larry: Rahab was justified by faith. If you don't understand that, all I can say is that that is what the scriptures say. If you say that the scriptures contradict themselves, it appears so. But I do not believe so. Matt: So then, the lie of Rahab was not a lie? Larry: My advice to you is to pray about it and to ask the Lord to open it up to you. Matt: Are we justified by the law then? Larry: Look at what justified Abraham in James 2, but we are not justified by keeping the law. But Rahab, look at what Rahab did. She lied to save others and she was still justified. Matt: Are you saying that it is okay to lie depending on the situation? Larry: Yes, I am. Matt: Please excuse me, but it sounds like you are saying that grace allows us to sin since you said it was okay to lie depending on the situation. Larry: They said Paul was saying that too, but he wasn't any more than me. They said Paul preached "let us sin that grace may abound." No, he didn't teach sin that grace may abound, but he DID SAY that some said he said it. Matt: I see what you are typing Larry, but, I can't help but think that you are saying it is okay to lie, depending on the circumstance, because the grace of God allows us to. Is that right? Larry: You are saved by grace, and grace teaches, and you must obey grace. Preachers today are teaching people to sin by teaching Luther and Calvin. Matt: But, isn't grace that which is not of the law? Larry stopped talking to me at this point. I suspect it is because he cannot make his system of thought work very well. By way of correction, we are justified before God by faith, not by works (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). The reason we do good works is because we are saved, not to get saved and not to keep ourselves saved. (www.carm.org/dialogues/keep_law.htm) |
||||||
867 | Must we keep the law to be saved? | Rom 3:28 | Radioman2 | 88993 | ||
"Salvation is not a reward" Matt: You write: "But when does a person truly obtain salvation. God said that his reward is coming with him on the last day. Most men have not received this reward yet." My reply: Ephesians 2:8-9 New Living Translation (NLT) God saved you by his special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
868 | Faith and Works: Paul vs. James | Rom 4:3 | Radioman2 | 80824 | ||
Faith and Works: Paul vs. James 'There is a way to reconcile what Paul and James say. The key to reconciling them is that the word "justified" has more than one meaning. Paul uses it with one meaning in Romans 4 and James uses it with a different meaning in James 2. It is not uncommon that a word has more than one meaning. In fact, it is common that any given word would have a multitude of meanings. Look in a dictionary and you can see that almost every word has more than one meaning, almost without exception. It is the context that dictates what meaning is in view. (...) 'There is a difference between when God justifies a man and when a man justifies himself. When I say to you, "Justify yourself," what am I asking you to do? I' m asking you to justify your actions, prove to me something about the nature of your actions. You are being asked to show me something. 'When God justifies a man, He doesn't show them something. He gives them something; He gives them righteousness. 'So justification has two meanings. God justifies the ungodly. What does that mean? He gives them righteousness. He applies it to their account. He "reckons them righteous" is how Paul puts it. So one meaning of the word justify is to GIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS. The second meaning of the word justify is to PROVE TO BE RIGHTEOUS. It has to do with a demonstration, just like when I tell you to justify yourself. 'How do I know that there are two different meanings that are in view? Both Paul and James quote Abraham, but they quote different periods of his life. Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:4 and that passage says that "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Another way of putting it is that's when Abraham got saved. Abraham gets saved in Genesis 15. 'Later on in his life, long after this event, we see God testing Abraham in Genesis 22. Take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice on the altar. When he obeys God and does what he is told to do, God stops him in the middle of it and says, You don't have to do this anymore, I have provided a substitute. God makes a very important statement. In verse 12 of Genesis 22 He says, "Now I know that you fear God since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me." By the way, the word "know" in the Old Testament communicates a sense of a deep, personal experience, not just intellectual knowledge. When James quotes Abraham's justification, he doesn't quote from Genesis 15 when Abraham was reckoned righteous--He quotes from Genesis 22 when Abraham demonstrated his righteousness, proved himself to be righteous. 'Further, what' s interesting is that not only does he quote Genesis 22, but he sees Genesis 22 as an outworking or a fulfillment of his salvation in Genesis 15. In fact, James quotes the passage. He paraphrases, "Was not Abraham our father justified, proven to be righteous by his works, when he offered up Isaac his son at the altar? You see that faith was working with his works and as a result of the works, faith was perfected and the Scripture was fulfilled, which says Abraham believed God and was reckoned to him as righteousness." 'Abraham obeyed God's command.' (Faith and Works: Paul vs. James by Gregory Koukl) (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/works.htm) |
||||||
869 | When is a sinner counted "not guilty"? | Rom 5:9 | Radioman2 | 79203 | ||
You write: "If justification (God's act of declaring one righteous) comes (and only begins) when I believe, does this mean that God changes his whole view of me just because of something I did (to believe)? Does it mean that God has a totally different way of seeing me while in unbelief and then changes his way of seeing me now that I believe? Such concept seem to suggest that by believing I am able to cause God to see me differently. How does this makes sense to you?" No, God does not change his whole view of you just because of something you did. No, by believing you are not able to cause God to see you differently. There is nothing you can do to cause God to see you differently. You are not justified by anything you did. If you are justified, it will be by what Christ did when he shed his blood for you on the cross. Justified by His blood AMPLIFIED Romans 5:9 Therefore, since we are now justified (acquitted, made righteous, and brought into right relationship with God) by Christ's blood, how much more [certain is it that] we shall be saved by Him from the indignation and wrath of God. |
||||||
870 | sin or no sin | Rom 5:13 | Radioman2 | 104040 | ||
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; (NASB Romans 2:12) All who have sinned without the Law will also perish without [regard to] the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged and condemned by the Law. (AMPLIFIED Romans 2:12) |
||||||
871 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80126 | ||
AMPLIFIED Romans 6:3 Are you ignorant of the fact that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? John Gill's Exposition of the Bible Romans 6:3 'Know ye not that so many of us as, etc.] You must know this, you cannot be ignorant of it, that whoever were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: and therefore must be dead to sin, and consequently ought not to live, nor can they live in sin. 'This does not suppose, that some of this church were baptized persons, and others not; but that some might be baptized in water who were not baptized into Christ: there is a difference between being baptized in water in the name of Christ, and being baptized into Christ, which believers in their baptism are; 'by which is meant, not a being brought by it into union with Christ, which is either secretly from eternity, or openly at conversion, and both before the baptism of true believers; nor a being brought by it into the mystical body of Christ the church, for this also is before it; 'but rather it designs a being baptized, or a being brought by baptism into more communion with Christ, into a participation of his grace and benefits; or into the doctrine of Christ, and a more distinct knowledge of it: the power of which they feel upon their hearts, and so have really believed in Christ, heartily love him, and make a sincere profession of him; 'though rather the true meaning of the phrase "baptized into Christ", I take to be, is to be baptized purely for the sake of Christ, in imitation of him, who has set us an example, and because baptism is an ordinance of his; 'it is to submit to it with a view to his glory, to testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying any stress or dependence on it for salvation; such who are thus baptized, are "baptized into his death"; they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement: now this proves, that such persons are dead to sin, who are so baptized; 'for by the death of Christ, into which they are baptized, they are justified from sin; by the death of Christ, their old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; besides, believers in baptism profess themselves to be dead to sin and the world, and their baptism is an obligation upon them to live unto righteousness.' (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/) |
||||||
872 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80534 | ||
Does James 2 contradict Romans 4? 'The most serious problem these verses pose is the question of what James 2:24 means: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." Some imagine that this contradicts Paul in Romans 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." John Calvin explained this apparent difficulty: 'It appears certain that [James] is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of all believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as Justified who are destitute of good works. . . . Let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works. [Henry Beveridge, trans., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3:17:12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966 reprint), 2: 115.] 'James is not at odds with Paul. "They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel." [The New International Commentary on the New Testament] In 1:17-18, James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God. Now he is stressing the importance of faith's fruit--the righteous behavior that genuine faith always produces. Paul, too, saw righteous works as the necessary proof of faith. 'Those who imagine a discrepancy between James and Paul rarely observe that it was Paul who wrote, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!" (Rom. 6:15); and "Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (v. 18). Thus Paul condemns the same error James is exposing here. Paul never advocated any concept of dormant faith. 'When Paul writes, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight," (Rom. 3:20), 'he is combatting a Jewish legalism which insisted upon the need for works to be justified; James insists upon the need for works in the lives of those who have been justified by faith. Paul insists that no man can ever win justification through his own efforts. . . . James demands that a man who already claims to stand in right relationship with God through faith must by a life of good works demonstrate that he has become a new creature in Christ. With this Paul thoroughly agreed. Paul was rooting out 'works' that excluded and destroyed saving faith; James was stimulating a sluggish faith that minimized the results of saving faith in daily life. [D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 175.] 'James and Paul both echo Jesus' preaching. Paul's emphasis is an echo of Matthew 5:3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." James's teaching has the ring of Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." Paul represents the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount; James the end of it. Paul declares that we are saved by faith without the deeds of the law. James declares that we are saved by faith, which shows itself in works. Both James and Paul view good works as the proof of faith--not the path to salvation. 'James could not be more explicit. He is confronting the concept of a passive, false "faith," which is devoid of the fruits of salvation. He is not arguing for works in addition to or apart from faith. He is showing why and how, true, living faith always works. He is fighting against dead orthodoxy and its tendency to abuse grace. 'The error James assails is faith without works; justification without sanctification; salvation without new life. 'Again, James echoes the Master Himself, who insisted on a theology of lordship that involved obedience, not lip-service. Jesus chided the disobedient ones who had attached themselves to Him in name only: "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46). Verbal allegiance, He said, will get no one to heaven: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). 'That is in perfect harmony with James: "Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (1:22); for "faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (2:17). [Excerpted from Faith Works] www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/james2.htm |
||||||
873 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80563 | ||
Tim: Thank you for a very good post. You point out: "The common mistake made here is to interpret 'justified' as referring to salvation . . . It has two possible meanings. "It can mean 'justified', or it can mean 'shown to be righteous'." I agree 100 percent. JUSTIFIED is used in two different ways. I have tried to get this point across several times in recent days. Yet each time I do, I get the same response: Someone repeats and repeats that it is being claimed that there are two different FAITHS. This is nonsense! My posts were never about two different faiths. Instead, they addressed the same issue you did, that "justified" has two possible meanings. It's so simple! James talks about being justified in the eyes of men. Paul talks about being justified (declared righteous) in God's eyes. The only evidence of a person's having been justified that men can see is what they see on the outside. God looks on the heart. And it is God who declares us righteous in his sight. He does so based on faith, not works. Romans 3:28 (ESV) For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Ephes. 2:8-9 (ESV) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Moreover, it is absurd to imply that one portion of scripture (James) contradicts another (Romans). God, the Author of the Bible, does not contradict himself. Radioman2 |
||||||
874 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80693 | ||
The reason you don't see water salvation in the Bible is that it simply is not there. The only way to extract that erroneous teaching is to take a few verses out of context, isolate them and completely ignore what the entire rest of the Bible has to say on the subject of salvation and the sole condition for salvation -- which is faith. | ||||||
875 | Why no response my friend? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80740 | ||
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; 2Pe 2:17a (KJV) ...clouds they are without water, carried about of winds... Jude 1:12 (KJV) |
||||||
876 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80821 | ||
Faith and Works: Paul vs. James [Tim: I think you will find the following to be of interest.] 'There is a way to reconcile what Paul and James say. The key to reconciling them is that the word "justified" has more than one meaning. Paul uses it with one meaning in Romans 4 and James uses it with a different meaning in James 2. It is not uncommon that a word has more than one meaning. In fact, it is common that any given word would have a multitude of meanings. Look in a dictionary and you can see that almost every word has more than one meaning, almost without exception. It is the context that dictates what meaning is in view. (...) 'There is a difference between when God justifies a man and when a man justifies himself. When I say to you, "Justify yourself," what am I asking you to do? I' m asking you to justify your actions, prove to me something about the nature of your actions. You are being asked to show me something. 'When God justifies a man, He doesn't show them something. He gives them something; He gives them righteousness. 'So justification has two meanings. God justifies the ungodly. What does that mean? He gives them righteousness. He applies it to their account. He "reckons them righteous" is how Paul puts it. So one meaning of the word justify is to GIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS. The second meaning of the word justify is to PROVE TO BE RIGHTEOUS. It has to do with a demonstration, just like when I tell you to justify yourself. 'How do I know that there are two different meanings that are in view? Both Paul and James quote Abraham, but they quote different periods of his life. Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:4 and that passage says that "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteous." Another way of putting it is that's when Abraham got saved. Abraham gets saved in Genesis 15. 'Later on in his life, long after this event, we see God testing Abraham in Genesis 22. Take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice on the altar. When he obeys God and does what he is told to do, God stops him in the middle of it and says, You don't have to do this anymore, I have provided a substitute. God makes a very important statement. In verse 12 of Genesis 22 He says, "Now I know that you fear God since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me." By the way, the word "know" in the Old Testament communicates a sense of a deep, personal experience, not just intellectual knowledge. When James quotes Abraham's justification, he doesn't quote from Genesis 15 when Abraham was reckoned righteous--He quotes from Genesis 22 when Abraham demonstrated his righteousness, proved himself to be righteous. 'Further, what's interesting is that not only does he quote Genesis 22, but he sees Genesis 22 as an outworking or a fulfillment of his salvation in Genesis 15. In fact, James quotes the passage. He paraphrases, "Was not Abraham our father justified, proven to be righteous by his works, when he offered up Isaac his son at the altar? You see that faith was working with his works and as a result of the works, faith was perfected and the Scripture was fulfilled, which says Abraham believed God and was reckoned to him as righteousness." 'Abraham obeyed God's command.' (Faith and Works: Paul vs. James by Gregory Koukl) (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/works.htm) |
||||||
877 | carnal Christian? | Rom 7:14 | Radioman2 | 91964 | ||
New Creature: The answer to your questions (or the answer you accept) depends on one's definition of the following words: . carnal . spiritual (the antonym of carnal) . Christian Until questioner and answerer agree on the meaning of key terms, there can be no agreement or meaningful dialogue on any given question. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
878 | carnal Christian? | Rom 7:14 | Radioman2 | 91988 | ||
New Creature: You write: "According to the Scriptures, the spiritual state of the soul is normal for the believer, but to this state all believers do not attain, nor when it is attained is it always maintained." All believers are not spiritual all the time. The opposite of spiritual is carnal. So when a believer is not spiritual, he is carnal, is he not? "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." Romans 8:6 (NKJV) I see only two alternatives here: to be carnally minded or spiritually minded. It is one or the other; there is no in-between. As you say, carnal means "having the nature of flesh, i.e., sensual, controlled by animal appetites, governed by human nature instead of by the Spirit of God." When a believer is not walking by the Spirit, then it must be that he is governed by human nature (the mind of the flesh, the carnal mind). When this occurs, is he not carnal? Although my understanding of the matter seems to line up with Scripture and reason, I'm not being dogmatic here. I merely pose these questions for your consideration. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
879 | carnal Christian? | Rom 7:14 | Radioman2 | 91999 | ||
New Creature: You've made some good observations here. Nice work. Radioman2 |
||||||
880 | Ques. re the Carnal Christian Teaching | Rom 7:14 | Radioman2 | 92042 | ||
Questions re Carnal Christian Teaching ____________________ "Since all Christians have remaining sin in them and since they sin every day, how much sin, or, what particular sins classify a person as a carnal Christian?" ____________________ 'Questions Raised by the Carnal Christian Teaching' '1. Are we sanctified passively, that is, by faith without the deeds of the law? (Note: I did not say justified but sanctified.) If sanctification is passive--a kind of "let go and let God"--then where do we place the apostolic admonitions in the New Testament such as, "I fight," "I run," "I keep under my body," "let us cleanse ourselves," "let us labour," "let us lay aside every weight"? None of these are passive expressions nor do they express some single act as the experience of victory or some single experience as the means of becoming more spiritual and mature. '2. Does not appealing to the so-called carnal Christian to become a spiritual Christian depreciate the real conversion experience by over-appreciating the second experience by whatever name it may be called (which is variously designated higher life, deeper life, spirit filled life, triumphant living, making Christ Lord not just Savior, etc.)? "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). This passage is not talking about a second experience but rather about what happens in a real conversion experience. 'Has the spiritual Christian finished growing in grace? If not, what is he to be called, as he continues to grow in grace? Do we make still more unbiblical categories, such as, "spiritual, spiritual Christian" or "super spiritual Christian"? '3. Who is to decide who the carnal Christians are and exactly what standard is to be used in determining this? Do the spiritual Christians decide who the carnal Christians are? Does a church or preacher decide where the line is to be drawn that divides the two classes or categories? Would you like the responsibility of dividing the members of your church into unsaved, carnal Christian, spiritual? Since all Christians have remaining sin in them and since they sin every day, how much sin, or, what particular sins classify a person as a carnal Christian? '4. Do not all Christians act like natural men at times in some area of their lives? '5. Do not the inward sins, such as, envy, malice, covetousness, lasciviousness (which included immorality on the mental level) prove that a person is carnal just as much as some outward manifestation of external sins? '6. How much sin can a spiritual Christian commit and still be in the spiritual category? '7. Does the Christian go back and forth from spiritual to carnal and carnal to spiritual? How often can this changing of categories take place? '8. When and how does a carnal Christian become a spiritual Christian? '9. Are there different degrees of carnality and different degrees of sanctification in the so-called spiritual Christians? 'If some of these questions seem a bit ridiculous it is because they are raised by an unbiblical, ridiculous teaching.' ____________________ The Lordship Controversy and the Carnal Christian Teaching (Part 2) Ernest Reisinger (To whom it may concern: Please do not ask me to explain what Reisinger means. Let Reisinger explain what Reisinger means. To read more go to: (http://www.founders.org/FJ17/article2.html)) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ] Next > Last [66] >> |