Results 2141 - 2160 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2141 | Joe, what is Paul and Hebrews 'the Law'? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17915 | ||
Bill: Thoughts? Of course! You should know me better than that by now... :) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." --Matthew 5:17-19 Whoever teaches the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. What commandments is Christ speaking of? Have heaven and earth passed away yet? Then why do some try to annul God's moral commands? As far as dismantling the Law, I am supporting no such thing. God's moral requirements both are encapsulated in the decalogue, but also pre-date the law as well. His moral requirements for humanity extend back as far as the garden, long before Moses came down from Sinai. Paul even mentions this in Galatians: "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made." --Galatians 3:17 The covenant made with Abraham was pre-Law (in the Mosaic sense). It was not a covenant of works, but rather a covenant demonstrating God's grace. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. If God's moral requirements only exist in the form of the Mosaic Law, we not only have the question of those who pre-date the Law, but also those who lived afterward but were not under the Law of Moses (i.e. the Gentiles). Paul speaks to them in Romans: "For there is no partiality with God. 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. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" --Romans 2:11-14 We can glean several truths from these few verses: 1. Gentiles do not have the Law (of Moses) 2. They do instinctively the things of the Law (Does this mean sacrifices? I doubt it) 3. They have the Law (or law) written on their hearts. Again, is this the system of sacrifices or feasts? It seems that when Paul talks about the Law, he is referring to different aspects of the Law depending on different circumstances. 4. All who have sinned without the Law will perish without the Law. Therefore, only the Jews were "under the Law" in the first place, in the Mosaic sense. However, we are all accountable to the moral law of God, which is seen and expressed clearly in the Law of Moses, but also is eternal. We see God expressing his covenant of works with humanity in Genesis 2:16-17, based on His perfect standard of morality. Our first parents were not under the Mosaic covenant, nor the covenant of Abraham, but still obligated to follow the moral directives of God. Why do you contend that when Christ died and rose again that the moral requirements of God, which did not begin at Sinai, ended at Calvary? Again, I am not arguing that any of us are able to keep the requirements of God's moral law. That is why God established his covenant of grace with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15) and later more specifically with Abraham though which all the peoples of the earth would be blessed. God's covenant of grace was fulfilled at Calvary, and all who trust in Christ are part of that covenant. However, all humanity, as descendants of Adam, are part of the covenant of works established by God, which has never been nullified. The reason I am saved is that I am in Christ, who fulfilled the covenant of works for me and all who believe. One other question that would help clear things up on your perspective for me, Bill: what can I do as a Christian to honor God in my daily life that is not expressed in the Law? If the moral law passed away with the Mosaic Law, how am I to please God without obeying the moral commands found in the Pentateuch? --Joe! |
||||||
2142 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17899 | ||
The Reformed perspective takes its name from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. In most people's understanding, the two main branches of the Reformation were that of Martin Luther (from which the Lutherans derive their theology -- well, the ones who didn't fall into the liberal traps a century ago) and the further reforms of Calvin (hence the Calvinists). The name "reformed" usually is synonymous with an adherence to the teachings of Calvin on salvation, taking a high view of the sovereignty of God and centering around the famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) 5 points of Calvinism. By the way, I don't think it is a dumb question. Theology is fascinating, and we all have a theology. The names exist to provide categories for thinking about theology. Your wife being a former Catholic, I would think that she is quite familiar with creeds and confessions. Confessions and creeds, while they certainly do not carry the weight of the inspired Scriptures, serve to establish in writing how one group of people understands the Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a 17th-century document which was drafted to codify the biblical understanding of the Reformed Church in England. Another document which holds to a Calvinist view of salvation is the London Baptist Confession of 1689. The important thing to remember is that while creeds and confessions do indeed divide and set people apart, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Rejecting the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, for example, is to deny the Trinity. And while I do consider many who hold to other confessions to be wrong on certain points (as they do me), I am certainly able to fellowship with a great number of them as brothers and sisters in Christ. In addition, confessions help to keep individuals from being blown about by every "wind of doctrine" that comes along (Ephesians 4:14). The "trustworthy sayings" of Paul to Timothy and passages like Philippians 2:6-11 are considered by many to be segments of creeds as well. Creeds, confessions, and catechisms were drafted by fallible men like we are, but that is not to say that they were not drafted soberly and carefully in councils and committees over considerable periods of time. You say that you do not call yourself a Protestant anymore. While there may be some advantage in using the term "Proclaimer," I would suggest that simply rejecting a title does not make you non-Protestant in beliefs. If you believe that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, apart from any merit or works on our part whatsoever, that makes you a Protestant in your theology. Tht distinguishes you from Roman Catholics who hold that God's grace is added to our faith and works in order that we may merit the Kingdom of God. To those others who have stated in their posts that labels/denominations are bad: would you be comfortable if someone did not classify you as a Christian? What if someone could not "pigeonhole" you as being different from a Hindu or Muslim of Sikh? Religious labels do place people in categories. That does not make us robots, conforming 100 percent to every belief that everyone else in that category happens to hold. Also, classification does not mean all-out conflict between those Christians who happen to be of different denominations. I have serious problems with the Arminian/Wesleyan tradition, but I do not consider fellow posters Nolan and Tim to be false brethren. I reject a lot of the excesses and lack of discernment that is found in the Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations; however, most of them I would consider brothers and sisters in Christ. Labelling me as Reformed or Calvinist does not bother me in the slightest, because it sums up in a word the core of what I hold to be be biblically accurate. Of course, I am always more than happy to explain the disctinctives. For more info on the Reformed tradition in Protestantism, I would point you to these sites: http:///www.reformed.org http://www.pcanet.org http://www.reformedreader.org http://www.markers.com/ink/ --Joe! |
||||||
2143 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17897 | ||
Bill: Don't get frustrated with "neat, little boxes." They are merely shorthand to categorize beliefs. The reason I assume that you are a dispensationalist is due to information in your posts and in your profile. You attend a Bible church in Texas, which most likely means that your elders and/or pastor have an affinity for the theological distinctives of Dallas Theological Seminary, making a distinction between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church and characterizing much of Jesus' teachings as "Old Testament," not applicable to "New Testament" believers. That is dispensationalism, in which the Bible is divided into "OT performance" and "NT grace." Now that dispensationalism is defined, you probably don't have a problem with the label so much. My problem with what you have written in this and other posts is that you seem to be trying to ride two horses at the same time. Have all men always been saved by God's grace through faith? I think that what you have stated is that, yes, they are. I agree. So how could the Old Testament be characterized as "performance" and not for the "New Testament believer" if even the Old Testament saints were not saved by the works? I realize the passing away of the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel is concurrent with Christ's atonement; but it has always seemed quite a stretch for me that Jesus was singing one tune during his whole ministry (the OT one), and then suddenly meant everything he spent three years teaching to be null and void after He rose again. --Joe! |
||||||
2144 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17860 | ||
What, then, is the precise difference, in your opinion, from being "reconciled, redeemed, and regenerated" and being "saved." "Reconciled" means that God and I have been brought together again. "Redeemed" means that God has bought me back from the sinfulness to which I was a slave. "Regenerated" means that I have been made a new creation. In what way did Peter not possess these things pre-Crucifixion and still be "saved"? In other words, if his relationship with God were wtill severed, if he still was a slave to sin, and if he were still the same ol' Peter in every way, how can we say that he was saved before Pentecost? An excellent work on the question of faith, works, and assurance can be found by reading a book called Righteous Sinners, by Ron Julian. --Joe! |
||||||
2145 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17854 | ||
Wow...a lot of what you say sounds very Reformed for a dispensationalist! :) My question about works addresses not that we do it on our own (the Westminster Confession states that it "is the work of God's free grace"), but that sanctification will always accompany justification. Therefore, we can agree with James that "faith" without works is a dead faith which does not save anyone at all. It is our faith that justifies us; but a true, saving faith is ALWAYS accompanied by sanctification. And THAT is something that every Dallas Seminary-trained preacher that I ever sat under denied. --Joe! |
||||||
2146 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17830 | ||
Peter was a believer in Jesus Christ and therefore saved, whether Pentecost had come or not. He may have not been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but he certainly was a believer in Christ. He had faith in his Messiah and that is what made him Christ's, even before the atonement took place. Otherwise, we have the big question of how all those other people before Christ's atonement on the cross could possibly have been saved. Surely you don't insist that following the Old Testament Law saved them? "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." --Hebrews 10:1-4 Impossible, it says. Bill, We are justified through faith. What role does works play? That is the theme of Hebrews, James, 1 John, 1 Peter and a whole host of other post-resurrection books? How do you explain the message of PERSEVERENCE in those books (and others, including those of Paul)? --Joe! |
||||||
2147 | Lost my salvation? (Hebrews 6:4-6) | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17824 | ||
Just as a side note, the Calvinists will debate the precise meaning of this passage, but most like me will characterize those being addressed as those who are APPARENTLY Christians, but who do not persevere until the end. The Reformed believe in "once saved, always saved," but in the sense that all of those whom God has regenerated will be preserved to stand firm in their faith until the end (perseverence of the saints). That is not to say that they will not falter in their faith, or that they will not sin, but that no one truly saved will ever finally and fully reject the faith. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whoaccording to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." --1 Peter 1:3-5 --Joe! |
||||||
2148 | peace | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16671 | ||
Peches: I really have no animosity toward you whatsoever, and as a gesture of peace I would love to send you a little book called "Why God's Word is All We Need" by Gene Edward Veith. It is only about 50 pages long, and if you email me your address, I would be happy to send it as a gift for you to read and perhaps understand why I have the view that the Bible is completely sufficient for us. My email is on my profile. In Christ, --Joe! |
||||||
2149 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | Reformer Joe | 16624 | ||
I was not focusing on good works getting into heaven at all, since we are saved not by our rightousness or our works or the things we have done, but SOLELY by the mercy of God through the righteousness and perfect works of Jesus Christ (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:6-8; Romans 4:2-5; Romans 3:28). My point of disagreement with you is precisely on the nature of humanity apart from Christ. The Bible says that that humans by nature are "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). We do not want to serve God. We have all gone astray. There is no one good; not even one. There is no one who seeks God. St. Paul made that abundantly clear in Romans 3:10-18. We are NOT good. We do not desire to please God. We are God's enemies until regenerated by the Holy Spirit: "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Romans 5:10) We in our own nature do not please God at all (Romans 8:7-9). Our natures are morally corrupt, not basically good. The whole of Scripture demonstrates that tendency in humanity. I do agree that it is important to present the truth to a child. The Holy Spirit works through the proclamation of His truth, and God uses the Word of God to draw His own chosen ones to Himself. However, the difference between us and the terrorists is not a matter of non-evil versus evil. The terrorists were undoubtedly misguided, but what that misguidance fed is the evil that already exists in all of us. It didn't corrupt a "good person." --Joe! |
||||||
2150 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | Reformer Joe | 16463 | ||
Bob: Nothing like this week's events to be a laboratory for this discussion... Rather than attempt to answer you again myself, I would like to point you to another Reformed minister, John Piper, so perhaps he can explain it in a clearer way than I have. The URL is below, and I would love to hear your comments on it: http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/Suffering/GodAndEvil.htm However, I would like to point out one thing that I have neglected to mention before, having to do with your last statement: "If it is wrong for people to perform these actions, then must it not also be wrong for God to *cause* them to do this?" My answer would be "no." The reason has to do with the difference between God and us. There are a lot of things that God does and still remains holy, by virtue of the fact that He is the Creator and has a right to do what he wants with His creation. For example, it is morally wrong for me to take a human life in most circumstances, but by virtue of being God, he does have the right to do so. Therefore, a core aspect of sinfulness is the very fact that we place ourselves in the place of God, claiming rights and privileges that only He rightfully possesses. Therefore, our sinfulness is often not the deviation from God's moral character, but rather the "cosmic treason" against our heavenly King, as R.C. Sproul puts it; making ourselves (the creation) out to have the same rights as God (the Creator). In this way, I would argue that there are things that God can and does do which are sin for us to do. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
2151 | Bill Mc, Are you twisting Scripture? | Matt 6:14 | Reformer Joe | 16459 | ||
Bill: The problem is that you seem to be saying that Christ's command for us to forgive or we will not be forgiven "isn't for us." I say that it is. If forgiveness is not a pattern that develops in our lives (though we all stray from it on occasion), then we may not be truly saved at all. True faith will always produce good works. --Joe! |
||||||
2152 | Bill Mc, Are you twisting Scripture? | Matt 6:14 | Reformer Joe | 16458 | ||
Bill: But I hold that every moral commandment is directed to believers in Christ today. You are making a distinction between pre-crucifixion moral commands and post-crucifixion ones. I say no such distinction exists. There does exist a distinction between specific commands to individuals and revelation of God's moral requirements of his creation. For example, I do not read Genesis 6 and think that God wants me to build an ark. I do not read Leviticus and think that I am sinning because I am not performing the sacrifices, because Jesus made it clear that he was the fulfillment of the system of feasts and sacrifices. However, honoring my father and mother and forgiving others are indeed what following Christ requires of us. If I am truly saved, following all of Christ's moral commands will gradually become a general mark of my life. Not that I do not sin, but rather that I sin less and my hatred of sin grows and I gradually become more closely conformed to the model that Christ provided. God-honoring works are not the basis of my salvation, but they are always the result of true salvation. If the fruit is consistently bad, we have to question whether the tree itself is good or bad. --Joe! |
||||||
2153 | Bill Mc, Are you twisting Scripture? | Matt 6:14 | Reformer Joe | 16388 | ||
Bill: You are taking Luke 14:33 out of its context: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish. Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." --Luke 14:25-33 Jesus numbers one's family, one's spouse, and even one's life among the possessions that His disciples must give up (v. 25). He then turns to two parables which demonstrate the principle of "counting the cost" of being Christ's disciple. Only then does he say, "so then" and sum up the teaching. The thrust of this passage is not that we must literally give everything away. If all of Jesus' disciples literally had to give everything away that Jesus mentions, then Peter and the other apostles have a serious problem, which Paul justifies: "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" --1 Corinthians 9:5 Are we saying that Peter and the others hated their wives and literally gave up their possessions as disciples of Christ, and then took it all back again after the Resurrection? That would seem pretty nonsensical, just as Christ wanting them to literally HATE their families in the first place or to put real wooden crosses on their backs and walk after Him. How can you take only the last sentence literally? Is that discernment? Therefore, that is not what Jesus taught. Rather, I hold that the passage illustrates something that Paul writes in Philippians: "But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" --Philippians 3:7-9 Caunting things as "loss" (including possessions and human relationships) in light of Christ and actually divesting oneself of everything and everyone are two different things. The context of Luke 14:33 suggests that Jesus meant the former. --Joe! |
||||||
2154 | Shouldn't we obey ALL God's Word? | Matt 6:14 | Reformer Joe | 16385 | ||
Bill: The difference is that the New Testament (Hebrews in particular) tell us that the Old Testament system of sacrifice and feasts was a mere foreshadowing of what was fulfilled in Christ on the Cross: "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." --Hebrews 10:1-4 However, nowhere will you find support that God's moral commandments are any less binding on the believer. We do not earn our salvation by them, but God-honoring works are the mark of every true believer. So says the post-Cross James: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" --James 2:14 James spends the rest of the chapter explaining why the answer is "no." This is not legalistic "you must earn your salvation by good deeds." Nor is it antinomian "no matter how your life is lived, you know that you are saved simply because you claim to believe a set of facts which may or may not have the slightest impact on your life whatsover." It is the Biblical idea demonstrated clearly in the answer to Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 35: "Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness." This is the only way, in my view, to reconcile the importance that the entire Old and New Testaments place on faith AND works in salvation. Or, as the saying goes: we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. --Joe! |
||||||
2155 | Bill Mc, Are you twisting Scripture? | Matt 6:14 | Reformer Joe | 16383 | ||
Bill: Jesus says to ALL of us: "For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great." --Luke 6:43-49 It is the "torrent" of trials and experience and our response to them which demonstrate whether we truly have a foundation in the first place. We are not saved by our works, but a saving faith is demonstrated by following God's moral commandments. if we are truly a "good tree" in Christ Jesus, we will produce good fruit. Christ came to usher in the New Covenant, but that in no way nullifies God's moral will. Furthermore, can you explain to me how true faith is demonstrated in our lives apart from following God's commandments? Yes, believers still sin, and often we do not forgive. However, the true saint of God will gradually become more forgiving, and more and more honor God's commandments. If we are not being conformed to Christ's image, then we have every right to question whether we truly do possess the kind of faith which is described in the Bible as saving faith. Read James 2 for a clear explanation of this concept. --Joe! |
||||||
2156 | peace | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16380 | ||
Yes, I am judging you by the same standard by which you should be judging things. And I do have all the answers to life's important theological questions. They are leather-bound in one volume on my desk in front of me. Don't worry, however; I am done "preaching" that you should be "reading" the Bible God has given us. You keep searching for that "something more" (which really seems to be "something else" in your case). --Joe! |
||||||
2157 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16248 | ||
Charis: I agree with what you say about the Bible, the church, and the Holy Spirit. I am sure that you agree, also, that the Bible is our tool for discerning whether it is truly the Spirit who is working. I also would bet that you believe that when a church and the Bible are at odds, it is most likely time to find another church. In other words, the Bible is our sole objective, immutable authority for knowing God. It requires the Spirit's teaching us (John 14:26), and faithful misisters proclaiming God's truth are definitely a gift from Him (thanks be to God for them!); but the whole Christian life for us in the post-apostolic age is centered in the completed canon. When I was referring to illiteracy and the unavailability of Scripture, I was referring to the Middle Ages and pre-Reformation Renaissance more than the early church. Certainly God has preserved His people throughout history, many of whom have very little access to Scriptual truth of any kind. But the Scriptural truth that they go get is what they cling to. Think of Chinese Christians who have one Bible for about every 500 believers. These are people who do not so casually put aside the Word of God. They THIRST after it in a way I have seen few believers in free countries thirst after it. They have the Spirit. They are congregated. But it is the Bible that makes the Christian growth complete. The problem that I am addressing however, is the notion that the Bible is "not enough" in some sense, that we must rely on other, outside sources for a complete knowledge of God. This leads to lots of errors on the part of the original poster, which mostly center around the apparent opinion that mankind is basically good and clearly reflects God's nature in our humanitarian deeds. "Good" deeds such as the rescue attempts in NYC, while they are helpful and are making a temporal difference in our world (and I DO support the efforts, so save the flames, onlookers!), also can be done from very humanistic, and God-dishonoring motives. It does not reflect the "innate goodness" of the human race, which you know the Bible denies (Romans 3:10-18). The Bible is the only thing we have which unmistakably conveys the nature of God, and looking at humanity as a whole without a knowledge of the Bible is the most ridiculous way of learning about God's character. But I am sure that I am speaking to the choir here... --Joe! |
||||||
2158 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16244 | ||
Corection is helping for those who will receive it. We do not learn anything about God outside of the Bible that is not already revealed in Scripture period. Your low opinion of the sufficiency of Scripture is the root of your confusion. I still agree that I do not know it all. You did read my post, didn't you? When people couldn't read they were at the mercy of the faulty and self-seeking interpretations of a religious hierarchy. It was spiritual bondage, not spiritual freedom. God is revealed in nature, yes. However, there is nothing new that nature tells us that the Bible doesn't already say. Bottom line: spiritual growth does not occur apart from the Scriptures, which is God's direct revelation of Himself. Want to know God's character, His nature, and His plans? Read the Bible! Want to know about human nature? Read the Bible! Want to know how to honor God? Read the Bible. Want to know how to pray more effectively and intelligently? You get the idea... Peeches, I do not despise you or look down on you as a human being, but it is simply WRONG for you to declare that the Bible which God gave us Himself is not enough for the believer. It is WRONG. It suggests that God somehow "dropped the ball" and forgot to tell us something that He wanted us to know. Furthermore, it is an insult to the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible precisely so that we would know Him. He makes the book available to us, and you put it aside and think, Where can I find answers?" I implore you to look for spiritual truth not OUTSIDE the Bible, but within its pages. And that is a point of view most on this forum would heartily agree with. In Christ, Joe! |
||||||
2159 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 16177 | ||
Yes, you are supposed to use your brains, which includes avoiding such statements as this: "The bottom line is you don't really know either because if you did then you would not have been so negative about me asking the question." The reason I do indeed know is that I HAVE read what Scripture has to say about it. God is uncreated. Period. No more speculation needed. The Bible declares that God has eternally existed and will eternally exist. I gave you a whole host of verses that support this. If you believe the Bible, you should know now, too. I never have claimed to know everything, but I certainly do make the "arrogant" claim to know SOMETHING, namely what God clearly and in no uncertain terms has revealed about Himself. The reason I have been so "negative" toward you, as you put it, is revealed by what you yourself have said: "However the bible I have not read it in its entirety. however I can But As A Child of God Limit My believes on Only the Bible." Whatever that second sentence is supposed to mean, the first one is perfectly clear: you are not only asking questions about God that are answered clearly in Scripture; but also you are instructing others on this forum to look at fallen, sinful humanity to discover the answers, rather than examining the Scriptures. If you cannot take correction, I apologize, but 2 Timothy 3:16 in my Bible tells me that correction is one thing that the Bible is for. I think it is you who are being prideful for not admitting your theological error here. I certainly do not know it all, but I am more than willing to let God's Word, in the hands of those who know it, be the instrument to correct me. --Joe! |
||||||
2160 | Why did God permit Abram to lie? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 16081 | ||
It was still a deception. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 ] Next > Last [123] >> |