Results 1821 - 1840 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1821 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78421 | ||
"May I intrude? Thank you." No problem! You weren't intruding at all; every thread is fair game. :) "Are you referring to Acts 16?" Among other places, yes. --Joe! |
||||||
1822 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78449 | ||
"You seem to have some inside information on these households. Do you know something about the makeup of those households that isn't recorded in the Bible? Because if you do, I think you should share that with all of us." Why, yes, Disciplerami...I have uncovered first-century census data verifying that Lydia, the jailer, Stephanus, Cornelius, and Crispus each had eleven infants in their household! :) Seriously, do you have any data which would indicate that these five first-century Mediterranean households were so exceptional for their time and place as to have absolutely no small children in them? "I understand though that infant baptism is based upon such assumptions." Actually, infant baptism is not based solely on such assumptions (which are contrary to the assumptions you yourself hold), but rather on a covenantal understanding of how God works with His people. Mine is supported in both Testaments. Please show me where the individualism you hold to is demonstrated in Scripture. Note: I am not saying that infants who are baptized are regenerate. You have one other problem to solve if you dismiss both infant baptism and baptism by any other mode than immersion: where was the church between the age of the apostles (assuming they only baptized professing believers by immersion themselves) and the rise of the Anabaptists in the mid-16th century? --Joe! |
||||||
1823 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78451 | ||
Hello, sniper. You wrote: 'I am not familiar with the term "household baptisms".' In the entire New Testament, only nine individuals (other than Jesus himself) are mentioned by name as having been baptized. The Ethiopian eunuch and Saul/Paul were probably single. Simon Magus and Gaius are not identified as either heading a household or not heading one. The households of the other five (Lydia, Crispus, the jailer, Stephanas, and Cornelius) were baptized upon profession of faith by the head of household. In most of the cases, the belief of the other members of the household is not mentioned at all. You wrote: "The Bible teaches that a person must believe and repent." In order to be justified, yes. I do not argue that baptized infants are automatically declared righteous before God. "If the whole household believed and repented, then they all participated in a valid baptism. Acts 16 tells us that the household was baptized so according to the Bible they all must have believed." The accounts make no mention of their belief. You are imposing your assumption that faith and repentance must precede baptism. "I am not aware of a doctrine which teaches household baptism, whereby the household leader believes and his belief is transferred to the others because of his position." We can clearly see, beginning from Genesis on, how God works not only with individuals, but also with whole families. Entire families and tribes are included among God's covenant people, even when many of them show themselves individually not to be true children of God. Again, note that I am not saying that someone is born again by being sprinkled as an infant, nor does the parent's faith serve as the instrument for the child's justification. --Joe! |
||||||
1824 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78525 | ||
You do not know if Abraham had faith before he obeyed God? You think it is possible Abraham's obedience was faithless? "By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God." --Hebrews 10:8-10 So I ask again, did his faith cause his obedience or not? --Joe! |
||||||
1825 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78587 | ||
Exactly. And you know as well as I that it takes careful study of Scripture not to jump to false conclusions. Faith in Jesus Christ and works are inseparably united, but to consider them the same thing is error. One group tends to go to one extreme, saying that works are faith, while another rejects any theology which even mentions works at all. Same with baptism. Some see it as what justifies individuals. Others see it as a nice "extra" or an empty symbol or picture. It is none of these things. --Joe! |
||||||
1826 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78589 | ||
You wrote: "Before Abraham obeyed God, his faith was not perfect (James 2)!" We can examine what James could have meant by that, but in the meantime, even James 2 indicates that faith is united with works, demonstrating that the faith was present for the works to be added to them. Hence, the faith through which people are justified precedes obedience. Secondly, whatever James means by writing that faith is perfected by obedience, Romans 4:1-11 still tells us that Abraham was saved by his faith prior to and apart from obedience. "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" --Romans 4:5 You wrote: "You ought not put on that superior tone when you know NOTHING of his faith prior to his obedience." No superior tone here, but I humbly do know something of his faith prior to his obedience, because the Bible tells me about his faith prior to it. Hebrews 11:8-10. You wrote: " I think the Hebrew writer has as much sense as you, and he could only speak of what Abraham DID to describe faith." I think the writer of Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so his words are God's words, and therefore could comment on things beyond what he perceived with his own five senses. And what did he say? "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." --Hebrews 11:6 So did Abraham obey God, possessing faith, or not? --Joe! |
||||||
1827 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78627 | ||
Well, we on the other side have to remember that we are not justified by election, that our justification is conditioned upon our faith. And I think that all believers (especially myself) need to remember that at no point in our Christian lives do we need to look at our obedience (or lack thereof) as the basis of our right standing with God. It is so easy to fall into the trap of looking at our sin and despair, thinking that somehow God is now looking at our performance as what will get us into heaven, rather than the obedience of His Son on our behalf. I do see my baptism as a sign and seal of God's promise to me. How gracious of God to give our weak selves visible signs in water and bread and cup to point to His grace. --Joe! |
||||||
1828 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78630 | ||
Greetings. You wrote: "His incomplete faith led to his obedience. We've discussed on this forum the faith that all men have, ought to have, because of the evidence in creation. Each man is without excuse should he leave this earth without being reconciled to God." Amen. But they key term you brought up is that men ought to have that faith. Those who will be in hell do not possess a "faith without obedience" or a "faith that is about to obey." They possess no trust at all in the Jesus of the Bible. "Abraham had this faith and he acted upon it." That he did. And all true faith in Christ does lead to obedience. The question is whether it is the trust in Christ or the obedience (or some combination of the two) that receives the imputed righteousness of Christ. Again, Romans 4 shuts the door on obedience being that conduit. What do you have to say about Romans 4:5? You wrote: "But as I have said, faith that 'is about to obey' isn't what God credits as righteousness." Are you sure? Paul wrote: 'Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them," --Romans 4:9-11 The order of events, according to Paul, is: a) Abraham believed God b) God considers him righteous c) Abraham obeys God by circumcision There is no other way to render the passage but to conclude that Abraham's obedience to God's command to be circumcised was a result and an evidence of his saving faith, so his "faith that was about to obey" was precisely the instrument of his justification before God. And, yes, faith without works is dead, and cannot save. A dead faith is not true faith at all. --Joe! |
||||||
1829 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78690 | ||
Does Romans 1 say that all men have faith in Jesus Christ? "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. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." --Romans 1:18-21 Romans 1 tells us that God has made the truth evident to all human beings. Romans 1 does not state that human beings trust in the truth which God has revealed. In fact, it says the exact opposite: they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So, although the truth is right before their eyes, there is no faith in that truth. And, as I said before, they possess no trust at all in the Jesus of the Bible. Awareness of the truth is not faith in the truth. What the sinner does is exchange the truth of God for a lie. "We know that Abraham was not justified until his belief was obedient. " I am still waiting to hear how you fit Romans 4:5 into what "we" know. As well as God justifying Abraham before his obedience in circumcision. If you are correct, you have to incorporate Paul's argument into your thinking. --Joe! |
||||||
1830 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78720 | ||
"I think your tag name should be 'slippery when wet.' :) No where did I say that Abraham had faith in Jesus Christ!" And I never said that you did. "Romans 1 says that men ought to know there is a God." Right. And that is not faith. "This knowledge ought to lead them to hunger and thirst for righteousness." "Ought to." Check. Again, an "ought to" is not faith. 'If you are Abraham and God says to you, "Abraham, Leave the land of your fathers!" You go. That's the faith that saves.' No, that is the obedience resulting from the faith that saves. No matter how many times you repeat your statement to the contrary, faith leads to obedience, but faith is not obedience. The faith was there before Abraham acted, and it was the faith that was credited as righteousness. '"Awareness of truth is not faith in the truth." There you go again. I didn't say it. ' That is precisely what you implied in your last post: "Romans 1 says they do. On the basis of what God has revealed to all men they may be judged by God. They are without excuse. Faith that has not obeyed is a dead faith. We know that Abraham was not justified until his belief was obedient. " You said in reference to the human beings Paul mentioned in Romans 1 that a faith that is not obeyed is a dead faith. Either this sentence adds nothing to your argument, or your implication was that the people in Romans 1 have a faith that is not obeyed. You wrote: 'Romans 4:5 says, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due."' No it does not. That is Romans 4:4. Please explain the following verses in light of your "faith is obedience" theology: "But to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his FAITH is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness APART FROM WORKS" --Romans 4:5-6 (emphasis mine, so the point will not be missed again) And again, please tell me if Abraham was counted righteous before or after he obeyed by circumcizing himself and his household. A simple "before" or "after" will suffice. This will only be the third time I have asked this simple question. "It is you who can't seem to harmonize Paul and James. I have no trouble dealing with Romans 4:5." Then please deal with it. The REAL Romans 4:5. --Joe! |
||||||
1831 | How did Peter die? | 2 Peter | Reformer Joe | 42082 | ||
The upside-down crucifixion is what tradition holds. --Joe! |
||||||
1832 | How did Peter die? | 2 Peter | Reformer Joe | 42083 | ||
What does any of this have to do with how Peter died?!? Preach the gospel in "all types of bodies"? Where do you go to church? --Joe! |
||||||
1833 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99497 | ||
Whoa. Harold Camping is a nut, a cultist, and not representative in the slightest of classical Reformed theology. If that is what you understand Reformed theology to be, no wonder it is so distasteful. Spurgeon and William Carey and Jhn Bunyan were Reformed. So were many of the writes of the hymns you sing every Sunday (Augustus Toplady, Isaac Watts, John Newton, etc.). Modern-day examples of Reformed teachers would include R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Alistair Begg, Sinclair Ferguson, John Armstrong, John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler (the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and James R. White. Reformed theology also does not minimize the value of introspection regarding one's salvation. The Puritans (who were Reformed) were champions of "self-examination." Whether or not you ultimately agree with a particular perspective is one thing. I think it is in one's best interest to at least understand the different perspectives within the wide range of Christian orthodoxy. --Joe! |
||||||
1834 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99526 | ||
"It was good to hear from you. When I logged in today and saw the notice, I was afraid we might have lost you." Naw, I am a veteran. Guess I can just say that Jesus died and rose again. Anything more would be promoting "denominational bias"! ;) "It do not feel the need to need to study it in depth any more than I feel the need to study Mormonism or Confucianism or any of the hundreds of other isms out there in depth." Of course, the difference is that Mormonism and Confucianism fall outside of Christian orthodoxy. "Again, I was really not aware that Luther and Bunyon and Spurgeon were Calvinists. Now I find out that the list is even longer. But it really does not matter. I would only note that I do not see Peter or Paul or James or John on that list." Well, I would put them on there, but that would just "cause a stink," as my dearly departed grandmother would say. I merely made a list of the indisputable cases. "I am surprised that Harold Camping is not on the list and I think he would be surprised as well." Well, I could call myself a fire engine, but that wouldn't make me one... :) "On the other hand I think John McArthur would be surprised to find himself on it." No, he wouldn't. He speaks at Sproul's conferences every year and is a frequent contributor to _Tabletalk_ Magazine. He and Phil Johnson at Grace to You are big fans of the Puritans. "My hope is that we would be followers, not of men or isms, but of Christ." As is my hope. So I should reject both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? :) --Joe! |
||||||
1835 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99527 | ||
"Does a Reformed person have personal assurance of salvation, and do they not care to be asked about it?" Yes, we have assurance of salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
1836 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99569 | ||
Gee, I don't recall any battle going on between us. "Our salvation depends on our individual repentance and faith and not on the doctrine of the group to which we pay allegience." That itself is a doctrine of the group to which I pay allegiance (speaking of both my denomination and "the one holy catholic church"). Your statement that I quoted above IS doctrine. Lastly, although justification is an individual experience, the Bible speaks abundantly of community life in the church. I don't think it unbiblical to assert that in many respects, personal sanctification is a group effort. --Joe! |
||||||
1837 | When did the wicked laugh at Noah? | 2 Pet 2:5 | Reformer Joe | 41644 | ||
Yeah, I had the same problem last summer with this story in the summer missions program I help conduct for teens. The "Bible storybooks" we were using for child evangelism added a LOT of things that could not be found in the Noah account. That's why I make sure that we get to the "source material" before looking at the pretty pictures. I am delighted to hear of your work among the newest generation of God's people! Your reward will be great. --Joe! |
||||||
1838 | Never had a chance to reject Christ | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41106 | ||
Why did you separate verse 18 from its context, since that verse is what the rest of the chapter is explaining? "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" --Romans 1:18 Romans 1 is saying that we ALL know the truth regarding God's existence and character, because it is clearly displayed in the created universe ("the creation of the world...the things that are made" in v. 20), which we all have access to. We deny the truth that is right before our eyes...we suppress it in unrighteousness. The truth of God the Father is not hidden from anyone, and it is our rejection and rebellion against that truth that condemns us and makes us worthy of His wrath. Romans 1:20 says that human beings are without excuse. In the total context of Romans 1-3, we see that Paul, inspired by God, completely and totally rules out any Jew or any Gentile having anything but a closed mouth at the judgment seat of God. The Jews had the Scriptures (Romans 3:1-2), but all men have the light of creation (Romans 1:20) and the light of conscience -- the moral sense that is given to all human beings (Romans 2:14-15). Romans 3:9-18 gives the indictment of all, and Romans 3:23 reinforces it. All human beings stand rightfully and knowingly under God's judgment. Those who "do not know" are in denial, blind by their depraved natures. Individuals are worthy of Hell not for first rejecting Christ, but for rejection and treason against God the Father. --Joe! |
||||||
1839 | Is today the only day of salvation for a | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41212 | ||
Well, that may be true, Arnie. However, you are switching arguments. I thought we were talking about terrorist bombers, not fetuses who do not have cognitive awareness. In theory there COULD be another opportunity for death for salvation, but God has made it pretty clear in His Word that there is not. The salvation which God bestows on His people at all is already far more than we deserve. --Joe! |
||||||
1840 | Never had a chance to reject Christ | 2 Pet 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 41213 | ||
God is effectually calling his people, which will be composed of members of every tribe, tongue, and nation (Revelation 7:9). That is not to say that every last human being will be granted repentance, and "this age" certainly hasn't drawn to a close. God will accomplish his purposes in his timing without violating what He has clearly stated in His Word: "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die ONCE and after this comes JUDGMENT" --Hebrews 9:27 Pretty clear, and there are no qualifications given, nor the slightest hint of a "second chance" after death anywhere in Scripture. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ] Next > Last [97] >> |