Results 1861 - 1880 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1861 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81435 | ||
Radioman2: I believe it was my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that everyone should wear their theology on their user ID that got everyone in such a tizzy. You try and take credit for EVERYTHING! :) So what does the rest of the Forum think? Did Radioman2 provide the post which started the silliness or did I? Please back up your answer with Scripture... --Joe! (that's REFORMER Joe to you) |
||||||
1862 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81448 | ||
"Obviously, Joe, it was you who started the silliness." Thanks. It may seem like it comes naturally, but I have to work at it pretty religiously to make it appear so seamless. --Joe! |
||||||
1863 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81969 | ||
"A couple of thoughts. The early (1st century) church never intended to set up an organization (too bad, RCC) because they didn't think they would be here long enough to worry about it." Oh, I disagree. The admonition for church order in 1 Corinthians, the establishment of deacons in Acts, and the appointing of elders in the pastoral epistles all point to an organized movement rather than a free-for-all. The apostles were not establishing a corporation, to be sure, but they definitely were managing the large numbers of converts by incorporating them into an organized body. "Moreover, 'doctrines' weren't important because those who were valued were (quite logically) those who personally knew Jesus and could relate first-hand knowledge." Then why does the largest epistle in the New Testament (Romans) start off with eleven chapters of nothing but doctrine. In fact, every single one of the epistles in the New Testament contain healthy chunks of doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his doctrine, to guard his doctrine. Clearly doctrine was an important issue for the church in all ages. "For example, Augustine (and later Calvin) took substantial steps (for good or ill depending on your view) to harmonize the Gospel with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle." Please illustrate how Augustinian theology is neo-Platonist. "However, some immediately saw (and others over time) that some of the 'bad' side effects were a descent to 'legalism' and coldness of spirit. So, Mr. Wesley (and others) reacted back toward an experiential emphasis and an emphasis on the uiversal and impartial application of grace which set up the debate which this thread continues." The picture of the "frozen chosen" is a highly inaccurate one, which one can discern from the fact that the modern missionary movement was undertaken not by Wesley and company, but by those who loved and embraced Reformation theology. While Wesley was a committed evangelist, he was not the first. And lest we forget, the other key players in the First Great Awakening were Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, both adherents of Reformed doctrine. I would encourage all Christians to investigate church history. It is a highly valuable exercise and keeps one from making false generalizations at the same time that it provides a very real connection to one's spiritual heritage. --Joe! |
||||||
1864 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82545 | ||
Mormons and Muslims are not winning converts because of any lack of division in their ranks. Islam has many sects, such as Sunni, Shi'a, and Ismali. Both the LDS and the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized LDS) claim to be the true followers of the "prophet" Joseph Smith. Divisions much more radical than those between Baptists and Presbyterians have not prevented the success of proselytizing in the U.S. Why are the cults and false religions winning more converts? Number one: unregenerate sinners prefer lies about God. Number two: the evangelistic efforts of many of these groups are professional, polished, and persistent. I contend that evangelical Christianity is not keeping pace with the growth of Islam and the LDS simply because "evangelicals" are NOT evangelizing the way we have been called to do by our Lord. --Joe! |
||||||
1865 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82558 | ||
'I thought you worked with cults? You never heard “Christians can't make up their minds what to believe?” Almost every cult member I have talked to said that to me in one form or another.' Of course they do, and it is a red herring, because their own separatist existence is a declaration that, yes, "everyone else is wrong." Anyone who makes any claim to any belief is implicitly declaring that anything in opposition to that belief is in error. Muslims do it, Mormons do it, birds do it, bees do it... 'I hate to tell you but professionalism and polished doesn't win prisoners to Islam, it is the united front, Islam presents to them. By the way our prison system is being overrun by Islam. ' What does that have to do with the differences between Christian denominations? Convicts converting to Islam has very little to do with deep theological introspection. "Professionalism and polish isn't winning Mormons it is family values and a church united." Just like any other cult, the LDS is a false church that holds everyone else to be wrong. They lie about that fact frequently, of course, but the fact that they conceal their differences with evangelical Christianity doesn't make them any less exclusivistic about their own beliefs. "But I imagine every one of the thousand know the Baptist think Presbyterians are wrong and vice versa. " Of course they do, because it is a fact. The fact that I disagree with Baptists on certain issues (and that I agree with some Baptists who disagree with other Baptists on certain issues) does not mean that I do not consider both of us to be members of the same body. I disagree with Hank here and there (sometimes fervently), but I would say that we both agree on our bond of unity in Christ. The bottom line is that unsaved people merely use denominational differences as an excuse to continue in sinful rebellion against God. I have yet to meet anyone who has said, "I want to be a Christian, but I can't because of all the denominations." Nor have I heard many, if any, Christian evangelists proclaiming their denominational labels in place of Christ and Him crucified (which, incidentally, is precisely what Mormons do). "Of all the religions, all the denominations, all the churches that have tried to evangelize me, I have never been evangelized by a Presbyterian. Maybe they thought I wasn't elected. ;-)" I can't remember being evangelized by an AOG, myself. Maybe they thought speaking in tongues with a Texas accent would be annoying... :) --Joe! |
||||||
1866 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82590 | ||
"Rather than trading jabs with you, cause I’m sure if I said red you would say blue." Yellow, actually. :) "Can you honestly say you believe Christ is happy with the divided church?" No, but He is extremely well-pleased with doctrinal purity wherever it is found. The importance of embracing revealed truth outweighs fellowship for fellowship's sake. "If not do you think it is incumbent on us to ‘attempt’ to correct the problem or should we ignore the situation and go merrily on our way?" Well, if I could correct the problem, you would have embraced Reformed theology a long time ago. Since I cannot force people to change their minds or control how they respond to differences of opinion, I can only follow Scripture's command: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." --Romans 12:18 I respect the right of other believers to disagree with me on many issues. I can and do fellowship with many such individuals. We are members of the same body, with one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, despite the fact that we do not see eye-to-eye on everything. Christian unity despite certain doctrinal disagreements. It is not a question of ignoring the situation. We often reach an impasse with those who disagree with us. The question is whether that doctrinal impasse is significant enough to warrant a division. I agree with the many posters who have affirmed that not all separation is bad separation. For example, if a denomination gets to a point where significant numbers reject the authority of Scripture, is it right to continue to be associated with such a body? If my denomination were to begin ordaining homosexuals to the ministry, how far should I go to maintain an illusion of "unity" before the watching world? If my appeals to Scripture are completely ignored in such a situation, how long should I remain that denomination so that the watching world won't perceive the very real division that exists in that case? Attempting to correct the problem is quite noble, but one also must accept the fact that in our fallen age such resolution will frequently be impossible. --Joe! |
||||||
1867 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82741 | ||
"Many reformers did not hold that view." Which ones didn't? "And your right I could never follow the teachings of Calvin. He created God in his own image and sadly many have been deceived by his tragic view of God. Calvinism is fatalistic removing all responsibility for man’s action from man and basing the final outcome to God’s responsibility. All love and desire to worship God is only present if God so wills it and without that desire man is a destined to eternal damnation." Ah, I see us coming to consensus already! :) You are illustrating perfectly why doctrinal unity will not be achieved in this age. The question is whether you can peacefully coexist with those brethren who disagree with you on this and other points. --Joe! |
||||||
1868 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Reformer Joe | 36038 | ||
Jesusman: You encouraged John to look into the history and culture of the Bible to examine whether the doctrine of particular redemption is a valid one. Yet you didn't offer any concrete historical-cultural basis for concluding that it is not a biblical doctrine. I was just curious why you mention such a technique without demonstrating at all how it allegedly proves your point. One other thing...you wrote: "Remember, the original authors of the Bible weren't writing to the future Church. They were writing to a specified group in a specified time in a specified culture." You are right here to a certain extent in saying that the primary recipients of the letters were the addressees in question. However, the divine Author of the New Testament was indeed writing to us, giving us truths that pertain to all human beings in all times and all cultures. So the future church is indeed addressed by the biblical texts, and not merely indirectly. --Joe! |
||||||
1869 | Say we that love God so much,Still fall | 1 John | Reformer Joe | 53095 | ||
Thanks for the link. The Web site is correct in pointing out that the Navigators, like Campus Crusade for Christ, has a blend of the good and the not-so-good. Bridges most definitely falls into the former category. He is a covenant theologian, but that is about the only thing in this review that is correct about him (and being one myself, I don;t consider that an attack). Oh, the process of sanctification does involve discipline on our part, but he got that kooky idea from this book called the Bible. It is interesting that the site, while claiming to be a review, doesn't mention one word about the contents of any of those books. If you want to be a Berean, like the Bereans of Paul's day, remember that they searched the SCRIPTURES to see if what he was saying it was true. With the wealth of Bible references, as well as an accompanying Bible study guide in some editions, I think that it is safe to say that Bridges is quite biblically sound. This book, like the others of Bridges, are completely God-centered and Bible-based. As for the Web site, it seems to be a mixture of good and complete misunderstanding. Beware of the term "moderate Calvinism." While it is a (wrong) viewpoint that genuine Christians can hold, it is not really Calvinism at all. My recommendation? Get Bridges book and pick up your Bible and study what he says for yourself. You will be richly rewarded. --Joe! |
||||||
1870 | Immaculate Conception, mary, how? | 1 John 1:8 | Reformer Joe | 67391 | ||
Fierce? :) Well, at least give me credit for knowing the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth! That's better than a good number of Protestants I know! --Joe! |
||||||
1871 | who is pure from sin | 1 John 1:9 | Reformer Joe | 38098 | ||
Norrie: Your post raises some really good issues. I think even today you and I both look at things in our lives that are offensive to God's perfect holiness and decide for ourselves that they are "no big deal." Even in our current state of being adopted children of God, we still are much worse in our behavior than even we think we are. I have recommended this book many times on this forum, and I will do so again now because I have found it to be the most helpful and biblically-sound book on this issue of grace, faith, sin, obedience, and salvation and how they all play together in the Christian life. It is called _Righteous Sinners_ by Ron Julian, and I am going to plug christianbook.com as well simply because the book can be picked up for a couple of bucks there. It is easily worth 10 times that amount for the wealth of biblical exegesis found there, and it is so immensely practical, rather than being abstract. As for homosexuality and the Bible, Paul is pretty clear in Romans 1 that it is the highest form of being given over to depravity. I am not saying that one cannot be saved from homosexuality, but to read Paul's extreme condemnation of the practice in no uncertain terms and to simply dismiss that makes me seriously doubt the spiritual condition of anyone who says that gay is okay. Imagine someone who is a murderer going around saying that all of the prohibitions against murder are all culturally-based and that David was a murderer (Uriah), so murder is really okay. It just doesn't wash, and they are exchanging the truth of God for a lie. --Joe! |
||||||
1872 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6967 | ||
Thanks for the prayer, Tim. We have about 50 teens who are investing at least two weeks in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in a variety of different settings this summer. I do hold to a "sovereign will"/"moral will" distinction myself on the part of God, in which God's sovereign will is everything done according to his active involvement in affairs of creation, as well as his allowance of things that he allows that are outside his moral will (e.g. rebellious acts on the part of demons and humans, or "non-moral" acts such as me choosing the red shirt over the blue one). What I meant on the whole "God's will failing" is the following: 1. God is omnipotent and omniscient 2. If God is willing that no humans perish at all, then 3. He is either incapable of saving everyone or chooses to limit Himself in some way, stopping short of doing everything possible to convert the sinner. And from a Calvinist perspective, the only way God "prevents people from being saved" is by not extending saving grace to them. It is the depravity of their nature, their sin, their active rebellion against a holy God which prevents them from being in a right standing with God. It just doesn't logically follow that if God chooses to show undeserved kindness to some that all the rest suddenly deserve the kindness shown to the elect. The elect are shown mercy; the reprobate receive justice. No one is shown injustice. I would contend that NO ONE wants to submit to God in their unregenerate state. In looking at an Arminian view, why is God's "prevenient grace" effective in some and not in others? Does God not know what the "hook" is to reel the sinner in? Or is it that the one who chooses Christ is wiser or smarter or more intuitive or whatever? If the latter is the case, how can the one who chooses Christ not have a reason to boast superiority to the one who also received "prevenient grace" and didn't choose Christ? In short, what is the quality in the sinner that makes her choose Christ rather than reject Him if God's saving grace is extended to all, and how is that not meritorious in itself? --Joe! |
||||||
1873 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 7024 | ||
Tim: You said, "You ask whose sins are people suffering in hell for? Their own, because they refused to accept the sacrifice of Christ, which was sufficient to pay for all our sins." This is precisely my problem with the view of unlimited atonement. Did Christ die for any ACTUAL sins? Take a person (let's call him "George" for simplicity's sake). The view of unlimited atonement says that Christ died for George's sin on the cross. If George "refuses the payment," according to Arminianism, then George pays for his own sins for all eternity. Therefore, we have a case where Jesus AND George pay the penalty for George's sin. The only other alternative I see is viewing Jesus' death on the Cross as only a POTENTIAL atonement for everyone, rather than an ACTUAL atonement for the elect as Calvinists view it. Christ's death really saves no one unless we act in accordance with it. It is terribly troublesome to think that Christ and I both have to do something for Christ's sacrifice to not be a futile one. If there is another alternative that I am missing in which God ends up being just (no "double jeopardy") and Christ's sacrifice was an actual payment for the actual sins of actual people on the first Good Friday, please point that out to me. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1874 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 7025 | ||
Tim: You wrote, "May I point out that every time you deal with a passage that says "all" or the "world", your objection is based upon your theology, not upon the text itself. 2 Cor. 5:11-20 simply does not make any sense under Calvinism, but it makes perfect sense under Arminianism. Our reconciliation is an accomplished objective fact at the cross (God was reconciling the world to Himself), but we must accept God's gift (and be reconciled.)" Actually, I used to hold a view similar to yours, so my adoption of Calvinist theology was based in part on the fact that ALL are obviously not saved, and therefore reconciliation is not an "accomplished objective" for all human beings. In addition, I do not conclude as you do that the other passages we previously have discussed reveal a "nations" view, rather than an "individual" view on election, unless one pre-supposes an Arminian free-willism. Actually, the more troubling thing about 2 Corinthians 5:19 for me is that the "Be reconciled" command seems to be directed toward those who are believers already (i.e. already "reconciled" in a salvific sense). Why do you think Paul would tell the saints to "be reconciled"? --Joe! |
||||||
1875 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19524 | ||
Tim: How does the Arminian interpret Jesus' conversation with the Jewish leaders here? "Then He said again to them, 'I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.' So the Jews were saying, 'Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, "Where I am going, you cannot come"? And He was saying to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.'" --John 8:21-24 It seems from this passage that those who will not believe in Christ will die in THEIR sins. How is this possible if all sin was propitiated at the cross? And just a side note: Arminians also do not take every instance of "all" to mean "every single one." To be fair, you should point out that the Reformed do not say that "all" means "some," but rather we disagree as to whom the "all" is referring to. For instance, Ananias says to Saul: "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard." --Acts 22:15 Was Paul really a witness to all men? Even if we consider his epistles a "witness," is he even today a witness to ALL men? One more example, so as not to belabor the point. I would think that you would agree that every human being is not justified, but we have verses like this: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." --Romans 5:18 Now if we take this verse by itself, it would seem to teach universalism. We may disagree on the interpretation of this verse in its context, but I would think you would admit that ALL are not justified, since that comes through faith in Christ. The context qualifies words like "all," Tim. That is why we can go to 2 Peter 3:9 and say that the "all" in that instance could very well mean "all the elect" (cf. 2 Peter 1:1-2) rather than "all of humanity" (which clearly will NEVER happen). --Joe! |
||||||
1876 | An Arminian Consensus in the Forum? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19525 | ||
Norrie: To get back to the root of the distinctives between Calvinism and Arminianism, you can read the Canons of Dordt. Since this a Calvinist document, all that it affirms represents Calvinist theology, and all that it rejects/denies are distinctives of Arminianism. I would encourage anyone who wants to undertsand the differences and why they are so important to read this document. It will help you grasp the two views and see why you are generally one or the other, even if you reject the labels themselves. You can find it here: http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html --Joe! |
||||||
1877 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19563 | ||
Tim: Regarding Acts 22, my point was that the savage in the deepest jungle of the Amazon forest has not been witnessed to by Paul. Therefore, not "all men." I know that this is so completely obvious so as to be ridiculous. However, the point I was trying to make was that most everyone understands that Ananias' words to Saul were not referring to every single individual on the earth at that time or ours. This is one blatantly obvious example of where "all" needs to be understood in a contextual/common sense fashion. Granted, 2 Peter 3:21 does not fall into the "blatantly obvious" category. However, the sweeping statement that the Reformed simply want to instantly re-define "all" to mean "some" does not really ring true. The problem that the Reformed have with the Arminian interpretation of this verse, incidentally, is that Peter is saying that the return of Christ has not come yet because God is waiting. Why is God waiting? Because he desires for all to come to Christ. When will ALL come to Christ? Never, and God knows that. If his desire regarding the salvation of each and every human being will not be met (God not ultimately getting what He wants is a BIG problem for me, but let's leave that for now), he has known that from the beginning. So once again, what is God waiting for? --Joe! |
||||||
1878 | The 'Kosmos' in 1 John | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 19566 | ||
Tim: RE: John 8 Reformed teaching goes further than saying "only the elect will respond in faith." We hold that individuals can only die in THEIR sins because they are not atoned for. It is that same situation of "Who pays the just penalty of the sins of the damned?" Arminians seem to say that it is BOTH Christ and the sinner. --Joe! |
||||||
1879 | What commandments to keep? | 1 John 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 54534 | ||
The word of the LORD *is* doctrine, Bub. Doctrine means "teaching" or "instruction." As you have correctly pointed out, the word "Torah" can mean the same thing. The question, therefore, isn't between "the word of the LORD" and "doctrine," but rather which doctrine is indeed the word of the LORD. Here are the things that you have directly said or implied that is considered to be heresy by the Church of Jesus Christ: 1. That the New Testament (at least in its entirety) is not the word of God. 2. That Christ's death was not sufficient grounds for the forgiveness of our sins, since the temple sacrifices should have continued if the temple had not been destroyed. 3. The church is not following Jesus Christ, but is rather a thinly-veiled paganism which rejects the "truth." How such "paganism" would have met with such fierce opposition in a thoroughly pagan Roman Empire no one has yet to adequately explain to me. 4. I would assume that you would deny that Y'shua and the Holy Spirit are YHWH, so correct me if I am wrong there. 5. You have insisted, contrary to the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Paul's epistle to the Galatians, and the epistle to the Hebrews, that the entire Torah must be kept for one to be a follower of Jesus Christ. You STILL have failed to address my post citing Hebrews which answers questions you yourself raised, choosing to ignore them completely. 6. You have posted that Christianity is a false religion born of cowardice in the face of Roman persecution of Jews (when the destruction of the temple and the city itself was God's judgment upon Israel's rejection of her Messiah -- Matthew 24). What among the things above classifies you as someone meeting the guidelines that the owners of this Web site as someone qualified to post here? And from the perspective of biblical Christianity, which is the world view of this forum, you are indeed a heretic for holding any ONE of the above positions, just as you consider and have accused Christians to be heretics from the "true faith" (even if you have not used that exact word). So please do not try to spread your false beliefs on a Christian forum, criticizing the New Testament and Christianity itself, and then start crying about what a "victim" you are. Repent of your own failure to follow Torah because of your depraved nature, and embrace the only one who was righteous in His own right before God, and won that righteousness for all who trust in his once-for-all sacrifice. The word of the LORD? Here it is: 'What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." 'Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 'But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. 'This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 'Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 'Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.' --Romans 3:9-31 Y'shua is THE Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sins of the world. He is the Passover Lamb. Embrace him by faith and escape the wrath of YHWH to come. --Joe! |
||||||
1880 | What commandments to keep? | 1 John 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 54668 | ||
Did Sunday worship originate with Constantine in the 4th century? "On the day called the Feast of the Sun, all who live in towns or in the country assemble in one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read as time permits. Then, when the reader has ended, the President instructs and encourages the people to practice the truths contained in the Scripture lessons. Thereafter, we all stand up and offer prayers together." --"Apology," Justin Martyr (110-165) "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens." --The Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between the destruction of the Temple in 70 and the Bar Kochba revolt in 132) "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight." --Acts 20:7 "On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come." --1 Corinthians 6:2 The first day surely seemed to be set aside for something, and unless God let worship of His Son degenerate into false teachings within one generation of the resurrection (since it is quite obvious that the Jews by and large rejected Jesus as their Messiah at all), we must accept the fact that there does exist a very ancient tradition for setting aside the first day of the week in honor of Jesus Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ] Next > Last [97] >> |