Results 1 - 20 of 35
|Results from: Answers
On or After: Thu 12/31/70
Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Date
|1||The River of No Return?||Bible general Archive 1||userdoe220||21710|
|I have read Ed's post and agree with many things he has pointed out. Let me tell you my take on this matter.
I think human nature is what has divided us into denominational boundaries. We naturally gravitate to people who agree with our interpretation of the Bible on pet doctrinal beliefs (I am not referring to Orthodox vs. un-Orthodox teachings. I am referring to those beliefs that most would consider secondary issues: Rapture of the church; Bible Prophecy charts; Sanctification issues etc.). Whenever someone stands in the pulpit and declares something as true and others don't see that teaching as true they only have 3 options at their disposal: 1.) Choose to stay in the church and not make a big deal out of it 2.) Attempt to change the other person’s view 3.) Choose to leave the church and attend one that views the Bible the same way they do on the issue at hand.
Let me share a personal testimony that my wife and I had in a church in Texas. For a short period of time my wife and I attended Hillcrest Christian Church. This church comes from a background that espouses the belief, “No Creed But Christ.” They had no official creed (statement of beliefs on paper) and actually criticized churches that chose to write down their beliefs on paper stating “all creeds do is divide the church of Jesus Christ!” Therefore, creeds were looked at as something evil and not to be tolerated among real Christian churches. The only difference I found in the “Creedal Church” and the “Christian Church” was the former laid everything they believed out in the open and the latter left you guessing and probing in the dark trying to find out where they stood on issues. My family spun our wheels until finally we boiled down what the church body as a whole embraced: Their un-written creed! Yes, they had a creed but chose not to write it down. I will list 4 beliefs that I did not agree with that most of the church body at Hillcrest did:
1. Baptismal regeneration.
4. O.T has no application to the N.T. believer
By the way, the pastor found out that he violated one of the unspoken creeds of the church after 10 plus years of ministry: Verbal Plenanary Inspiration of the Bible. He did not believe in the verbal plenenary inspiration of the scriptures. Talk about one ugly scene that would have been avoided if the Elders of the church had produced, in writing, their doctrinal beliefs prior to hiring him as their minister.
Allow me to make two observations about this church’s denominational attempt to unify the body of Christ:
1.) In the name of Unity, they produced another division in the body of Christ. You now have a “non creedal” division in Christ’s body.
2.) The slogan “No creed but Christ” sounds spiritual but it is not practical. They have creeds, they just choose not to write them down on paper. You will find out what their creeds are when you find yourself thrown into World War XXXXXX in their adult Sunday school class.
I appreciate this denomination's attempt to unify the church but feel it will never work until Christ comes back for His bride. Yes, denominational biases are reflected in our forum but let me ask you and others on this forum a question: Do you embrace a truth because it comes from your denomination? Or do you reflect the beliefs of your denomination because it is True?
|2||Muselim Religious||Eph 2:8||userdoe220||21248|
|Suprisingly, there is an article in the Dallas Morning News Religion section on this topic. One thing that is interesting is that each person converted because they appreciated the "disciplined life" that muslims lead. Wow! What an indictment to Christians. I think Foster's book, "the celebration of discipline", needs to be read from the pulpits.
I would use this to bring up the one of the practical ramifications in the calvanits/armenianist debate but I will refrain.
|3||Why do people lose interest and leave?||Bible general Archive 1||userdoe220||21181|
|I have a few observations:
1. Re-occuring themes come up for a good reason. book entitled "Doctrines that Divide" one thing you will notice as that not much has changed in 1800 years of church history and a number of beliefs stem from your understanding of predestination and free will. So, there will always be re-occuring themes on the forum.
2. Try to keep posts short. I don't have time to respond to a 6 page critique filled with 50 scripture verses (I know I am over-exaggerating). Tim Morant is the king of getting the most out of few words--My hat goes off to you. I know...I need to practice what I preach.
3. Don't copy or cut and paste articles from other authors. I don't mind qoutes--actually I like them--but I don't want to respond to RC Sproul; I want to respond to Sir pent (Not that he does that, I just had to use a name of someone on the forum).
I am relativly new to the forum and stay because I enjoy hearing how other people from different Theological understandings approach certain passages.
My 2 cents...Well maybe 1.
|4||Muselim Religious||Eph 2:8||userdoe220||21175|
|The qoute I have heard was the Islamic faith is the fastest growing religion in America--not the world. I don't want to take away from that stat or attempt to be-little the stat in any way, because that alone is impressive in the eyes of man.
why is the Islamic faith the fastest growing faith in America (maybe the world)? I have a few ideas about that.
1. We offer a concept that Arab nations do not--Freedom of Religion. They can freely proseltize in the entire world and we as Christians cannot do so in Arab dominated parts of the world without the fear of death and imprisonment. This puts on at a real dis-advantage when it comes to the numbers game because a large percentage of the world is under Muslim dominated Governments. Which, by the way, has me a little concern with the above stat. Will Muslims, if they become the majority in America, enact the same type of laws here as they do in the countries they came from? I would hope the answer is no, but the track record is rather bleak. I hope I am dead wrong about this.
2. In America a large number of Blacks are now choosing to abandon Christianity for the Islamic faith. In Dallas, Texas where I live, there are "Black Muslims" who stand on almost every intersection in certain parts of town handing out literature (Most of it is VERY Racist). Basically, they feel that Christianity is a white man's religion and because the literature is not to keen on Jews, it does not help to point out that Jesus was Jewish and not white. This creates a very powerful tool of pursuasion: "An us against them" scenerio.
Also, a number of black professional athletes are following the course of Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) and not only converting to Islam but activly criticizing the Christian faith. Since atheletes are role models for kids, they are naturally having a negative impact upon those who look up to them in this regard.
These are my observations on your post.
What can Christians do about it?
We need to support missionary efforts both in the states and abroud. The church in America, when you look at the wealth we produce, can do a whole lot more in fullfilling the Great Commission.
The church needs to stop equating Christianity with the Republican party. Social programs are birthed from people who care about others--You might feel that care is mis-directed, but nevertheless the motives are good. When you make statements like this one, you alienate yourself from a major portion of our population.
Serpent stole my point three. I would recomend reading his point.
I hope this helps.
|5||how do you define faith?||Bible general Archive 1||userdoe220||20993|
|Are you a member of Mensa? Just curious.|
|In the epistles, Paul and other authors responded to issues in the church that was brougt to their attention. The reason why musical instruments never came up is because it was never an issue.
I have a few questions to ask you and those who happen to believe this way.
Why are you (they) throwing out the book of Psalms and other O.T. worship passages that include musical instruments? Where in the N.T. does it tell you to exclude passages in the O.T. that include musical instruments? Didn't James qoute the O.T more than 30 times in his short book? Doesn't the book of Hebrews, Matthew, I and II Peter and other N.T. books qoute heavily from the Bible of their day--O.T? How about the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers (early church fathers)? They qouted heavily from O.T. passages.
By the way, musical instruments are mentioned in the N.T.
And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song:
I hope this gives you a number of things to think about.
|7||A Wonderful Plan? How do you know?||Rom 1:18||userdoe220||20314|
|First, the verse you throw out—and probably most that you use to backup that God as micro-managed the universe—refers to a nation not to a particular individual.
This passage reverts more particularly to the fall of historical Babylon in 539, and the permanent extinction of her power and posterity. As a confirmation beforehand of this promise concerning Babylon, the Lord foretold the more immediate disaster to the armies of Assyria (the suzerain of Babylon at the time) in Palestine (v. 25), which took place upon Sennacherib's invasion of 701 B.C. All these disasters to neighboring nations would demonstrate the irresistible power of the one true God, the God of Israel (vv. 24,27).
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)
God can have evil/good plans in store for a nation and bless individuals within that nation He is judging. Look at Jeremiah’s life. He was mightily used of God (Great plan for his life), yet suffered the fate of exile with his brethren, Israel.
Second, if the Gospel is for all people—I am one that believes it is—than God does have a wonderful plan for those who choose to bow their knee to the Lordship of Christ! That plan (pre-determined destination in life Eph 1) is ultimately the changing of that individual into the likeness of Jesus Christ. What better plan can be promised to an individual? So, yes, I can with full assurance tell someone on the street that “God does have a wonderful plan for their life.”
|8||Revelation told by the stars?||Bible general Archive 1||userdoe220||19541|
|I have also heard Robert Shuler say something similar to what Perry is teaching. I don't buy into it but, if you do want to find out more about this, Robert Shuler has produced a book (It may be a teaching series) on the subject. I am sure you can find it on his website.
Like I said in the post--so I don't get stoned--I don't really buy into it. I think it is more speculation than anything else.
|9||An Arminian Consensus in the Forum?||1 John 2:2||userdoe220||19304|
|Armenianists are not Universalists. The only point, as an armenian, I would accept would be the first one.
No Armenian that I know teaches that:
1.) Christ's death results in the forgiveness of all men.
2.) Christ's death results in the forgiveness of every man of all sins except one.
3.) Christ's death results in the forgiveness of all men, but they will stile go to Hell if they don't believe.
I have never heard an Armenian teacher or Theologin teach the above three points. Armenianist do teach teach that Christ's death extends the offer of forgivness to all men not just to a few. We do not believe that Jn 3:16 is Jesus "speaking in terms so that the unlearned can understand" but, Jesus meant what he said..."The Whole World." Christ's sacrifice is offered to everyone and everyone has the ability to accept or reject this offer.
The last three points hint of universalism.
|10||Who will claim the reward?||Col 1:1||userdoe220||19224|
|As long as he is the judge and jury in the competition he is safe and his money is in no danger. I could make the same statement (opposite his beliefs) and as long as I was the judge and jury, I would make sure my money was safe and sound.
You might ask how?
1.) Throw me a scripture in the O.T. concerning the Sabbath I would take a dispensational approach and nullify it.
2.) There are no passages in the N.T. that enforce Sabbath worship for N.T. believers. If you show me one, I will just say it does not apply.
Money safe, period.
Claims like those carry no weight with me.
|11||Pre exilic old testament prophets||OT general||userdoe220||19089|
Wow! The Lord Sure was patient and Longsuffering!
I hope that helps.
I got this information from Toward and O.T Theology Walter C. Kaiser, Jr Zondervan Pulisher House 1991
|12||When did the day of worship change?||Acts||userdoe220||18685|
|As Christianity spread beyond the borders of Palestine/Israel, the church became increasingly Hellenistic. Up until 65AD the Roman Government treated the church as just another sect of Judaism--Kind of like the Essenses/Pharisees etc. Why did they do this? Because they:
1.) Used Jewish scripture to affirm what they believed about Christ.
2.) Preached a very uniquely Jewish concept of a Messiah.
3.) Spent time in the synagogues—Even Paul would go to the synagogues in the cities he evangelized in the book of Acts and try to persuade them in the truths of Jesus.
The one thing I want to say from the start, is the early church was a mix bag of ideologies. There were those in the early church—Marcion comes to mind—that hated anything Jewish; Therefore, I think you would be hard pressed to find anything from Marcion that promoted the Sabbath as the Christians' only alternative to worship. He would not even consider the O.T as being part of the new Christian Canon and many of the Gospels because they contained O.T quotations. But for the most part, very early on in the churches development you see the church focusing more on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) in honor of His resurrection and less on Sabbath worship. You see the pattern beginning in the Book of Acts and by 65 AD most of Christedom was using Sunday exclusively as the Churches’ day of worship.
The Didache, which was a document in circulation around 60 AD, already had the church meeting on Sunday’s.
“But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."”
Although the Didache is not scripture, it does provide us insight into the thought process of the early church in regards to this matter. I think in the church, the closer you got to Jerusalem the more Jewish Christians hung on to Jewish traditions. The further you got away from Jerusalem—and as Rome began to take center stage and Jerusalem lost its importance—the more those traditions were looked at as optional and discarded.
I hope this provides a little insight into how the early church viewed this issue. I will let others argue weather the church was right in adopting Sunday or wrong.
|13||Let not thy body be a chimney||Bible general Archive 1||userdoe220||18063|
|I think David Satcher said that...Surgeon Gerneral|
|14||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Bible general Archive 1||userdoe220||17578|
|[1 Corinthians 15:5] Jesus appeared to the twelve after he rose again.
[Mathew 28:16] Jesus appeared to the eleven after he rose again.
What the heck. I will answer another one.
In Matthew, Judas was not alive when Jesus appeared to the masses. 12 disciples(apostles) minus one (apostle...Judsas)gives you 11(apostles) disciples.
In Acts 1 the disciples chose another disciple, Matthias, to replace Judas. Matthias was a witness of the ressurection and therefore constittued the 12th apostle--some debate here. So, Paul could say in 1 cor. 12 that Jesus appeared to the 12--the 12th being matthias.
|15||Advise on contradictions found in bible||Bible general Archive 1||userdoe220||17577|
|Mathew 27:5] Judas went and hanged himself.
[Acts 1:18] Judas fell headlong, and burst asunder in the midst, and
all his bowels gushed out.
Serpent handled one, so I will also handle one.
Judas did hang himself and Matthew accurately records this event. Luke just adds a little more detail to the account about what happened after Judas hung himself--Rope was cut/or broke, Judas fell down and split open and his insides came out. If you watch old war documentaries, when a person dies their body will fill up with internal body fluid. Eventually, the person’s body will rupture causing his fluids to spill forth. If Judas were hanging for any period of time, this process would be magnified when his body went crashing down to earth. Sorry for the graphic details.
These two passages do not contradict each other. A contradiction is when two statements together can't possibly be true. Let me give you an example:
Matthew states that Judas hung himself and died.
Luke, the author of Acts, states explicitly that Judas did not hang himself.
Both statements can’t possibly be true.
A number of people bring up "apparent contradictions" without ever asking if the two statements can both be true at the same time! A number passages mentioned in your post definitely fall into this category. In the Gospels the Holy Spirit gave the author’s liberty to add details that they deemed important to the story they were telling. Just because some of the other gospel writers did not feel a particular detail of an event warranted inclusion into their gospel, does not mean the detail did not happen or is a contradiction.
|16||Can I trust this Pastor?||Hebrews||userdoe220||16920|
|I don't think this alone should be a test as to weather you should trust him or not. I know a number of fine Bible teachers who firmly beleive that Paul wrote Hebrews.|
|17||I do agree with most of your post, but..||Matt 6:14||userdoe220||16368|
|I also agree with a number of things you are saying in your post. I believe that without the aid of the Holy Spirit it is impossible to live up to His standards for our life. Also, because we are human beings we can never live up to God's standard. However, that still does not mean I cannot be called a Christian by my definition. Lets analyze your argument for a moment.
1.) A Christian is a follower of the teaching of Christ.
2.) You cannot fullfuill all the teachings of Christ
Therefore, you cannot be called a Christian by your definition.
Here is what I believe is the problem with your argument. Isn't one of the teachings of Christ an admission that we are not perfect? In fact, Jesus provides provission for this imperfection in the Lord's prayer.
9In this manner, therefore, pray:
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
So, when we sin and ask God to forgive us, we are 'following the teachings of Christ'. No where does the term, Christian, as used in the N.T. and elsewhere imply perfection. It just means those who adhere/follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Lets look at the Etymology of the term, Christian. Believers were called Christians First in Antioch. Why? Did the locals have some keen insight into caterpillars and butterflys and how that links to the born-again expereince? No. They were called Christians first because they followed the teachings of Christ (Acts 11:25-26). They noticed that they acted differently from others.
"The word Christians occurs in the NT only here, in Acts 26:28, and in 1 Peter 4:16. The word is formed with the Latin suffix which designates "follower or partisan of" (cf. "Herodians" in Mark 3:6). There is no adequate reason to think that the term was used in derision. It simply means people who follow Christ." from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.)
christianos NT:5546, "Christian," a word formed after the Roman style, signifying an adherent of Jesus, was first applied to such by the Gentiles and is found in Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
How did they know they followed Christ? By their actions. It is the only logical thing that makes sense. I use the term, Christian, as an adverb--It modifies the persons actions--It does not mean perfection.
I hope that clarifies how I use the term, Christian.
|18||Why the forgiveness strawman?||Matt 6:14||userdoe220||16361|
23Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' 27"Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. 28But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!' 29"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' 30"And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?' 34"And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."
"The parable of the unmerciful servant teaches that men who have experienced God's forgiveness are accountable to display forgiveness toward others. This is the standard of the kingdom of heaven (see comment on Matt 13:11)."
It seems we will be held accountable for not operating in forgivness. I don't think it means we are not saved and I don't believe that is what Steve is saying. What I am saying is we as believers will be held accountable if we choose not to forgive others who have wronged us.
|19||Shouldn't we obey ALL God's Word?||Matt 6:14||userdoe220||16352|
|Hebrews points out that this is a shadow of the perfect sacrifice, Jesus. The answer would be, no.
I think this is what we call in speech class a "straw man" argument. Using extremes never brings about a good discussion. So, I ask for everyone in this discussion to be a little more realistic. You know that no Christian group teaches that, so lets try to bring our examples back to earth. Use a better example like worship on the sabbath. Not something way out in left field.
|20||If Law is quoted in NT, does it apply?||Matt 15:4||userdoe220||15936|
|Depends on your theological bent.
If you are a certain flavour of dispensationalist, Jesus was under the Law so a number of things he said does not even apply to us in the "Dispensation of Grace". If Paul or the epistles qoute the O.T. then you can say it applies to the life of the N.T. beleiver.
If you are a reformist (Not all reformist think alike), the Law has application in the life of the believer. What the reformist must do is look for timeless principles that transcend culture and can be applied to God's people in all times.
There is a very good book produced by the Point Counter Point series titled "5 Views of the law: How does the Law apply to a Christian(Not a complete title and frankly it is paraphrased somewhat. A good church at Christianbook.com will bring up this book).
5 authors from 5 different camps explain their position and attempt to refute the other authors explanation. The one thing this book taught me is, there is no easy, concise explanation. In enjoyed reading the book and immediatley was able to discard 2 of the five views presented. The one thing I liked about the book, was each camp spoke for themselves. It was not a dispensationalist writing a book on why reformed theology is bad.
Hope this helps
|Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last  >>|