Results 1 - 20 of 144
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What doctrines are essential? | Titus 2:1 | Dalcent | 156098 | ||
Faith is usually contrasted with works of the Law (Torah). Faith does not mean faith alone as understood by Protestants, but is rather 'act'-ive faith 'working through love' (Gal 5:6) Luther's German Bible saw fit to change Romans 3:28 from faith to 'faith alone'. i.e., Luther knew the Bible needed doctoring to support his novel theology. (Rom 3:28) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Not faith alone apart from the works of the Law as Luther would want it.) IT IS NOT GOOD WORKS WHICH THE BIBLE REJECTS, AS WE SEE IN EPH 2:10, BUT THE WORKS OF THE LAW (TORAH). (Rom 4:13) For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:14) For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; (Rom 4:16) For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (Gal 2:16) nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Gal 3:2) This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (Gal 3:5) So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (Gal 3:11) Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (Gal 3:12) However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." (Gal 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. (Gal 3:24) Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Read this carefully, genuine Christian faith (working through love Gal 5:6), not "faith alone" is contrasted with the Torah, not Spirit-inspired WORKING FAITH: faith which comes with good works EPH. 2:10 (Phi 3:9) 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, The Bible uses the expression 'faith alone' to say that is how we are not justified. Jam 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Faith alone appears nowhere else. "Faith alone" is the clear and unequivical teaching of Protestants; I'm clear on that. I was when I was the top bible student in Europe's largest Bible college. |
||||||
2 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | Dalcent | 156096 | ||
Are infants condemned to hell as this teaching seems to suggest this. If original sin, and not actual sins committed from the age of reason, is the real problem, the answer would seem to be yes. This is why I believe in infant baptist: just as our first-father Adam condemned us all by his sin, our fathers, in their headship over us, incorporate us into the Christian covenant by their family decision. To suggest that original sin becomes culpable at the point when we reach the age of reason and commit an actual sin would be nonsense. (Scripture does not mention whether the many households who were "all" baptized included any infants.) |
||||||
3 | What doctrines are essential? | Titus 2:1 | Dalcent | 156090 | ||
"A list of fundamental doctrines would begin with: "the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura)," Total nonsense: scripture says nothing of the kind, there is no proof text and the Bible expressively says the opposite: 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. How can anyone with an ounce of nous not see this verse is saying there are authoritative doctrines in the Church committed to writing and delivered verbally; both of which must be held too. It really is completely beyond me why this verse is swept under the carpet. It disproves 'sola scriptura'. Why will they not accept this clear biblical teaching. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; does not say Only Scripture, not do we find any words synonymous with complete or sufficient. Again, not held by any Christian writer until Luther in the Sixteenth century. Furthermore, Hardly anyone apart for a small elite COULD READ until the modern era. Hardly anyone could own a Bible until Gutenberg invented the printing press. Thus only the tiniest minority of people had any access to Christian truth for 1500 years! Christ did not send the Apostles to write but to preach, hardly any of them wrote anything. Was there no Christian truth in the decades from the Ascension until the first NT books were composed. The list of the Biblical canon is not in scripture and is thus a 'tradition' itself. |
||||||
4 | What doctrines are essential? | Titus 2:1 | Dalcent | 156087 | ||
The doctrine of faith alone is not the clearest doctrine in Scripture. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not hold to it nor do ANY of the Church Fathers, including many names which evangelicals respect such as Justin Martyr, Augustine, Ireneaus, etc. More importantly there are plenty of Scriptures which suggest otherwise, especially James 2:24. So what that you have quoted Romans 4:4-5, my Bible has 2000 pages of text. I could sling hundreds of verses that are against faith alone, to say that it is clearly and unequivocably stated in Scripture is complete myth. Why was it "missed" for sixteen centuries until Luther. The writings of the martyrs of the first few centuries did not hold to Luther's faith alone doctrine. Their writings are extant. Were all those saints and martyrs killed by the Roman empire not Christians, and preaching a false gospel. You have also ruled out the entire Christian East (the remnant of Oriental Christians in lands now Muslim). Billions of Christians who lived died and were often martyed for Christ demonstrate your line of thought is completely wrong. |
||||||
5 | Literal translations like the NASB | 2 Tim 3:16 | Dalcent | 156071 | ||
If God inspired the very 'words' of Scripture, which I think everyone here would agree. Then surely this restricts us to essentially literal translations of the Bible and rules out 'thought-per-thought' versions. Am I being harsh? Furthermore, most would agree that a 'word-per-word' translation makes it far harder for the translator to become an interpreter. Anyone care to articulate a succinct summary of the theory of plenary inspiration please. God inspired the 'very words' did he not? |
||||||
6 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | 2 Tim 2:25 | Dalcent | 156069 | ||
My wife(-to-be) and I were prayed for by English Pentecostal leader Colin Dye in 1995. Both of us felt an enormous physical energy, like hundreds of locomotives approaching and then we both smashed to the ground without time for "catchers" to be able to approach. Ten years on my wife sometimes suffers debilitating headaches from the neck injury which never fully recovered. One pastor's (who now is the Principal of Elim Bible College in England) flippant interpretation of this event was to compare it to Jacob's hip injury. |
||||||
7 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Dalcent | 156068 | ||
By my definition, the Jesus-only camp are outside the pale of Christianity because they deny the Trinity. A Christian is someone who holds to both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. The errors of these modern-day Sabellians can easily be refuted by the same arguments the Church Fathers used against them in the past. The "Jesus Only" heresy is the result of placing your own interpretation of the Bible, re-inventing the wheel, over the conciliar definitions of the historic Catholic Church. |
||||||
8 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156051 | ||
I am not so sure the Reformation spelt out the [Roman] Catholic Church was not the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles. I believe if Luther's novel theory of justification had been accepted he for one would have been happy to stay. I think the Reformers believed the Catholic Church had become increasingly corrupt. Also, they still believed the Greek-speaking East was founded by Christ and went back to the Apostles. |
||||||
9 | Is the Word of Faith movement Biblical? | Matt 24:11 | Dalcent | 156050 | ||
Often Word of Faith teachers correctly utilize certain Scripture which evangelicals tend to ignore. Where in the Bible do we find Jesus or the Apostles praying for the sick. They address sickness and demons directly by commanding them with authority. Some of the WofF peculiars are certainly found in Scripture: Believing before receiving: Mar 11:24 "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you. And the we are gods claim... Joh 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), If Benny Hinn had said this he would have been shot! I'm not 'Word of Faith' but I believe in some respects they have had some genuine biblical insights. |
||||||
10 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156045 | ||
Doc, You wrote 'back to the study of the Bible... whose sole authority you affirmed when becoming a member of the forum' I no more affirmed this than the Bible affirms this about itself when it says in 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. I will check the forum rules to see if this is so. I believe you err, this is not a forum rule surely. I affirm that salvation is in Christ and no one else, and that I follow what scripture says about scripture: follow the oral and written traditions, as opposed to any 16th century theories. |
||||||
11 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156043 | ||
Hi Mark, If mothers hypothetically gave birth to attributes then you and I would agree Mary is not the mother of Christ's deity. However, mothers give birth to persons. If a white woman has a black man's child she is that person's mother. Not the mother of the whiteness but not of the blackness; this is a bit odd; I am not quite sure why Jesus is being chopped up here; he is a person he had a mother. We admit the relevant caveats regarding his pre-existence, godhood etc. I think have only capitalized Mother of God, the Christological title , not for she, her, etc. which is a proper title, like Doctor or Master of Ceremonies. As I'm sure you subscribe to the exact formula of the Trinity (defined at the 1st Ecumenical Council) and the dual natures of Christ (human and divine) presumably exactly as articulated at the 4th Ecumenical Council. It would be inconsistent if you don't seem to be going with the 3rd Ecumenical Council. The 4th was very much related to tying up questions raised by the 3rd. The Scripture does say "all generations" will call Mary "blessed". Furthermore, I believe Luke 1 deliberately compares Mary with the Ark of the Covenant: both were vessels which carried God! 2 Sam 6 Verse 2 David “arose and went†…to bring up from there the ark of God … Verse 9 So David …said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" Verse 11 Thus the ark of the LORD remained… “three months†… in the Judean hill country. Verses 6:14, 16 David danced for JOY in the presence of the Ark, indeed he LEAPED Now, look how Luke undeniably parallels 2 Sam 6 Luke 1 Verse 39 Mary “arose and went†in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, “arose and went†occurs TWICE ONLY IN THE NT Verse 43 "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? verse 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for JOY. Verse 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby LEAPED in her womb Verse 56 And Mary stayed with her about “three monthsâ€, and then returned to her home. I’m sure you can work out the statistical improbalities of this being no more than coincidence. Clearly Mary is no less than the New Testament’s Ark of God. And, the OT Ark was just a humble vessel of wood, etc, before God dwelt in it. You said that you disagree 'that Jesus is simply the Man who was born to Mary.' I am saying that Jesus is the God-Man who is born to Mary: her son. I'm fairly certain the Reformers and historic Baptists hold to the Marian title: Mother of God In His Name Dalcent |
||||||
12 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156034 | ||
Hi there, You wrote 'When you say that it is inappropriate to refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity only, are you then saying that Mary is the mother of the Deity of God the Son?' No I am not. Essentially, Mary is the mother of Jesus period. Natures don't have mothers, people do. Everything that is said about Jesus is said about him as a single unit. Mary is the mother of Jesus. The mother of the carpenter, the mother of the baby, the mother of everything that can be said about Jesus. Because he is one person. When you write 'We know that Jesus did not originate at His incarnation. Jesus pre-existed Mary,' I fully agree but when you say 'we use the word "mother" we refer to a person who pre-existed their offspring' then I would disagree for no other reason than the case is exceptional. A mother is the one who bears us, is the legal definition even if she is a surrogate carrying a fertilised egg that is not her own (this is the law in my country), usually they are human and their offspring are simply human without a pre-existent Lord of the Universe element. In this singular case something very peculiar is occuring, the entry of God into the world. You said 'And why would we ever want to?' If we can forget worrying about Mary being over-emphasised then it is easy to answer this. It is virtually impossible to hold most of the Christological errors that arose in the early Church (let us say Spirit Christology, a modern heresy too - that Jesus only became the Christ, when he was "adopted" at his baptism). Mary is properly Mother of God, this is virtually stated in Scripture in Luke 1, i.e. who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me... If you want to go into this deeply here you may wish to look over the documents of the Third Ecumenical Council where Nestorius was condemned. You can find it here, but I can't post the link properly as the forum doesn't alllow certain syllables. http://www.victorclaveau.com/ |
||||||
13 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156029 | ||
I have to correct you. The party of Nestorius held that Christ was two distinct persons - divine and human. He very much has two natures according to historic Christology (not confused, not confounded, etc.). Otherwise Doc, you stray into the Monophysite heresy when you suggest an amalgamation of divine and human natures into one. This really is the ABC's of classical Christian doctrine. It is alleged, with some validity, that those who do not accept that Mary is the Mother of God are reviving the Nestorian heresy. (It is generally accepted by scholars that 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood is an oversimplication, another story). Historic orthodoxy understands that Jesus is one person and it would be entirely inappropriate to say that Mary is the Mother of his humanity only. A person is a single unit. Catholics talk of the 'communication of idioms' when referring to Mary as the Mother of the Person of Jesus. He only had one mother. The title of Mary, Mother of God, sets important Christological boundaries, if you accept the title Theotokos you should not err in understanding who Jesus really is. Mary is of course, Mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, not the Father and this in no way should be understood, or misrepresented, as saying she existed before God. It is most incorrect to refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics as it is a perjorative coined by the English Reformers. It is not on the level of 'papist' 'Romish' and 'popery' but is a perjorative nevertheless. You of course are at liberty to address anyone by a perjorative to make a point but it is certainly not accepted by Catholics, nor do Muslims like being called Mohammedians as the old books say. On the otherhand, you can claim the moniker catholic , small 'c' for yourself, I am of course a baptist, a pentecostal, orthodox etc. in the non-denominational senses of the word. When you call a Catholic a Roman Catholic you are telling him in no uncertains terms "I do not accept the claims of your Church to be the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles, you are just one of many denominations." The Church Fathers referred to themselves as Catholic, not Roman Catholics and their writings shows they held distinctively Roman doctrine. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers if you disagree, you can get them on e-sword for free. You probably would not do better then reading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, which everyone gives amazing reviews on Amazon. It is a masterpiece of erudition. Dalcent MA Catholic Theology |
||||||
14 | What's the MATTER? | Col 2:9 | Dalcent | 154858 | ||
Barring my question, the teaching of 2,000 years of orthodox historic Christianity because of an evangelical sectary's agenda. 'To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.!' Cardinal John Henry Newman. Sad! |
||||||
15 | How decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154857 | ||
Barring this question is ridiculous. You know I kept asking it and no one could answer it. The only arbtitar of scripture is a) the subject: each and every Christian unto himself b) or Scripture's answer: the Church. 1 Tim 3:15 ...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH. |
||||||
16 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154856 | ||
A mere 3 reputable versions following any of your home translations please. Why would that not be fair? In this case of James 2:24. Thanks. |
||||||
17 | What's the MATTER? | Col 2:9 | Dalcent | 154855 | ||
It is my observation that evangelicals bring to their reading of the Bible a presupposition. They bring a fundamental, cardinal error that does not allow them to read Scripture properly or to allow it to speak its message in the plain sense. Evangelicals hold a Neo-Platonic view of matter; they believe it is “tainted”, (they do not recognise that they bring to the Bible their cultural influences, a mind steeped in the Greek critical intellect and patterns of thinking). Because evangelicals consider matter tainted, they refuse to believe God uses matter in his saving actions: they can’t. They cannot believe in SACRAMENTALITY. Thus the Bible is bound in shackles. It has been decided what it is not allowed to say. Evangelicals fail to grasp, are not really comfortable with, the fact that God Almighty deigned to comes down from the Glory of heaven and dwell in a humble weak body of dust (Gen. 2:7). The implications of Incarnational theology has not impacted them. Evangelicals bring a presupposition to the Bible, that there is only one possible channel through which God interacts with them: that of fiducial faith. And because they hold this error (they anchor themselves to it) they have to interpret scripture in a predetermined way. Because they believe matter is tainted they just ‘know’ God does not imbue matter with his power. Accordingly, the Scriptures they profess to hold so reverently are endlessly twisted and misread because they are so sure of their fundamental stand. When scripture teaches in plain words: Acts 22:16 ‘Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins’ they feel they have to explain why scripture does not teach this. Their explanations are strained and sound unlikely to everyone who hears them. The truth is, just as God the Son was incarnate in a humble human body, God’s power is really substantially present in the baptismal waters. Likewise, they cannot believe the God who inhabits human flesh can really be in the bread and wine of the Communion; they have to say it is metaphorical. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. He taught that He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. Joh 6:55ff "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink…he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. It is relegated to metaphor. Bible’s like the evangelical ESV though based on the RSV change the word ‘eat’ to ‘feeds on’. Yet trogo (G5176) means to gnaw, to chew on: very strong. Feed on of course lends itself to anything. The Scripture never stands a chance, only fiducial faith obtains the things of God. The denials of the plain sense of the text are conditioned by the presupposition. They are so certain God is not a God who imbues matter with his grace, they do not care what a second-century writer who knew the Apostles made even clearer than the Bible. He had to have been wrong. There were no evangelicals in the post-apostolic church so clearly the truth was lost. Sacraments? humbug! Justin Martyr, a heretic, Polycarp a muddled man whose writings were full errors. Never mind Martin Luther will be along in 1400 years and he won’t be right either, another sacramentalist. But we’ll get to true Bible teaching eventually, yep we’ll get to the evangelical truth. The evangelical reads that Jesus used mud and spittle to heal the blind, (John 9:6 ) but he has to deny that God’s power was really in that humble dirt. It becomes a prop. And what is he to make of 2 Kings 13:20-21. And when the man touched the BONES of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet. That just won’t do. An explanation has to be given why God’s miraculous divine power did not inhabit that humble rotting bone. Direct from heaven, no “tainted” matter did the Lord use. The evangelical reads in Acts 19:12 how face clothes that touch Paul were used to heal the sick. He cannot accept that God’s eternal power really imbued matter and yet this is the mode of operation our Lord really deals with us. The evangelical cannot even accept that pictures and icons of God are allowable. Matter is too low. Yet God the Son took on humble flesh, finite form, he graced our world in person. The evangelical cares little that the bi-millenial Christian church has always held a sacramental theology. That the Creeds, the Councils, the writings of the Christian sages, martyrs, saints down the ages understood God acts this way. Many of the Reformers understood it too. Only the evangelical sings a new song: fiducial faith, God’s actions are ‘clean’, he doesn’t touch matter. Oh that God would show you the Glorious truth that he made matter good and he uses it in our edification and our salvation. |
||||||
18 | How many people rose from the dead | Acts 9:40 | Dalcent | 154851 | ||
Hi there, You overlook rather a large group. Mat 27:52-53 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. |
||||||
19 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154849 | ||
I am not boasting that I have a master's degree in theology or that I am mainstream Christian; but I was answering the groundless charge that I was a troll from the cult known as the Church of Christ. I know only too well aware that we only do our best to understand God. However, it is perfectly expected to reason with other people on a Forum (a place of public discussion) and quite biblical. Act 17:17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. |
||||||
20 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154848 | ||
Hi Tim Moran, What translation of Rom 3:4 follows 'proved right'; mine all translate as 'justified' including the NASB. Regardless, my claim is that my historic orthodox Christianity needs no controversial and contorted explanations of the text nor does it require any one re-translate the Greek to order. Every reputable Bible translates 2:24 properly; God's Word is too sacred to do otherwise: Jam 2:24 (ASV) Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. (DRB) Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? (ESV) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (ISV) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NASB) You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NET) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NIV) You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. HSCB You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. KJV Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. No one is translating the verse to read anything like: You see that a person evidences his justification by works and not by faith alone. And certainly no one has dared translate it as: You see that a person is justified by faith alone and not by works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to carry on arguing for the plain sense of the text. I certainly am not contending that James 2:24, contains enough biblical data to explain the biblical doctrine of justification. It does however state clearly what justification isn't: by faith alone. To be blunt Tim, if you want me to take any of your "translations" seriously with all the myriads on the market, I'd like to see a mere 3 reputable versions following your rendering. A translator's note which wasn't even used, in a blatantly evangelical bible just won't do. Best Regards my friend, please don't take offence but I call a spade a spade. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |