Results 1 - 20 of 24
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Documented?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13499 | ||
Brian" You wrote: "When Peter lead the Church, he created a Senate consistng of 24 priests and deacons - this is documented. One of the roles of this Senate was to elect the new Pope - with Linus being the first Pope elected by men." Exactly where is this documented? --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13675 | ||
Okay, I was hoping for something a milennium and a half closer to the events themselves. Someone in the eighteenth century claiming that such a "papal senate" was formed carries no more weight than you telling it to me. What were HIS sources for making this statement? Thanks. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38353 | ||
Okay...since I cannot track down a copy of _The Gospel According to Jesus_ in my vastly unorganized library, this one has to go out to the forum as a whole. Zach, in trying to paint John MacArthur as an antinomian, posted the following quote from his book: '"believers who become agnostics are still saved; they are still born again. You can even become an atheist; but if you once accepted Christ as saviour, you cannot lose your salvation, even though you deny God" as quoted in The Gospel According To Jesus by John F. MacArthur, p. 98,' Now, having read the book and knowing that this is precisely the position that Macrthur dedicates the whole book (and another one) to opposing, would someone please dig up their copy and put this quote in its context, since Zacj insists that the words in the quote above reflect MacArthur's own position. Thanks in advance! --Joe! |
||||||
4 | The "branches" of Romans 11 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60189 | ||
Tim (and my fellow Christian observers): I have been studying Romans 11 myself this month, and I was wondering precisely whom you hold the "branches" to be. Do you think branches represent individuals, or do they represent the collectives of Jews and Gentiles? Paul and the Jewish believers are obviously in some way represented by the "natural branches" still on the tree. And Romans 11:2 does refer to Israel in general, although it should be plain to the evangelical mind that while He has not rejected Israel wholesale, he goes on to specify a REMNANT of the nation that He has kept for Himself, not the entirety of Jacob's descendents. Aside from Elijah and the 7000, there was a lot of rejection going on. I hold that the branches do not refer to individuals, because natural branches will be grafted back in (implying that they were there before) after the fulness of the Gentiles has been grafted in (Romans 11:25). Individual Jews living today were not born "grafted in." Now for my Calvinist jab (since we have not danced this little rumba in a while, my non-TULIPy brother): does the "all Israel" in verse 26 refer to "every single Israelite"? Have fun! --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Renewal AGAIN to repentance? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 24950 | ||
You know, one of the biggest struggles I have with an otherwise rock-solid doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (sorry, eternal security carries too much "pray a prayer and no matter what you do, you must be saved" baggage these days) is the one word "again" in Hebrews 6. Renewal again to repentance would assume that they had been in a state of repentance in the first place. How does our "once saved, always saved" group here (of which I consider myself a member) deal with the word "again"? --Joe! |
||||||
6 | How many humans created? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 12991 | ||
This is off-topic, but one of your statements brings up an interesting question that I have had. You wrote: "Adam and Eve are the only two humans EVER to be created." My question is, Do you consider the conception of our Lord Jesus in the womb of Mary to be another instance of the creation of a human. God the Son was pre-existent of course, but His "earthly tent" wasn't. I myself lean toward the idea that God supernaturally created a new human zygote "ex nihilo", which would make him the Second Adam in a very real sense. It would also deal with the question of how Christ in his humanity would have no "original sin," since he would not be the genetic descendent of Mary (if, indeed, the physical body plays any role in the transmission of the curse at all). Just idle speculation, of course. What do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
7 | Sinless perfection possible? | Deut 32:22 | Reformer Joe | 18213 | ||
Lanny: I don't think we have interacted before on the Forum. If you are new, welcome aboard. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that sinlessness is attainable by humanity in this life. Have you attained sinlessness, and if so, how? --Joe! |
||||||
8 | Absolutely perfect? | Deut 32:22 | Reformer Joe | 18420 | ||
Lanny: So since the time you repented, you have not committed a single act which is displeasing to the Lord? Not one single moment of selfishness or greed? Not one burst of prideful anger? Not even the most fleeting lustful thought? You have been perfect in all that you have said, thought, and did since you have become a Christian? Sorry to belabor the point, but I just want to make sure that your definition of sin and mine are the same here. --Joe! P.S. -- If you don't mind sharing, what is this church that preaches "THE Gospel" rather than "A Gospel"? Thanks! |
||||||
9 | miracles 3 millenia old | Josh 10:12 | Reformer Joe | 5144 | ||
And? Lack of a way to verify this occurence 3200 years later means that no miracle took place? --Joe! |
||||||
10 | What about the savage? | Ps 51:5 | Reformer Joe | 12258 | ||
Just one follow-up question, hoping we don't get too far off-topic: Looking at your denomination's definition of depravity, how does it fit into its theology the "ignorant savage who never hears the name of Christ," or for that matter those here in the western world who never hear a clear gospel presentation? --Joe! |
||||||
11 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4568 | ||
How does Acts 2:38 "fulfill" Matthew 28's command? Unless one pre-supposes a modalistic, anti-trinitarian view that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I do not see how this verse in any way fulfills the command. In addition, Christ commands his disciples to do the baptizing with this formula. He doesn't say that he is going to do it himself at Pentecost. It would seem unreasonable to me that Christ (a) commands the eleven to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and then (b) somehow fulfills this himself in Acts 2. Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. There are just two many passages in Scripture that would either make Jesus either schizophrenic or deceptive if it were so. --Joe! |
||||||
12 | How sinful is "fallen away"? | Mark 4:16 | Reformer Joe | 38176 | ||
Zach: A couple of questions to help me understand your position a little better: 1. Once we place our trust in Christ, precisely what do we have to do in order to deserve remaining in grace? 2. How bad do we have to sin to fall out of grace? 3. Since Hebrews 6:4-6 indicates that it is impossible for those who have fallen away to be brought back to repentance, I would assume that you would subscribe to a doctrine of "once fallen away, always fallen away." If that is not the case, please explain these verses in light of your theology. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
13 | Are we bringers of peace or division? | Luke 12:51 | Reformer Joe | 35997 | ||
Dear Forum: On Wednesday nights at our church we have been studying the Beatitudes, and we just examined the words of Jesus: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." --Matthew 5:9. We also see in other places in Scripture which highlight peace: "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful." --John 14:27 "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace" --Romans 8:6 "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." --Romans 12:18 The book 1 Peter also has a great deal to say about promoting peace in the midst of adversity. Now we come to verses like the one I cited as the reference for this question. The Prince of Peace Himself says that He came not to bring peace, but division. The parallel passage in Matthew 10:24 uses the word "sword" in place of division. We can also see that the very preaching of Jesus did nothing to promote peace with the Pharisees. The preaching of the gospel in Acts helped the apostles find their way to a jail cell and to martyrdom. We even see in more recent church history how the Protestant Reformation, in recovering the true gospel of Christ has led to all kinds of horrendous acts. Some in our nation today even tell us that peace can only be attained if we never talk about religion, because it is a "private thing" that only creates trouble. The proclamation of biblical Christianity is primarily the "culprit" of such divisiveness. So, let's dwell on this a while: how can we be both promoters of peace and present a gospel which has always served to divide people (as indeed Jesus Christ claimed to do)? --Joe! |
||||||
14 | Peaceable evangelism? | Luke 12:51 | Reformer Joe | 36030 | ||
You are absolutely right about how the gospel brings us peace with God, Michael. My question had to with how human beings relate to each other. Romans 12:18 is talking about us living in peace with all MEN. The passages in 1 Peter address how we are to behave toward other people. So it is not just peace with God that is being addressed in the New Testament. Again, I am not looking for a quick answer to my question, because I think it requires more than just a couple of sentences to explore the nuances of it. Basically, the seeming paradox is this: since the gospel brings division, its proclamation naturally prevents peace. We are told to live at peace with all men as far as it depends on us, but we see both from divine command and apostolic example of evangelism creating division. How do we reconcile these two? I have my ideas, but I want to hear from the forum as well! --Joe! |
||||||
15 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | Reformer Joe | 70629 | ||
Since there has been so much talk on the nature and efficacy of God's will these past several days, I wanted to pose a question to the Forum in addressing what I consider to be the single most difficult account of God's will in Scripture. When Jesus is praying in Gethsemane, he asks His Father that the "cup" of the Cross be lifted from Him if God the Father is willing. He follows it up by saying "Yet not my will, but Yours be done." We know that Jesus and the Father share the same divine essence, and that Jesus, although also sharing our human essence, was not inclined to sin in any way. However, we see an apparent opposition of wills between two Persons of the Trinity. Granted, Jesus submits His will to the Father's, but the fact that He to a certain degree is unwilling to go to the Cross can be rather unsettling. As He is sweating drops of blood in the garden and dreading the process by which He will secure atonement for God's people, what are we to make of this statement? --Joe! |
||||||
16 | Household baptisms? | Acts 16:15 | Reformer Joe | 18686 | ||
Nolan: Why is it "logical" to assume that all the household baptisms were believer's baptisms? --Joe! |
||||||
17 | Guilty of blood of others? | Acts 20:26 | Reformer Joe | 55076 | ||
Read this verse carefully and the one that follows it. Are we guilty of the blood of others when we do not evangelize? If not, what is Paul saying here? | ||||||
18 | Who is the Potter? Who is the clay? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5840 | ||
"On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" -- Romans 9:20-23 Now taking Romans 9:22 in context, do we have the slightest bit of wiggle room to suggest that we "prepared ourselves" for destruction? Who is the potter? Who is the clay? Who has the right over the clay? Who molds the clay as a vessel for common use? And, of course, the question Paul states at the beginning of the passage: Who are you to tell the Creator what to do with his creation? By the way, the Greek word KATARTIZO carries no such connotation of "self-preparation," but rather is a term used by artisans and architects which means to fit, or prepare. It is also used of framing something, of making something fit a particular area. All consistent with the Reformed view. Do we REALLY need the Greek to get the meaning of this when we have an abundance of crystal-clear context? This is what I mean by the mental somersaults people have to do to maintain an Arminian standpoint. --Joe! |
||||||
19 | Who is the Spirit and what is He like? | 1 Cor 12:30 | Reformer Joe | 29261 | ||
You wrote: "...what do you think of 2 Kings 2:9[?]" That is a very good question, so I am putting it to the entire forum so we can get some discussion going on it. 'When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, "Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you." And Elisha said, "Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me." He said, "You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so."' --2 Kings 2:9-10 You yourself have asked a pretty hard thing, so let's examine a couple of questions: 1. Elisha asked for a double portion of YOUR spirit (i.e. Elijah's spirit). Should we equate this with the Holy Spirit, or does Elisha have something else in mind? 2. We know that the Holy Spirit is God, and is therefore infinite in His existence. Is it Biblical to talk about "quantities" of an indivisible God? 3. The Scriptures often talk about the Holy Spirit as if He were a substance (e.g. being "poured out" on God's people, and the saints of God being "filled" with the Holy Spirit). In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses use passages like these to contend that the Spirit is not God, but rather His "active force." (Of course, they ignore that the passages which show Holy Spirit does things that only sentient beings do, like teach, correct, think, restrain, reveal, etc., and that Paul constantly equates the three Persons of the Trinity). In any case, how can Christians, using Scripture, best reconcile the passages which seem to indicate the description of the Holy Spirit as a seeming "substance" and those which clearly reveal that He is God? --Joe! |
||||||
20 | Christ rose bodily, didn't he? | 1 Cor 15:21 | Reformer Joe | 5082 | ||
"Read the Bible and you'll find it." Does this mean that you made it up, or that someone told you it was there, or that you don't know where it is? The spirit does exist apart from the body. Paul expresses in Philippians 1 that he "desires to depart and BE WITH Christ" but that he knows it is better for the Philippians that he stays. He obvviously is not talking about the final resurrection, since all will be resurrected at the same time. In Luke 16, Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, who were definitely conscious after death. Yes, the two characters could be fictional ones; but Jesus ALWAYS used parables that described theological truths using situations which resemble reality. It is nothing but a cop-out to say that Jesus was not only making up the two individuals, but also leading people to believe falsehoods about the nature of the afterlife. Therefore, any reasonable person listening to this story would conclude that Jesus is describing an aspect of life after death. Second Corinthians 5 indicates that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. In any case, whether we are spirit and body is not the important issue. The most crucial issue on which the Christian faith hinges is the BODILY resurrection of Christ. Does Elijah believe in that? --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |