Results 1 - 20 of 24
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81365 | ||
"This topic Has been discussed before ..." Could you point me to a specific post where my question was answered? Specifically, where has EdB clarified what he means by heresy in such a way that historic, Reformational, Protestant theology fits; but in a way that modern Pentacostalism and pretribulational dispensationalism does not? Thanks. "I think it is anything that is contrary to the Bible." Do you not think it possible that any of your beliefs (down to the tinest detail) might be actually contrary to Scripture? Assuming that you allow yourself even the slightest margin for error, do you consider yourself a heretic? "Both sides use the Bible to prove there point ... so is that heresy? I think it is more eisgesis (sp)." I agree, but "eisegesis" was not the term that was employed. "Heresy" was. So I continue to ask, what is the line between minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy) and heresy? --Joe! |
||||||
2 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81358 | ||
"I have been told more than once that since I view Calvinism as totally heretical I have to be Arminianistic." How do you define the word "heresy"? Please define it in such a way that historically-held Reformation theology could be considered heresy. Then please explain how modern-day Pentecostalism and pretributlational dispensationalism could not fall into that category, using the same criteria. While I hold these two things to be wrong interpretations of Scripture, I would not consider them "heresy." So, what is your criteria for slapping the "heresy" label on a particular system of doctrine? "However I view Arminianism as equally aberrant." That's news. On what points? --Joe! |
||||||
3 | 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! |
||||||
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 | 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? | ||||||
6 | 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! |
||||||
7 | 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! |
||||||
8 | 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! |
||||||
9 | 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! |
||||||
10 | Spirit teaches, but are we good students | 2 Tim 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 32216 | ||
Risen: We still have the problem, however, when two Christians, both indwelt by the Holy Spirit, disagree on the meaning of a particular text. Being a believer in Jesus Christ does not guarantee doctrinal infallibility. So how do we determine who is listening to the Holy Spirit and who is not in such a situation? --Joe! |
||||||
11 | 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! |
||||||
12 | 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! |
||||||
13 | 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! |
||||||
14 | 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! |
||||||
15 | 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! |
||||||
16 | Works in the Christian experience? | Heb 6:4 | Reformer Joe | 17830 | ||
Peter was a believer in Jesus Christ and therefore saved, whether Pentecost had come or not. He may have not been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but he certainly was a believer in Christ. He had faith in his Messiah and that is what made him Christ's, even before the atonement took place. Otherwise, we have the big question of how all those other people before Christ's atonement on the cross could possibly have been saved. Surely you don't insist that following the Old Testament Law saved them? "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." --Hebrews 10:1-4 Impossible, it says. Bill, We are justified through faith. What role does works play? That is the theme of Hebrews, James, 1 John, 1 Peter and a whole host of other post-resurrection books? How do you explain the message of PERSEVERENCE in those books (and others, including those of Paul)? --Joe! |
||||||
17 | 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! |
||||||
18 | 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! |
||||||
19 | 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! |
||||||
20 | 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! |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |