Results 1 - 20 of 53
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: reformedreader Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How do we make a Covenant with our Lord? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7839 | ||
Nehemiah, Your vow/oath is your word. If you have given God your solemn word of truth that you will do whatever you promise to do, then that is your covenantal agreement between you and God. However, don't forget that you do not control the agreement, you must obey your commitment. God may have other plans that might not coincide with exactly what you want to happen. Sam Hughey |
||||||
2 | Vilest of character? | 2 Tim 2:23 | reformedreader | 7508 | ||
charis, I don't think it is overstating at all. Ephesians 4:25 commands us to speak the truth with one another. Whenever a brother is criticized for his view and the one criticizing has not taken the time to truthfully know the facts, then vile is an appropriate term. Since God hates a lying tongue, should we not also find our Lord's truth to be objective enough to be our own? Should our objective standard for Christian character be any less than God's? Sam Hughey |
||||||
3 | Does Rev. 1:6 refer to the Millenial age | Rev 1:6 | reformedreader | 7451 | ||
Hiram Abiff, This is mainly a matter of perspective. A dispensationalist might view this from a different perspective than those who are a-mil or post-mil. Actually, 1 Peter 2:9 says; "But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." So, with respect to this verse, we are already a kingdom of priests and have been since God called His elect to salvation. Rev. 1:6 in no way whatsoever makes reference to the dispensational view of the millennial kingdom. The fact that we are and have been made to be a kingdom of priests to God is the essence of Rev. 1:6, not the millennial kingdom. Sam Hughey |
||||||
4 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7449 | ||
Nehemiah, What do you mean by "cover our children"? Sam Hughey |
||||||
5 | Believer's authority and the devil. | Jude 1:9 | reformedreader | 7447 | ||
JVH0212, When considering that Michael did not dare to bring a railing judgement against Satan, then it should move us to at least consider if we should. Actually, one may even consider it to be of no purpose if we did. After all, what could we possibly say to or against Satan that would change anything? Do we need to tell him that he is eternally damned when he already knows that? Do we need to say he is a liar when our Lord has already made that perfectly clear? What would we say that Satan doesn't already know or that would make any difference? I believe it to be highly unwise to attempt to combat Satan without the power of God (as well as a command from God) and I have never seen anywhere in scripture where we should be inclined to do so. We should resist him and even flee from him at appropriate times but we are nowhere commanded to fight this enemy without first calculating the risks involved. Sam Hughey |
||||||
6 | Criticize what no one understands? | 2 Tim 2:23 | reformedreader | 7442 | ||
JVH0212, I believe it to be the vilest of character for any child of God to criticize an opposing view when there is either a lack or absence of a proper understanding. I just visited a website that was antagonistically adamant about their opposition to Calvinism, yet at the same this site promoted Charles H. Spurgeon, who was a 5 point Calvinisit, and confused Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism without any knowledge the two are antithetical to each other. I do not mind someone wanting me to show sound biblical proof for what I believe. But I do mind critical comments about what I believe from a person who really does not understand what I believe. Sam Hughey |
||||||
7 | Will all of Israel be saved? | Rom 11:26 | reformedreader | 7405 | ||
Steve, This obviously does not refer to each and every individual Jew simply because many are already dead who died in unbelief. It also cannot be refering to Israel as a nation since that nation is also comprised of those same individuals already dead in unbelief. In the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as God's elect. But do not forget what Paul stated in Rom. 9:6; "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel". Not all Jews are Israelites simply because they physically descended from Jacob (Israel). Paul states precisely who true Israelites are in verse 8; "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants". So, when salvation is used in conjunction with Israel, God is referring to any individual who is a child of God according to the spirit (not the flesh). Paul states in Galatians 6:15,16 that neither circumcision (physical Israelites) nor uncircumcision (physical Gentiles) is anything. It is the new creation that refers to salvation and Paul relates the new creation with being the Israel of God in verse 16. It is the elect Israel of God who will be saved because God has chosen them to be in Christ since before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12;2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10) Sam Hughey |
||||||
8 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | reformedreader | 6569 | ||
Morant61, First of all, I really appreciate anyone truly desiring to discuss this issue with an honest and open attitude. However, if you wish to entertain this discussion with only a limited use of scripture, I would say this can prove to be a fruitless effort when you want to limit it to the verses only "you" want us to use. That's like stacking the deck in your favor. Secondly, did Christ die for the sins of all humans or for all humans who sin? There is a big difference. 1 John 2:2 does not say Christ died for all humans, it says He died for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 4:10 also does not say Christ died for all humans, it says He died for "our" sins. If you force the term "whole world" to refer to "all humans", then that reasoning and 1 John 2:2 demands a strict and literal agreement with John 10:11 where John said Christ died for His "sheep". That would imply that all humans are Christ's sheep. The same writer would not contradict himself at 1 John 2:2 with what he said at John 10:11. John again states that Christ laid down His life for His sheep in verse 15. It is not a matter of what "seems" to be clear, it is a very distinct fact that for whomever Christ died, they are referred to as His sheep. John also makes it crystal clear that those who do not believe are so because they are not Christ's sheep. Now, since Christ laid down His life for His sheep, what does that say about those who are "not" His sheep? Romans 3:25 does not say anything whatsoever about for whom Christ died but, rather, for what He died and that would be sins. If we are going to be restricted to what verses we can observe, then the verses we observe must be viewed correctly in light of what they actually say. Sam Hughey |
||||||
9 | What is reformation? | Heb 9:10 | reformedreader | 6021 | ||
charis, Verse 11 is the time of reformation. The previous verses spoke of the "insufficiency" of sacrifices and ordinances that shadowed the "sufficiency" of Christ Himself. The book of Hebrews is mainly concerned with the sufficiency of Christ in that many new believes (and some not) were still making trips to the temple for atonement. They were not trusting in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement to put away the condemnation of sin forever. Christ is the reformation (change) of a law only in respect to the levitical law (priesthood), sacrifices and ordinances related to sins. This is not to be confused with the "whole" law, only that "part" of the law specifically related to the end of the levitical priesthood and all associated ordinances and sacrifices. |
||||||
10 | What exactly is idolatry? | Ex 20:3 | reformedreader | 5300 | ||
Hank, Idolatry is the worship of false deity through the use of images. The second commandment does not, per se, forbid the making of an image of creation. An image of a snake on a staff was used to heal the Israelites bitten by snakes in the wilderness. It is not the image itself that God forbids. It is the intent to worship the image in place of God which violates the 1st commandment. If there are other gods, then God is not who He claims to be. The word "god" in the bible is usually misunderstood and misinterpreted. They are not gods at all, they are only treated and thought of as gods. Satan is referred to as the god of this world, however, Satan is not a god in any sense of the term "deity". Satan is not an image but he is worshipped by those who reject God's laws as though he is a "god" or even "God" Himself. The word does have both a narrow and broad meaning. Sam Hughey |
||||||
11 | Why evangelize if already chosen? | 1 Pet 2:9 | reformedreader | 4133 | ||
Lionstrong, Thank you for such a sound and biblical apology for both God's election and our responsibilty to obey God. I pray that those who are anti-Calvinistic will at least attempt to honestly see what Biblical Calvinism truly teaches instead of the old worn out stories that never prove to be true. (Isaiah 55:11) So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. Man's will cannot thwart, deny, deprive, correct or change the pre-determined will (word) of God that goes out to accomplish "SUCCESSFULLY" whatever it was sent out to do. Sam Hughey |
||||||
12 | invitation to salvation/accepting Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3998 | ||
jrm, The invitation system has never been part of orthodox Christianity and is certainly not a biblical doctrine. It would be difficult (if not impossible) to biblically defend it. However, it would also be difficult for churches to stop since they depend on the invitation system in order to get someone saved, at least in theory. The churches I have asked what would happen if they stopped all respond with "how then will anyone get saved?" When I ask them why they use an invitation system, they all responded with "it's in the Bible". When I asked them to show it from scripture they all respond with "you're arguing against scripture and are attempting to mock the salvation of God". I suppose we all need an excuse for the unbiblical practices we perform every Sunday. That's bad enough. But when it cannot be (or won't be) biblically defended, then that is a much more serious problem. If a church does not have one (and mine doesn't) then there is certainly nothing anyone can legitimately accuse that church of doing that is contrary to scripture since scripture never teaches it. Of course, others will have their own personal views and I will be greatly interested in hearing how they defend their views from scripture. Sam Hughey |
||||||
13 | OT church? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 3985 | ||
charis, I do not believe salvation was any different in the Old Covenant as it is in the New Testament. Since we use the New Covenant to better understand and in many cases define the Old Covenant, then we should believe precisley what the New Covenant says about salvation being by the grace and mercy of God. The New Covenant gives us absolutely no new teaching concerning salvation. It only expands upon the revelation of salvation, as is the primary purpose of each covenant. One covenant does not negate a previous covenant. The New Covenant did not negate the truth or command of Exodus 20:3-6 or 12-17. Does the New Covenant negate:(Exodus 20:6, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.)? I believe you will find not only were these laws repeated in the New Covenant but the understanding of them were expanded into the broader scope of Christ-like living in the New Covenant, for example read Ephesians 4:17-32 and 1 John 2:3 among a great many other New Covenant verses. Certainly the New Covenant speaks of the blood of Christ but so does the Old Covenant. In fact, Christ is spoken of as far back as Genesis 3 as the one who will bruise (defeat) Satan, which was accomplished at the cross. Was the blood of Christ working in Abraham and Moses? Well, if it wasn't, then they are not saved according to the New Covenant (Acts 4:12, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."). So again, the New Covenant itself establishes the only definitive answer to and example of salvation. So, if we use the New Covenant to define how a person is saved, and unless we want to teach a multiplicity of salvific operations, then anyone who ever was, is or ever will be saved is according to the mercy and grace of God with no exceptions. If (since) this is true, then all those who are saved are precisley what the New Covenant says, (Romans 12:4-5, "For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." It is the authority of the New Covenant, to which I wholly agree, that establishes what salvation is, who is saved, how they are saved and determines who is in the one and only body of Christ. It is the authority of the New Covenant from our Lord's own mouth that declares His body (church) to be comprised of all who have ever been saved by the mercy and grace of God and are joined together to make up His one and only body, the church. I look forward to hearing your response charis. Sam Hughey |
||||||
14 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | reformedreader | 3857 | ||
Ric, Pharaoh was born in the image of Adam no differently than you or myself. Romans 3:23;5:12 conclude "all" have sinned, therefore, "none" are excused. There is no such thing as an "innocent" sinner who is born in the image of Adam, be it an embryo or a 100 year old man. The issue of sin is not the sins we commit that condemn us but, rather, the sin in which we are conceived. Sam Hughey |
||||||
15 | Why OT covenants if not for salvation? | OT general | reformedreader | 3847 | ||
MIILAZ, You are correct that salvation was as much a reality (not a concept) in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. Be careful when viewing the difference in terminology. The difference could very well be the difference between truth and error. How one defines their terminology greatley influences how one interpretes scripture. In SpreadWord's case, he is interpreting scripture based on a faulty understanding of the covenants. It seems as though he is viewing scripture through the eyes of dispensationalism instead of scripture itself, but I am only supposing that based on his view of non-relating covenants/dispensations and an ever changing definition of salvation as well as a dual mode of salvation. It is a contradiction to say that salvation is through Christ alone and at the same time say salvation was different at some other time unless a different salvation is being discussed. Sam Hughey |
||||||
16 | WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE? | Acts 1:8 | reformedreader | 3759 | ||
PYLE, Simply becuse God has elected whom He would call to salvation does not negate the fact that He also called His Church to preach the gospel. We evangelize for the simple fact we are commanded to do so whether you believe in election or not. Salvation is wholly of God, therefore we are to simply obey God by preaching the gospel and God will call to salvation whomever He wills to be saved. If God does not call one to salvation, it is entirely the right of God and man has no complaint. Sam Hughey |
||||||
17 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 3754 | ||
charis, How one defines their terminology determines how one translates this and other verses. If we begin with a presupposition that the term "Church Age" is actually a legitimate biblical term, then we must of necessity be able to comprehend that entirely from the Bible. Since the Bible never uses any such term, we can only conclude that it is a man-made term and whose definition of "Church Age" are we willing to accept as the definitive answer? The term "church" refers to the body of Christ, that is, all who have been called by the Father, circumcized by the Spirit and recevied by the Son. If we relate this only to those after Christ's resurrection, then we rule out Abraham and any other person from ever being saved or we are creating a dual mode of salvation of which the Bible also does not speak. I think the Bible is very clear that the church is made up of all who have been saved (the same way) of all ages, past, present and future. Therefore, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to say the Bible teaches a "Church Age" that is referring to only a specific period of time. If that is true, then there is no such thing as a "Church Age" in the Bible unless it is referring to all the saints of all ages. Let me know what you think. Sam Hughey |
||||||
18 | Blood sacrifices during the Millenium? | Heb 10:12 | reformedreader | 3745 | ||
Nrojac, I truly do not mean for this note to be disrespectful to you or anyone else in anyway whatsoever, however, I do intend it to be firm and serious. The dispensational idea of blood sacrifices at "ANY" time since Christ's once and for all blood sacrifice is blashpemy and the epistle to the Hebrews clearly warns those who do not accept the finished work of Christ as the only propitiatory redemptive act that they cannot redeem themselves again through vainful human effort of repetitive acts of blood sacrifices. What you are talking about is nothing more than imaginative eschatology. There is no such thing as a future "literal" millennium, rebuilt temple and especially blood sacrifice. This is nowhere found in scripture. It sounds like this DD is a hyper-dispensationalist who really doesn't understand the scriptures. The typical place dispensationalists use to teach a future temple and sacrifices is in Ezekiel 40 and further. The supposed future earthly millennium is Revelation 20:4. You are correct in not believing in a future blood sacrifice for the remission of sin or as a remembrance of "anything". Sam Hughey |
||||||
19 | Was Jesus a reformer? | NT general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3741 | ||
roverjbh99, In response to your question, "Was Jesus seeking to reform the Jewish religion", "NOT A CHANCE"! Jesus is the Son of God, the Lamb of God whose soul purpose on earth was to secure the redemption of His people, of which He was completely and totally victorious. He came to be the propitiation for sins, the justifier, mediator and savior of His people. His mission was set in stone (so to speak) since before the foundation of the world and not a single episode of His redemptive works for His people could have possibly been altered, delayed or brought to naught for a single second. He founded no new religion, man does that, but He expounded upon the religion that His Father commanded since before creation and that is to worship God and only God in truth. It was the religious sects of the Jews who sought to do precisely the opposite while using all the seemingly "religious" verbage in order to make it "seem" right to themselves. Hmmm, sounds a lot like what goes on in many churches today. We use the words, but we usually re-create God in our image and worship is often what "we" decide it should be. There is an amazing comparison with the religious sects of 2000 years ago and what is commonly referred to as religion today. Sam Hughey |
||||||
20 | What's the sign? | Matt 24:27 | reformedreader | 3715 | ||
prayon, If you approach this from a dispensational perspective, the sun, moon and stars are forced to be translated literally. If you do this, a literal conclusion and literal consequences must also follow. If the sun were to darken, the earth and all its inabitants will freeze and die almost instantly. The moon not giving its light would hardly mean anything since the new moon occurs quite regularly now with no adverse affects. If the stars were to fall, then surely the earth would be completely annihilated if they strike the earth and if not I see no concern when there is no danger. The SIGN of the Son of Man appearing in the sky has been interpreted by most dispensationalists as the cross. But even if it isn't, dispensationalists have no interpretation for this. What we must remember is that the language is pure Old Covenant metaphorical language primarily referring to Israel and is used throughout the Old Testament and the book of the Revelation. Terms such as "sun", "moon" and "light" have typically been associated with Israel and Christ's disciples would have had no problem understanding this metaphorical language. It would be senseless for Christ to warn them of an event that He knew would never happen in their lifetime! In fact, Christ said "When YOU SEE" so often that any reference to people other than those to whom Christ said WOULD SEE renders the interpretation without biblical warrant. The event(s) of which Christ spoke refer to the destruction of Jerusalem starting from about 63 AD until 70 AD. The governing power and authority of Israel would die (lose its light, sun and moon) and the priesthood (which had become defiled and useless because of Christ's atonement) would fall from their places and the whole world of Judaism would be shaken by the end of Temple worship and sacrifices and the destruction of Jerusalem (which was the Jew's reason for living). There is no reason for the shakina glory of God to reappear since its departure from the Temple hundreds of years prior to the time Christ spoke these words. The shakina glory represented God but we hardly need a representation when we have the real thing. This is by no means considered exhaustive, but I would encourage you to compare the words of our Lord with what our Lord has spoken of Israel all throughout the Old Testament. Don't forget that Christ also told his disciples (those to whom He was addressing His words) that THEY WOULD SEE the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15). I look forward to hearing your remarks. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |