Results 1 - 20 of 53
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: reformedreader Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3186 | ||
Mike, Thanks Mike for two refreshing details; 1. A real name and 2. "I do however believe for us to say that we are that generation would be presumptuous at best". Every generation for the past 2000 years has believed in an imminent return of Christ, signs describing it is about to happen and that they were the rapture generation. They all share one thing in common which is; "They were all wrong"! Presumptuous belief is not honoring to God and does little to aid our hermeneutical abilities and has caused Christians to adopt an attitude of believing in a doomed and defeated church. Nothing can be further from the truth of our Lord's own words when He stated that not even the powers of hell can prevail against His church. Christ did not die to present a defeated church to His Father, He died to present a glorious and victorious church to His Father. If Christians have an attitude of defeat, it is found only in their own hearts. This is the main reason why a Biblical Reformation of thought and study are so seriously needed in the body of Christ as never before. Sam Hughey |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7449 | ||
Nehemiah, What do you mean by "cover our children"? Sam Hughey |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? | Ex 20:8 | reformedreader | 3141 | ||
JVH0212, Great question. However, it is not such a simple one. For instance, the word Sabbath does not always mean the same thing. Sabbath is used in different ways and for different reasons. Not all Sabbath laws pertain to the same word "Sabbath" everytime it is used. We would first need to be certain we are using the correct word in its proper context and able to correctly define the differences. Sam Hughey |
||||||
9 | Suicide, lost? | Ex 20:13 | reformedreader | 2836 | ||
Hugger, Your post on the security of the believer is a very biblically based view. I can only disagree with your last comment, "No one is lost by any one sin but by not accepting Christ into their hearts". We are all born into this world in the image of Adam and no act of sin is required by any of us in order to be condemned justly by God. We are all condemned because we are all in unbelief (naturally). Sam Hughey |
||||||
10 | Stars do cease to exist...Isa 40:26? | Is 40:26 | reformedreader | 2974 | ||
userdoe211, How do you know Isaiah is talking about literal stars in the universe? Isaiah, and most of the Old Testament, uses metaphorical language. Psalms 84:11 says God is a "sun", Malachi 4:2 says the "sun of righteousness" will rise with healing in its wings. Surely the word "sun" is used literally but it is also surely used in a symbolic or metaphorical sense. What in Isa. 40:26 forces us to understand it in a literal sense only? Sam Hughey |
||||||
11 | How did Jer. do this? | Jer 25:15 | reformedreader | 2921 | ||
melancthon, Nice namesake. Do you read much of Phillip's works? I believe several possibilities exist. One that is the most plausable to me is that Jeremiah did not literally go to each national geographical location for that was not necessary, even though he might have gone to some. The word "nations" does not always refer to a geographical location but almost always refers to people. As the nations (people) were scattered and traveled and held together in bondage, it would have been easy to preach to a large number of people groups, thus allowing them to repeat Jeremiah's words to other people groups just as Nehemiah did not need to speak to each and every individual Israelite for them to know the command to rebuild a temple. Israel is both a nation and a peoples. I look forward to hearing other views. Sam Hughey |
||||||
12 | verse referring to grace ,stone | Zech 4:7 | reformedreader | 2933 | ||
rain, I agree with blue that "mountain" refers to mountainous obstacles and that they can be overcome by faith in Christ. I think the term "top stone" (NASB) refers to Christ as both the corner stone (first to be laid) and top (cap) stone (last to be laid) which shows Him to be the ALPHA AND OMEGA of our faith in overcoming seemingly mountainous obstacles. Verse 9 seems to explain this by using the terms "foundation" and "finish". Sam Hughey |
||||||
13 | I CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW | Matt 5:17 | reformedreader | 2991 | ||
PYLE, I really tried to stay away from this one, but I just couldn't do it. Your question is answered in the verse you quoted. Christ clearly and unambiguously stated that His purpose for coming was "NOT" to bring an end to the law or the Prophets. Abolish and fulfill do not mean the same thing. The term "age of grace" is not a biblical term for grace has existed since before the foundation of the world. Law has also existed since eternity past. Both are the essence and utmost characteristics of God Himself. There has never been a time on earth where both Law and Grace have not existed. The term "law" does not always refer to the Law of Moses and the Law of Moses does not always refer to "only" the ceremonial or Levitical portions of that law. To say that Christ did not come to abolish the law, but then say Christ abolished the law is a contradiction and does not honor what our Lord truly stated. Our Lord taught throughout the Gospels directly from the Law of Moses. It was the Pharisaical distortions of the law that Christ condemned and not the law itself. Sam Hughey |
||||||
14 | Protestantism challenged? | Matt 18:17 | reformedreader | 3065 | ||
JMR, How does Matthew 18:17 challenge Protestantism? Sam Hughey |
||||||
15 | 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 |
||||||
16 | Commandments absolute? | Matt 28:20 | reformedreader | 3510 | ||
Chris, You have asked a very major question not many Christians are willing to discuss. There is really only one way to view what our Lord stated. Whatever He taught the Apostles and other followers, they are lawful commands from God Himself. Therefore, since they have not been rescinded anywhere else in the New Testament, they are still binding on all New Testament believers today. They are set in stone in the respect that they are solidly God's law for us to obey. They are set into the hearts of all believers in the respect they are the believers Christian duty and obedience from a loving heart for their Lord. "Are all commandments knowable by man"? No, not all. But that does not exclude any from being known by all men. Paul said all men are without excuse for all men have "a" knowledge of God. "A" knowledge of God is not a salvific knowledge, in that it is not the calling of God to receive salvation. Even though it is not a salvific knowledge, it is still "a" knowledge that God exists and they are without excuse. From what are they without excuse? Their sins. All men are endowed with the natural ability to know not only that there is a right and wrong, but also what that right and wrong is. God requires all men everywhere to obey His laws. Therefore, all men everywhere are without excuse when they sin for all have sinned and failed to glorify God. Sam Hughey |
||||||
17 | Conscience? | Matt 28:20 | reformedreader | 3560 | ||
charis, I apologize for the name exchange. My eyes must have been looking where my brain was not thinking. When you use the phrase "acceptable to God" be careful. I think I know what you mean but it can be misunderstood. Some might take that to mean God accepts us on the grounds of what we do. I know, I've had some to accuse me of implying that. However, much like the worship of the priests of the Old Testament, the worship of the priests of the New Testament must also be acceptable by God. This is very strange to many Christians who think worship is just doing something religious. God has not changed His standard for worship and ours must be done so as to be acceptable by God, otherwise, we worship in vain. Our prayers will be attended to by God only if we approach God in the same manner as the Old Testament priests. We must approach Him on the grounds of a clean heart, meaning our sins must be confessed. We must approach the throne of God in no less a manner of holiness than our Old Testament priest equivalents. Yes, I believe the term 'conscience' is a good word for the natural ability to know right from wrong. But don't forget, just because we all have a conscience doesn't mean we all come to salvation. "These Commandments", as you call them, need to be sharply defined. Antinomianism is rapant in most Arminian congregations, so laws, to some extent, would not mean anything to them. Do God's laws divide? You bet they do. They divide the obedient from the disobedient. They divide the learned from the unlearned. You are absolutely correct that many "law" questions would undermine the traditions of men. Antinomians would disagree with you as well as those that support New Covenant Theology. If you would like to discuss this further, these "laws" need to be defined so we can be called legalists and grace rejecters. (know what I mean) Sam Hughey |
||||||
18 | Jesus at God's Right Hand. | Mark 16:19 | reformedreader | 2981 | ||
bcbloyd, I think you are right on the money, so to speak. As others have and will point out though, God does not have hands since He is a Spirit. The Bible often uses metaphorical language when describing God. God does this so we may better understand the impact and force of His words in our lives. Sam Hughey |
||||||
19 | Can man refuse God's invitation? | Luke 14:16 | reformedreader | 2849 | ||
angelbyte, If this verse refers to election, then election ceases to be election. Do we find the scriptures saying God invited us or elected us from the foundation of the world? Sam Hughey |
||||||
20 | You can lose your salvation | Luke 23:26 | reformedreader | 3710 | ||
Chucky1146, While it is true that Jesus said, "If you abide in me I will abide in you", it is not true that Jesus was referring to one losing their salvation. And it is also true that Jesus said, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."(John 6:39) Now, if we can make "I lose nothing" equal to "I lose some", then we can make "if you abide in me I will abide in you" mean you can lose your salvation. Can we do that? Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |