Results 1 - 20 of 101
|
||||||
Results from: 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 | 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. |
||||||
6 | 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. |
||||||
7 | 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. |
||||||
8 | 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. |
||||||
9 | 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 |
||||||
10 | 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/ |
||||||
11 | 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 |
||||||
12 | 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. |
||||||
13 | 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. |
||||||
14 | 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. |
||||||
15 | 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. |
||||||
16 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154843 | ||
Dear Doc, You wrongly posted that James White is a Doctor, and I pointed out he is Mr James White. I would not be happy with you calling someone Apostle Brown or Prophet Jones. A false title needs addressing. Besides Mr White obviously uses "Doctor" to lend authority to his views: at least its not as bad as a phoney doctor working in a hospital. |
||||||
17 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154830 | ||
Sorry Doc, I have nothing to do with Boston Church of Christ. Never have. The only Churches you'll find me in are Catholic, Orthodox, or conservative Episcopalian. Mine is the voice of the bi-millenial Church. The voice of the historic Christian Church, of the creeds, of the Councils, of the Fathers of the Church. My Masters degree education in Theology is from the great universities of Europe older than your country. Talking of universities, I have to inform you that "Dr" James White is DUPING YOU calling himself a Doctor of Theology. His "degree" is bogus, it is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary which is a little room above a shop, it is unaccredited, it's students set their own syllabus. I'm perfectly happy to hear Mr. White's opinions but please don't call the pseud a Doctor, he isn't. http://www.columbiaseminary.org/ http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_socrates58_archive.html Photo of the Columbia evangelical seminary; no one is sure if the park bench outside the shop is part of the campus. Note to the moderator: if any of this is untrue I will gladly post an apology. But check. |
||||||
18 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154813 | ||
The PLAIN SENSE of scripture teaches faith alone does it? So I take it James 2:24 reads in the plain sense we are saved by faith alone. The one and only place in the Bible where we find the expression 'faith alone' is where Scripture denies we are saved by faith alone. I think your understanding of the plain sense and mine are a little different. Sorry, who are you saying is the 'supreme judge' where there is disagreement over the meaning of scripture as in your disagreement here with Martin Luther et al's interpretation of Scripture? |
||||||
19 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154772 | ||
With due respect what constitutes evidence? You can't say you've proven anything other than say you've present your best argument if the point remains disputed. Personally I'm going with the plain sense of scripture, the voluminous body of writings by the Church fathers, the Nicene Creed, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, etc. etc. etc. If truth were decided by the majority vote of all Christians then you most certainly have been proven wrong. Please note that Scripture is a whole; I believe your exegesis is based on an either/or approach to Scripture, rather than an and/with methodology. Herein lies your error. As the majority of Christians believe BAPTISM AND/WITH FAITH saves, I agree entirely with you when you present verses which only mention faith/belief, you simply present one half of the historic orthodox Christian doctrine, you don't contradict it... |
||||||
20 | I need to know the direct translation | Jer 2:22 | Dalcent | 154696 | ||
The meaning of baptize according to Strongs and NASEC is as follows STRONG G907 baptizo bap-tid-zo From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash. NASEC G907 baptizo; from G911; to dip, sink: - Baptist (3), baptize (9), baptized (51), baptizes (1), baptizing (10), ceremonially washed (1), undergo (1). |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |