Results 101 - 120 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26688 | ||
Kin: Oh, I see what you are saying now. Yes, the "sinner's prayer" movement is a rather recent innovation in church history, but salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is not, as I showed you from the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Cathechism. Don't confuse the "asking of Jesus into your heart" (which I am opposed to as well) with the rejection of the notion that all un-immersed individuals after the Resurrection are either in Hell or on their way there. --Joe! |
||||||
102 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26689 | ||
Lin: You are right about the non-contextual use of Revelation 3:20, but are off on your history again. Zwingli was not part of the Great Awakening, but preceded it by two centuries. --Joe! |
||||||
103 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26692 | ||
Nonsense. Protestants were not in complete agreement on certain issues, but they were certainly not confused. Have you ever even read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion on this subject? Somehow, I doubt it, if you think that he was confused. --Joe! |
||||||
104 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26801 | ||
Why don't you address my point first? --Joe! |
||||||
105 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26889 | ||
Demonstrate to me that Revelation 12 literally refers to a single individual. Then go through the whole chapter and demonstrate to me that it refers to Mary. Is Satan really a dragon, too? If your view of Revelation 12 is the best you have to go on in proving Mary is the "new Eve," you have a pretty paper-thin argument. Christ is specifically called the Second Adam in Scripture. We see NO such reference to Mary being the second Eve outside of Catholic dogma. Why can't you just read the New Testament in its entirety and realize that while Mary was indeed blessed by God and honored to bear Jesus in her womb, that she is not in any way a central figure in the Biblical narrative. Jesus? Absolutely; first and foremost. Paul? Certainly. Peter? Without a doubt. Mary? A few scant references outside of the Advent story. It just doesn't wash. Stop making so much of the wedding at Cana! It is such blasphemy to suggest that Mary has to "prod" Jesus -- very God of very God -- into doing what He purposed to do before the foundation of the world. A contemptible heresy is what it is, Emmaus. A violation of the First Commandment, too, at its heart. Romans 5:19 refers to Christ, not Mary. Stop ripping it out of its context and that becomes crystal clear. Hint: refer to verse 17 to see who "the One" is. When tradition takes precedence over the clear understanding of Scripture, theological gymnastics results. --Joe! |
||||||
106 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26890 | ||
You mention that Paul clearly demonstrates that Jesus is the Second Adam. Why do you suppose that he did not clearly expound the doctrine you put forth here of Mary being the second Eve? If it is so absolutely central to Christianity, why is it not mentioned ONCE in the epistles? Justification is talked about incessantly. So is grace and faith and the role of works and the absolute centrality of Christ as the redeemer. NOTHING about Mary in any of Paul's epistles. James doesn't refer to her. Peter (the "first pope") doesn't either. Since I do not hold that Revelation 12 is a good argument, I hold that John doesn't either. Nowhere! Nowhere! Two of the gospels do not even record the story of Christ's birth and the Anunciation! Face it: Emmaus. Mary was chosen by God, therefore she was blessed. Not sinless. ---- Let's look at Luke 1:28 And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." --Luke 1:28 (NASB) The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." --Luke 1:28 (NIV) And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women! --Luke 1:28 (NKJV) And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. --Luke 1:28 (KJV) And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" --Luke 1:28 (RSV) And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" --Luke 1:28 (ESV) And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." --Luke 1:28 (the *Catholic* New American Bible) All of these versions use the word "favored" or "highly favored." The exact Greek word is used in one other place in the New Testament. Does it refer to Mary? No. Jesus? Nope. Then to whom does it refer? Let's take a look: "to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." --Ephesians 1:6 (NASB) "to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." --Ephesians 1:6 (ESV) for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved." --Ephesians 1:6 (New American Bible) "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." --Ephesians 1:6 (KJV) So the word is translated "freely bestowed," "blessed," or "made accepted" in these three translations. However, you translate it, the exact word used to describe Mary (which you say implies her sinlessness) is used to describe ALL CHRISTIANS. So either all Christians have no sin or your argument deflates. Make Christ the center of your theology. He certainly is the center of Scripture! --Joe! |
||||||
107 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26954 | ||
You wrote: "And just how much of Revelation and especially Revelation 12 do you take 'literally'? Am I to suppose you do no interpretation at all?" Of course I do, but you are the one claiming that it is undoubtedly Mary. You cited Revelation 12 as proof positive that Mary is somehow the "queen of heaven" or whatever you want to call her. Is it really a lamb opening seals in Rev. 4? No. Is Satan actually and literally a dragon? No. Then why must we conclude that the woman in Revelation 12 is literally a woman? I am not stating unequivocally that you MUST be wrong, but your argument needs a lot more support than citing verse 1. Show us how the rest of the narrative reflects that the woman is Mary. You also wrote: "Jesus is the central figure in the biblical narrative and all history for that matter. It is just that Mary was literally wrapped around Him body and soul. He was flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone. Is there any better example of complete dedication to God?" Sur ethere is....Christ's sinless life, obedience to God the Father in all things. While I certainly do not despise Mary, and agree that God chose her, I would not say that being the biological mother of anyone in itself makes one dedicated. I teach public high school, and I see lots of biological mothers who are anything but dedicated. Not saying that Mary wasn't, but Mary was blessed BECAUSE God chose her, and not the other way around. You wrote: "I did not say Mary 'prodded' Jesus, I said Eve prodded Adam and Mary instigated the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Webster’s defines instigate as 'to urge on'." I quote your last post: "Mary instigates the beginning of the saving ministry of Jesus by her prodding at Cana." Prodding. You wrote: "I did not say Romans 5:19 referred to Mary. I was using it to draw the parallel analogy of Eve and Mary." It doesn't talk about Eve or Mary at all. Please elaborate how Romans 5:19 supports your argument. You wrote: "And there is no Calvinist tradition that influences your understanding of scripture?" Of course I am influenced by it, because it is actually SCRIPTURAL. Sola Scriptura, not riding sidesaddle with man-man doctrine which has no support in the Bible. Any Reformed doctrine does not come from Church pronouncements or fallible men, but solely from the word of God. That is the difference between searching like crazy to find support for veneration of Mary and building a confession of faith from the Word alone. --Joe! |
||||||
108 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26991 | ||
Emmaus: These are the only times that ANY of the forms of that verb are used in the entire Bible. As a linguist, I can tell you that changing the tense of a verb does not change the action itself, but rather the time of its occurance and its frequency. Therefore, whether it is present or past or future, habitual or continuous or one-time does not change the fact that we are talking about a bestowal of God's favor upon individuals. The verb speaks nothing of Mary (or us) meriting such a bestowal. God gave favor to Mary. God freely gave it to us. That is the classical Protestant understanding of grace. Unmerited favor. You would think that if your understanding were correct that the New American Bible would have translated it "full of grace" like you originally suggested. Guess the most popular Catholic Bible doesn't have the Greek knowledge that you do... And we would have a lot to debate about on Jesus, I am sure. The Reformation was about more than indulgences after all! --Joe! |
||||||
109 | AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 28141 | ||
Of course young children have an idea of God's law. It is written upon their hearts: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." --Romans 2:14-15 We do not have to be read the Old Testament to know right from wrong. A child may not know the number of the commandment, but they were given a moral sense which clearly tells them that they should honor their parents. No one truly goes through their whole lives without understanding or excuse, because the existence of God is written on the fabric of creation as well (Romans 1:18-20). No one, from infant to geriatric, is ever without excuse. Romans 2:1 reinforces this as well. --Joe! |
||||||
110 | are we saved by grace alone? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 29371 | ||
So you say that we are not saved by God's grace alone though faith alone in Christ alone...? --Joe! |
||||||
111 | Can you lose your salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30015 | ||
Mike: Thanks for your comments. You wrote in number 1: 'Without God's grace, man would be eternally lost! This is God's part in man's salvation process...Man's part in his salvation process is accepting God's grace "through faith"' Biblically speaking, it is all God's part. Even the faith we place in Christ is God's gift. Regarding #2, I am curious as to how you come to your conclusion that if we are saved by grace through faith (not of works), that the truly saved must maintain their salvation through repentance. I agree that those who are truly children of God will confess their sins, but even you must realize that there is at least one sin in your life for which you have not specifically repented. If we "miss one," are we damned? --Joe! |
||||||
112 | Can you lose your salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30018 | ||
Mike: I disagree with the minor premise of your syllogism. Simply citing Isaiah 59 does little to support your view that the "sin unto death" is a sin unto the loss of salvation. Your view of confessing sin, by the way, if very close to the Catholic idea of sacramental penance. Yes, we are undoubtedly to be confessing and repentant (Martin Luther's first thesis was that our lives should be ones of continual repentance). However, we have a contradiction in your claim that we are saved by God's grace (unmerited favor), but that we lose that salvation if we don't confess each sin. Another question...when you became a Christian, did you confess every single sin that you ever committed? Assuming you did not, why didn't you have to make your list then? In my experience, those who hold that every sin must be confessed generally have a poor understanding of just how much we still sin. I could not even count the number of times I have sinned (in even the most passing thought, word, or deed) against an infinitely holy God since I rolled out of bed this morning. While I do continually confess my sin against God in a general sense, it would be literally impossible to do anything else during the day but confess our continual lack of conformity to God's law and our transgression of it. Everything we do is still tainted by sin. Even our God-honoring works are imperfect in some form or fashion. If we must confess each and every sin, then we are doomed, because no one does that. --Joe! |
||||||
113 | Can you lose your salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30067 | ||
Mike: It only takes a cursory reading of my posts to see that I fully understand the importance of holding to the whole counsel of God. You are "preaching to the choir" there. I am quite the "sola Scriptura" guy, I love both Testaments, and applaud your claim to the same standard. However, you did not address the points in my post at all. I do not base my understanding on some pre-conceived notion, making Scripture try to "fit the facts." So, please respond to the points I made in my post. Is the total depravity of humanity a Biblical doctrine or not? If so, how can our sick, wicked hearts (Jeremiah 17:9) ever truly comprehend and make account for every last sin we commit? In addition, how is Christ the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) if confession on our part forms the basis of maintaining a right standing with God? Please note that I am not saying that those who are unrepentant exhibit saving faith; I want you to grasp from the whole counsel of God the absolute holiness of God and how cosmically far we still fall short of His righteous standard. Have you confessed every last sin you have ever committed by name? How do you know you have not ignored one or failed to recognize one or sinfully justified the sin by making an excuse? Because according to the theology you put forward, if there is the tiniest one left unmentioned, it is hell for you. As far as your last paragraph, I also completely disagree. There are many people who adhere to the principles you mentioned and yet still differ on issues, because one or more of them are wrong in your interpretation. Do you sincerely believe that every view you now hold is precisely the one that God does, that you are not in the slightest bit of theological error at all? All of us are wrong on something, I am quite sure, despite the fact that we hold God's word to be THE standard for faith and practice, studying it our whole lives. --Joe! |
||||||
114 | Can you lose your salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30072 | ||
Mike: Thanks for your response again. You mentioned in your daily prayer that you confess all sins known and unknown. That is not too different from what I do. However, you said it is a daily prayer. What if you were to commit an unknown sin 10 minutes later and then died before reaching the next prayer time? Thsi may seem to be belaboring the point, but I am quite confident that such a scenario occurs all the time in our lives. In other words, our mouths simply cannot keep up with our sins. Also, I hope you have not come to the conclusion that I think that works are not a part of the Christian life. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Good (i.e. God-honoring) works are the evidence of God at work in us, making clear to us and others our justification. However, our justification was accomplished by Christ on the Cross 2000 years ago, not by us today (Romans 8:33). I also find it interesting that you differentiate the works of the believer from the works mentioned in the Old Testament. How are the Ten Commandments the "old law"? Is there no longer a prohibition against idolatry and murder and adultery and lying and stealing and coveting and disobedience to parents? Are we not to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves anymore? There is no question that we do not keep these completely, because we still sin. However, all of the New Testament works/commands are in keeping with the moral law of God which runs throughout all of Scripture. And the thing is that we STILL don't completely and unwaveringly keep those NT commandments that you mentioned. That is the thing about grace. If we look at the Ephesians 2 passage, we see God's grace applied to us through faith (all of this being the gift of God) apart from works (what is your basis for saying that the works are limited to the specifics of God's covenant with the nation of Israel, since Paul was writing to Gentiles who never were part of that covenant?). However, true saving faith results in works, as Ephesians 2:10. Note, however, that the works, like the grace and faith, are of God, prepared beforehand for us to walk in them. Grace leads to faith (which includes repentance), resulting in God-honoring works as the Holy Spirit empowers us to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). However, it is God's grace that is the BASIS of our justification, faith being the MEANS, and works being the RESULT. All three are a part of the equation, but we must never get them out of order. --Joe! |
||||||
115 | Can you lose your salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30073 | ||
Good response, Hank. I keep forgetting to point out Reformer Joe's Fallacy No. 1 like I should: interpreting the whole Bible in light of a single verse rather than the other way around. This whole point of view hinges on his interpretation of 1 John 5:16, an interpretation which he has not sufficiently supported. --Joe! |
||||||
116 | What about those who never heard of JC ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30914 | ||
Bob: Thanks for your post. There is no support for inclusivism in the Bible. It is a speculative view from some Arminians who do not want to accept that God passes over some. While I don't think that your choice of words is terribly charming, the Incas and other precolombian civilizations were made up of sinners who died without a saving knowledge of Christ. Romans 1-3 tells us that creation reveals God's attributes and that all human beings are imbued with a moral sense (conscience) whic testifies to God's law. It also tells us that in our sinfulness we have suppressed that truth in unrighteousness. No one seeks after God; all have gone astray. That revelation from nature and conscience condemns us, rather than saves us. Scripture clearly atests that Christ is the only way to God (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) and that faith comes only by hearing the word of God proclaimed (Romans 10:14-17). Therefore, we indeed have thousands of years of people going to hell. Time to get out there and proclaim the truth, because we are God's appointed means to bring people to Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
117 | What about those who never heard of JC ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30919 | ||
1. Yes, you are right. What was the Old Testament faith in? 2. What verse(s) are you citing here? 3. Absolutely correct, because it is our failure to DO right that condemns us. 4. Sure they coincide, or else you have to start tearing whole chapters out of your Bible. Predestination is biblical. So is free will, in a certain sense. The question is how they fit together. 5. Wrong. The faith expressed was in the promise of God's redemption. No, they did not have as much revelation as we do regarding the specifics of that redemption, but the object of their faith was the same. 6. I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. 7. Then you have a poor concept of God's sovereignty. Show me verses which say that everyone's name is in the book of life. Show me passages which state we refuse God's choosing. The Holy Spirit is a "He," not an "it." Predestination is addressed in Matthew 13, John 6, Romans 8-9, and Ephesians 1, among other places. Denying it is denying Scripture. --Joe! |
||||||
118 | What about those who never heard of JC ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30933 | ||
Brian: You have posted this interpretation before, and it still does not fit the context. Jesus used this parable to answer the question, "Who is my neighbor?" asked by a man seeking to justify himself as a keeper of the law. It has nothing in the least to do with whom God chooses for salvation. I also disagree with your judging God's sovereign use of His free grace and mercy as being "evil." Who are you to judge God? Perhaps you had better go back and read Romans 9:15 in its context to see Who is the boss here. As for saying there is some other plan of salvation, you are calling God and Christ liars (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Furthermore, it is really calling God evil to send His own Son to die for sins if there was some other way to save His people. Under your faulty theology, Christ's death was completely unnecessary, because "God must have a plan of salvation for those souls [who have not heard of Christ]." --Joe! |
||||||
119 | What about those who never heard of JC ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30935 | ||
1. I am perfectly calm. 2. Re-read. 3. You are saying that people without Christ can go to heaven. Besides the fact that that has nothing to do with the parable of the Good Samaritan, it means that salvation is not only found in Christ. That is directly contrary to the crystal-clear statements that Christ made about Himself and the inspired text of the New Testament. Therefore, the death of Christ was unnecessary, because apparently God forgives sins apart from Christ in your scenario. Therefore, you are contradicting the clearest message of the New Testament by trying to turn a completely unrelated parable into an apologetic for a possible salvation apart from Christ. Clearer now? --Joe! |
||||||
120 | What about those who never heard of JC ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 30987 | ||
Why am I having to repeat myself yet again? God intentionally allows human beings to come into existence knowing full well that He will not save them. Is that clear enough for you? Because it certainly is biblical. It is, in my opinion, an error to use the term "create" in the biblical sense to apply to individual human beings. The creation act of God, in the biblical sense, took place during the six creation days of Genesis 1. Everything God created was good. Then God rested on the seventh day, signifying that the act of biblical creation was over. Therefore, although God decrees, allows, and is directly involved in the birth of new human beings, they are not "created" in the same sense that Adam was created. Therefore, I specifically disagree with points 2 (because you hold that God is still "creating" men), 3 (because God does indeed will the suffering of people, including His children -- Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 3:12), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as being speculative and unbiblical. While I agree to the truth of 10 and 11, Romans 9:15 in its context unquestionably refutes your argument in points 2-9 rather than supports it. And I did notice that you changed the subject on my pointing out the lack of necessity of Christ's atonement under your scheme. If salvation can be found anywhere else (which makes Peter a liar -- Acts 4:12), then Christ's incarnation, life, death, and resurrection are completely irrelevant. And, you are sinning by defining what God's goodness "must" be. Why don't you let Scripture shape your worldview rather than trying to twist verses to fit yours? '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?' --Romans 9:20 --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [97] >> |