Results 121 - 140 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87810 | ||
"I think most theologians and Bible scholars will agree John 3:16 carries the essence of the Bible so while it may only be one verse it is one of the few that will stand alone." Is that like "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed..."? We must use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Therefore, while we certainly must use John 3:16 to help us understand the rest of the Bible, we in turn must use the rest of the Bible to help us better understand John 3:16. The whole of Scripture taken together not only defines more completely the biblical concept of belief (refuting those with whom we both disagree who say that belief is just a "nod of the head" regarding certain facts), but also tells us more completely precisely who are the "everyone who believes" and what makes us believe. You say that John 3:16 is a self-evident, stand-alone verse. Others have come here and used Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 as lenses for the interpretation of Scripture. Our "name-it-and-claim-it" buddies take 1 Peter 2:24 and make it one of their "stand-alone verses." There are no "stand-alone verses." Even when Christians use correctly in isolation a single verse or couple of verses, it is because of a previous, implicit knowledge of the rest of Scripture and how it supports the given interpretation and use. There is an interesting commentary on the (mis)use of John 3:16 in an open letter James White wrote to Dave Hunt last year. I hope you will take the time to read it, if only to refine your arguments against Calvinism: http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html --Joe! |
||||||
122 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87792 | ||
"Yes they were call proselytes and Rahah was a whore from Jericho. Do I dare mention Ruth? Just to name two that also ended up in the lineage of Jesus." You may mention Ruth, if you dare. :) Both of those you mentioned, along with other notable OT Gentiles mentioned in the Bible, were rescued providentially by God. However, I wouldn't suggest that Jericho was evangelized prior to its destruction or that Israelites sent missionaries to Moab. God commanded his people not to incorporate them into the nation of Israel, but to utterly destroy them. Where is the "accept or reject" here? (Answer: we all have already rejected God before we have even heard the name of Jesus Christ) "The temple had a court yard of the gentiles for those that had not fully converted (not yet circumcised)" Did people come from China and India and Australia and Mesoamerica to the court of the Gentiles? I never claimed that God completely excluded Gentiles from his covenant people prior to Jesus (despite the fact that they did de-Gentile themselves to do so). Rather, my problem is with the biblically unsubstantiated assertion that EVERYONE has been given (or will be given) a chance to accept or reject salvation. Biblical evidence is to the contrary. "So once again we see to believe in your theology we also have to learn creative reading." Creative reading? You proved my very point in your post. I said that the word "whosoever" is not in the Greek and your interlinear supports that assertion completely. "Everyone believing in him" ("hina pas ho pisteuwn") does not imply that everyone has the moral capacity to choose God. Actually, the word "whoever" doesn't convey that either, but has developed in some circles an implied connotation of moral freedom. "The translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV and NASB were all in a conspiracy to make Calvin look bad." No, you just are reading more into those translations than what is there. "Whoever believes" does not mean that anyone can join the club. If I say, "Whoever has twin offspring, respond to this post," that doesn't mean that you can decide whether or not you have twins at this moment. It means that I am distinguishing one category of human being from another. Nothing more. "Your making this laughable and I will not be drawn into this." Well, I try to be entertaining as I educate! :) --Joe! |
||||||
123 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 87762 | ||
'If you want to try and make Jesus Almighty God, go ahead. He's not, he is God's "only-begotten son", "first born of all creation".' He is that and more: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." --Hebrews 1:1-3a 'But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.' --Hebrews 1:8 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." --Revelation 22:12-16 Jesus is the Alpha and Omega? Who is "the Alpha and Omega" in Rev. 1:8 and 21:6? And if the NWT is so dedicated to accurate Bible translation, where does the word "other" come from in its rendition of Colossians 1:16-17? It is used four times there, but has no business being there at all, Greekly speaking. Same thing with John 1:3. Take your eraser to them and what do you get? The deity of Christ. Really, now, who is playing fast and loose with the translations? "That's what the Bible tells us and if you want to try make it mean otherwise, and what others have told you go right ahead but that doesn't make it true. As far as John 1:1 is concerned, again the translators such as the NIV and NASB and King James have tried to make the trinity appear as true. I have studied what Greek scholars say defending their translations for and against. Both translations are proved by these scholars as acceptable Greek grammar." And the anti-Trinitarian arguments do not make sense in the context of John's prologue. In verse 1:3, John makes it clear that NOTHING was made without Jesus' participation. If Jesus was made, then he is self-created (a logical impossibility) or else he is eternally pre-existent like Jehovah the Father. --Joe! |
||||||
124 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87757 | ||
"What WOULD you Calvinists have to talk about if it weren't for Romans 9 ?? !!" Genesis 1-Romans 8 and Romans 10-Revelation 22. :) --Joe! |
||||||
125 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Reformer Joe | 87756 | ||
"Your the master of proof text, but your message does not agree with the rest of scripture. John 3:16 Jesus died for who ever should believe not just the chosen few." So "the rest of Scripture" means John 3:16? By the way, the word "whosoever" is not in the Greek. The Greek reads "all the believing ones." Believers believe because they are the elect of God, not the other way around, which is what far more than 88 verses relate. "Proof text taken out of context is pretext my friend." And what is the context of John 3:16? What else does Jesus say in his conversation with Nicodemus? "Sit down and read the WHOLE Bible not your favorite 88 and see what God said." Ed, it is the implication that you have superior knowledge of Scripture that always leads to the ugliness that arises in these discussions. You have accused a brother in Christ of "proof-texting" and responded with a single verse, your understanding of which should be the lens through which we see the entirety of Scripture. My friend, that is the classic definition of proof-texting. "Look how He dealt with the patriarchs." Look how he dealt with the Canaanite nations. "He gave them a choice, look how he dealt with people all through the Old Testament. In each case God reached out to man either to be accepted or rejected." Yes, the Philistines and Jebusites and Hivvites and the citizens of Jericho and the Moabites were all given that chance to "accept or reject," right? :) --Joe! |
||||||
126 | how to start reading the bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 87755 | ||
"I am neither 7th day, nor JW, nor HWA follower, I am follower of Jesus Christ and I worship and bow my knee to Him and the Father, from whom all life flows." You quote from Herbert W. Armstrong far more than you do Jesus Christ. You wrote: "We BECAME living souls, the Bible does not say that we have souls, or that we were given souls, it clearly states that we BECAME souls or nephesh or living creature, air-breathing creatures." Quoting from Jesus, not Armstrong: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." --Matthew 10:28 If there is no body-soul distinction in the Bible, how is man able to destroy the body but not the soul, but God is able to destroy both? Quite apparently, "picking up my Bible" would lead an individual to the conclusion that Jesus taught that the body and the soul are two distinct things. I wish you a clearer understanding of His word. --Joe! |
||||||
127 | Prove all things hold fast to the good.. | 1 Cor 15:1 | Reformer Joe | 86135 | ||
It must be emphasized that God the Holy Spirit has done an amazing work within the Worldwide Church of God in bringing it to Christian orthodoxy. One can read about it by looking at the history of the organization on their web site: http://www.wcg.org "goodnewsminister" apparently is a member of a splinter cult known as the Living Church of God, one of the groups who longed to cling to heresy rather than stay with the cult God was bringing into line with biblical truth. Why he is still allowed to post here is beyond me. --Joe! |
||||||
128 | Predestination question? | 1 Tim 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 85094 | ||
Hey, Tim. Been busy with my twin baby girls, so my posting time is somewhat limited these days. You wrote: "It would make absolutely no sense to say that the first 'all men' means 'each and every individual' but the second 'all men' means only some men." If this verse were taken in isolation, I would agree. What I see is the following: In verse 15, "the many" is used in both places but clearly refer to different groups. In the first case, "the many" refers to those who have Adam as their federal head (i.e. all unregenerate human beings, including us in our pre-salvation days). In the second, those who have Christ as their federal head are "the many." In verse 17, we see the same thing, where we have death reigning through those in Adam, and those in Christ reigning in life. In verse 19, we see again that "the many" were made sinners (i.e. the unregenerate, those "in Adam") and "the many" who are in Christ WILL BE made righteous. Again, the certainty of the future final sanctification leaves no doubt that Paul is referring in the second case to those who are in Christ. So we see a back-and-forth comparison between those in Adam and those in Christ. That is why I think it is not a stretch at all to suggest that the verse in the middle of the ones I just mentioned are referring to "all men" in Adam in the first clause and "all men" in Christ in the second. The first result, condemnation, was applied to me from birth. The second result, justification, was applied to me from my new birth. That falls in line with the flow of Paul's argument and avoids the whole "actual condemnation/potential justification" dilemma I mentioned before. "So, here is where I would see your objection differently. The atonement is not just potential. It is an actual, objective fact. Our sins are not atoned for at the moment each of us prays for forgiveness." I agree completely regarding the atonement. It was accomplished for me 2000 years ago. However, we mustn't confuse "atonement" with "justification. The two terms are not interchangeable. My sins were atoned for before I even existed, but my justification is an act of God in my lifetime brought about through faith in Jesus Christ. Paul uses the term justification. Either I am automatically justified by what Christ did, apart from faith (contradicting verse 1); or else I am not automatically condemned by Adam's transgression (contradicting verses 13-19); or else "all men" in the clauses refers to two different groups just as "the many" does in verses 15 and 19. Tricky passage, huh? :) --Joe! |
||||||
129 | Predestination question? | 1 Tim 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 85091 | ||
I think you misunderstand my point. You are arguing that faith is the means of escape from condemnation, and I agree completely. However, being born of Adam in our natural birth, we are automatically condemned. We are not born in some state of "potential condemnation," on a fence between condemnation and salvation. There are too many verses which indicate that those represented by Adam (i.e. the unsaved) are already in a state of condemnation (e.g. John 3:18; Ephesians 2:5) and we are brought from the condemnation in which we stand through our conversion to Christ (Colossians 1:13-14). Therefore, until one receives Christ, he is automatically in a state of condemnation. I believe Romans 5:18 teaches that. My problem comes when someone asserts that Adam's transgression resulted in ACTUAL condemnation for every single human being, but Christ's obedience results in POTENTIAL justification for every single human being. That ruins the whole parallel in the verse. To be consistent in the verse, one has to either believe in universalism (that everyone will be justified, an argument that some make using this verse); or else come up with a very good explanation as to why the "all men" in both clauses must refer to the same group of people but that one result (condemnation) is automatic and actual but that the other result (justification) is potential and must be activated by the human being to take effect. --Joe! |
||||||
130 | Predestination question? | 1 Tim 2:4 | Reformer Joe | 85031 | ||
"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." --Romans 5:18 My objection to your argument is that if we are seeing a strict parallel between Adam and Jesus and the extent and nature of their representation, why is it logical to conclude that we are all "potentially justified"? If the condemnation is not potential but actual, then the justification is as well. If the justification is potential and not actual, then we are only "potentially condemned" by Adam's transgression (i.e. not born into sin, and hypothetically able to "accept or reject" that condemnation). Is that an orthodox Christian view? --Joe! |
||||||
131 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84828 | ||
But you are not ignorant. You suppress the revealed truth in your desire to rebel against the living God. --Joe! |
||||||
132 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84827 | ||
Correct. --Joe! |
||||||
133 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84766 | ||
"I don't believe everything I hear, I need proof. I can prove that Abe Linclon lived." You can? "How since I wasn't there. Simple: Democrate and Republicians at the time both agreed that he lived." How do you know? Records can be forged. "Historians of all political groups of the time agreed." How do you know our historical records are accurate and haven't been tampered with? "I can go to where he is buried and do a DNA test." You have a sample of Honest Abe's DNA?!? "Can I do this with God or Jesus?" Nope. Listen: while arguments against the existence of Abraham Lincoln are pretty ridiculous, they are not ridiculous because anyone alive today can PROVE his existence. However, the evidence of his existence is overwhelming. Unless someone has obstinately pre-supposed that Lincoln couldn't have existed, the most plausible conclusion based on the evidence is that he did. Ultimately, however, we put our trust (i.e. faith) in the reliability of the evidence, despite the fact that I have never laid eyes on him. Nothing is 100 percent provable. Now to God. No one alive has seen God. The question is, however, what does the evidence of nature (both physical nature and human nature) show to someone who hasn't already pre-supposed that no gods exist? --Joe! |
||||||
134 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84765 | ||
They don't. --Joe! |
||||||
135 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 84764 | ||
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." --Romans 1:18-20 --Joe! |
||||||
136 | Clarity - Jesus being sin and in Heaven | 2 Corinthians | Reformer Joe | 83502 | ||
"Once he took our sins upon himself, he paid the price for mankind and He was able to bust out of hell and beat up the devil." I must have missed this action sequence in my Bible. What verses tell us that (a) Satan is currently in hell; (b) that Satan is the ruler/governor/whatever of hell; and (c) that Jesus "beat up the devil"? --Joe! |
||||||
137 | Did Jesus die spiritually? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Reformer Joe | 83227 | ||
Namely, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 addressed Scripture's revelation of the two natures of Christ and the union between them: http://www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html --Joe! |
||||||
138 | God chose Israel first. Why? | Gal 3:14 | Reformer Joe | 83155 | ||
You are quite welcome! --Joe! |
||||||
139 | J. Preston Eby? | 2 Cor 11:4 | Reformer Joe | 83063 | ||
Hi, Tom. Did you also include the references to hell which don't actually employ the term, such as when Jesus refers to outer darkness with much weeping and gnashing of teeth, or to eternal punishment, or to being cast into the fire? All of those are obviously references to hell as well. --Joe! |
||||||
140 | God chose Israel first. Why? | Gal 3:14 | Reformer Joe | 82988 | ||
God selected a particular nation through which He worked out His redemptive purposes for those from every tribe, tongue, and nation (Revelation 5:9; 7:9). God never had in view saving only the physical descendents of Jacob. God said to Abraham: "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." --Genesis 22:18 Of course, being a pfysical descendent of Jacob didn't guarantee salvation, either. 'But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 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.' --Romans 9:6-8 "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." --Romans 9:21-24 'Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.' --Acts 10:34-35 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [97] >> |