Results 121 - 140 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25975 | ||
This is true enough what you say about those who major on those issues which are not central to the Christian faith. However, those who consider others excluded from the people of God on the basis of those secondary issues are really preaching a false gospel, in any case. Some of the issues you brought up are serious errors in churches, but I would suggest that they stem from rejection of Scripture rather than embracing it. For example, I would not recommend that any non-Christian investigate churches that knowlingly ordain homosexuals. That's why it all comes back down to the Bible. Churches that teach everyone must speak in tongues are not teaching biblical truth. And, of course, the perspective that I come from (the Reformed one, that is) holds to a very high view of the sovereignty of God in salvation, so I hold that one's rejection of biblical Christianity has little to do with the churches to which one is exposed. God will save whom He will in His timing and in His way. The erroneous and legalistic and apostate churches cannot mess God up in bringing His elect to Himself. And, our part is to consistently and constatntly proclaim the truth clearly and watch the Holy Spirit work theough the faithful proclamation of His word. Theological error has been in our midst from almost the beginning, and it hasn't stopped God yet! :) --Joe! |
||||||
122 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25976 | ||
Wow, Paul. These are pretty powerful words. And pretty un-historical ones. The Reformers, just like those who came before, did not seek to overthrow the Church of Rome, but to bring it back to the basics as seen in Scripture. Hence the name "REFORM." Originally there was never any intent to form new branches of Christendom, but to fix what was wrong in the existing ones. Please provide some historical examples from the Dark Ages of groups that held true to the biblical faith AND split off from the institution of Roman Catholicism. Please also demonstrate how the verse you cited refers to Rome: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." --Matthew 24:24 Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
123 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26170 | ||
Ed: Ninety-five percent? That's a staggering figure! Where did you get that number from? One thing that's very interesting is that we are attending a church whose membership numbers in the thousands, but it defies every other definition of a mega-church. It does have a wide variety of programs, but every single one of them is centered around edification of believers in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and extending the reach of the Kingdom into the world. It is very hard to be a pew-sitter in this church with such a focus on glorifying God with our entire existence. In fact, our pastor today (as he often does) declared without hesitation that being a pew-sitter is not an option for the follower of Christ. The fascinating thing about it is that I certainly didn't go there because of its size, but it seems that the growth of the church is not due to a contemporary "worship" (which it certainly does not have) or a "feel-good" sermon addressing felt needs (think solid, unapologizing Reformation doctrine), but rather due to the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of a community to bring them together to truly honor Him. I usually have been adverse to larger churches beacuse of the mega-church syndrome, but a "shopping-mall church" this ain't! --Joe! |
||||||
124 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26175 | ||
Ed; I would argue that the church's authority has diminished in direct proportion to the level it has discounted the Word of God to be an infallible authority of faith and practice. That did not start with the Reformation but rather much later, starting from the so-called "Age of Reason" of the 1700s. This period of rationalism profoundly influenced the thinking of many ministers, who in turn began to deny the truth of the Scriptures. If we say that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead but we can all be good Christians anyway, everything starts to unravel. There are a great number of books tracing the history of the church's decline of influence in the world at large. Some excellent books on the subject are _The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind_ by Mark Noll and _No Place for Truth_ by David Wells. Both trace the lack of influence that the church has to a gradual conformity to the world and the rising influence of pietism, which divorces faith from our God-given minds. In short, we have few thinking Christians in the world today. One only has to look through the posts on here to see that there is not only a non-intellectualism in Christianity today, but also a pervasive ANTI-intellectualism, as if thinking too hard about the things of God is "quenching the Spirit," somehow. I am also in the middle of an excellent book entitled _Evangelicalism Divided_ by Iain Murray, which paints a very bleak picture of how the evangelical church in the last half-century has sold its soul in order to gain more respectability in the world. It is very well-documented and points out how in Britain and in the United States a great number of denoninations, groups, and ministries traditionally aligned with evangelicalism have basically taken an attitude of "please, world, we really want you to like us, so we will do whatever it takes for you to not hate us so much." Of course, this ignores the words of our Lord completely: "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you." --John 15:18-19 If we are following Christ, the world will hate us. That is because everyone who has not been called out of the world by Christ hates Him and His church. That is why those who make petty excuses about Bible translations (other than cult mis-translations they all say pretty much the same thing) and other "side issues" rather than confronting the issue of their sinfulness. As someone who has worked on and off in countercult evangelism for more than a decade, what the cults that you mentioned offer is structure, so much so that no one needs to be a thinker; others will be happy to do it for them. They offer an avenue for people to pridefully work for their own justification, letting them be misguided in their pursuit of righteousness through works. The other side of the coin, of course, has been a near-complete abdication on the part of evangelical churches to train their members in theology for their sanctification, in addition to casting aside their biblical duty to be discerning and disciplining. A healthy church is one where the whole counsel of God is preached faithfully and consistently (that is BOTH Testaments in the context of redemptive history, centered on God and Christ, not man), where baptism and the Lord's supper are celebrated, and where biblical church discipline is present. The unhealthy churches we have in our midst are those that fall short of these trhee charateristics consistently, and people abandon unhealthy churches for cults all the time. You have no idea how many Mormon missionaries I have talked to that grew up Southern Baptists. We simply HAVE to return to teaching and training our fellow believers in the truths of God, giving them meat, and engaging them in having Christ's attitude toward ministry: "Jesus *said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.'" --John 4:34 --Joe! |
||||||
125 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26243 | ||
Islam holds that Isa (Jesus) is one of a long line of prophets leading up to Muhammed. They do not believe that He is the Son of God. They do not believe that He was crucified (and therefore not risen from the dead). They do not believe that He lived a perfect life. They do not believe that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore, Muslims are dead in their sins and storing up the wrath of God for the day of judgment. --Joe! |
||||||
126 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26247 | ||
It is a horrible idea for Christian churches to give an audience to Muslim speakers, for the same reason it would be to give a Satanic priest an audience. Islam is a false religion that denies every single tenet of the Christian faith that leads a person to salvation. The pulpit is for the proclamation of truth, not the propagation of damnable lies. There are plenty of people who are Christians who know Islam in and out and would be perfect people to educate the congregation on Islam's tenets vs. Biblical truth. There are also many former Muslims (now Christians) who could fill that place much more effectively than any false teacher. --Joe! |
||||||
127 | is the bible the inerrent word of God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26248 | ||
Yes. --Joe! |
||||||
128 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26252 | ||
Norrie: Actually, these are very commonly-held views in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Augsburg Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession (all of which are followed by evangelical denominations today) state that baptism is for believers and their children. For those holding to these confessions, the baptism does not save, but it is a mark of grace which sets a child apart as a member of God's covenant community, and they state that the normal operation of God is to bring the children of believers to faith in Christ. Here is how the Heidelberg Catechism puts it: "74. Q. Should infants, too, be baptized? A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant." The Scripture passages used to support this understanding are Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14; Ps. 22:11; Is. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38, 39; Acts 16:31; Acts 10:47; I Cor. 7:14; Gen. 17:9-14; Col. 2: 11-13 Now, of course, there are congregations that hold to the Reformation doctrines with the exception of their views of baptism and the Lord's supper. Many Baptist churches, for example, are Reformed in their outlook but practice believer's baptism. --Joe! |
||||||
129 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26311 | ||
Thanks for this story. It reminded me of the Parliament of Religions that was held in Chicago in 1893 and the pluralism it led to in the 20th century. If you have never heard of that, do a web search on it. It is not that commonly-known, but it did have a dramatic pluralistic impact on the 20th century. --Joe! |
||||||
130 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26312 | ||
We don't need interfaith dilogue in churches, but instruction from the Bible on loving our enemies and blessing those who persecute us, as well as thological training showing the weaknesses and errors of Islam and proven evangelistic stragegies for speaking the truth in love. --Joe! |
||||||
131 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26351 | ||
Proclamation of the truth is what we need. Interfaith dialogue is usually ecumenical in its nature, suggesting something along the lines of "our diversity of religions makes us stronger." That is not how God saw it, and it is what led to the complete destruction of the nation of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of Judah. "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst --for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-- otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice, and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods." --Exodus 34:13-16 Granted, we are not a theocratic form of government like the nation of Israel, but our God is still named Jealous, and He does not want His people flirting with false belief systems, which ultimately are of Satan. Therefore, proclamation and debate, yes. Dialogue for the purpose of seeing the alleged "wealth" to be found in all world religions? No. --Joe! |
||||||
132 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26621 | ||
Whether you adhere to baptismal regeneration or not, it is incorrect to say that this doctrine did surfaced 200 years ago. Rather, it is the Church of Christ's teaching which is the newer doctrine. From Chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." From the Heidelberg Catechism (late 1500's): "73. Q. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the washing of regeneration and the washing away of sins? A. God speaks in this way for a good reason. He wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ remove our sins just as water takes away dirt from the body. But, even more important, He wants to assure us by this divine pledge and sign that we are as truly cleansed from our sins spiritually as we are bodily washed with water." Therefore, the concept was clearly a part of the thought of the Reformation. Speaking of church history, another problem surfaces when we insist that believers must be immersed in order to gain regeneration. That problem is the historical tradition of infant baptism. Whether or not one agrees that infant baptism is a biblical practice, one cannot deny that the sprinkling or pouring upon infants was almost exclusively the mode and timing of baptism until the Anabaptists came on the scene in the middle of the 16th century. Therefore, what happened to the church is EVERYONE was baptised as an infant for century upon century. Are you prepared to say that God's church completely dies out until believer's baptism came (back) into the picture? No one was saved for at least 1200 years? Some sovereign God we have there, if that is the case! The baptismal regeneration of believers only is most definitely a product of the restorationist tendencies of modern America. --Joe! |
||||||
133 | 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! |
||||||
134 | 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! |
||||||
135 | 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! |
||||||
136 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26801 | ||
Why don't you address my point first? --Joe! |
||||||
137 | 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! |
||||||
138 | "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! |
||||||
139 | 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! |
||||||
140 | "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! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [123] >> |