Results 141 - 160 of 500
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | limited protestant? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 63908 | ||
Johnny: You wrote: "Why some doctrine and traditions of catholic accepted by the protestant?" Because not everything in Roman Catholicism is wrong, from the classical Protestant point-of-view. The Reformers saw themselves as not re-establishing the church, but in correcting the wrong turns she had made during the Middles Ages (hence the Term "Reformation" rather than "Restoration"). You wrote: 'Is there any apostle in the bible that celebrate the said events, is there any doctrine that give by the apostle that there is Christmas "the mass of Christ" and christian has to celebrate it or is this a truly invention of man' Christmas isn't mandated, but I wouldn't say that there is any serious reason for forbidding it, either. Not every invention of man is an affront to God. For example, do you sing only Psalms at your church, or do you sing hymns that are not included in Scripture? If you sing hymns, you are engaging in something created by men. Now these hymns may be God-honoring, theologically accurate, and very traditional, but John Newton wrote "Amazing Grace," and not the Holy Spirit. I always find it interesting that those who want to throw every tradition out solely because it is not apostolic want to keep other things that came along much later than Christmas. Ecclesiastes 7:29 is not talking about liturgical traditions, but rather the wicked schemes that men devise despite the fact that "God made mankind upright." That having been said, I do think that there are a lot of "new traditions" out there which do dishonor Christ and run counter to Scripture, out of harmony completely with the traditions of the apostles. However, I am not convinced that Christmas is one of them. --Joe! |
||||||
142 | National God?! | John 4:22 | Reformer Joe | 63893 | ||
You wrote: 'To the people of Israel only Jesus said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of Israel" Matt 15:24. This text shows that he is a messenger sent by God to the people of Israel only.' If we took the verse in isolation from its context and from the rest of Scripture, such would be the case. Jesus was indeed sent to Israel, but the ramifications of his actions were to be of benefit to both Jew and Gentile. We see in Matthew 15, for example, that he heals the Gentile's daughter, right after saying what you quoted. In John 4, we see Jesus reaching out to a Samaritan woman living a life of adultery. In Matthew 8, he encounters a centurion (definitely not a Jew) and heals his servant. So, it is quite clear from Scripture that while he was sent physically to the nation of Israel, being born under the Torah, his ministry and the benefits of his substitutionary death as the spotless Passover Lamb of God were to be applied to all peoples: 'And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of ALL THE NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."' --Matthew 28:18-20 So, salvation is of (or from) the Jews (John 4:22), but it is for all, including those who are not of the "sheep of Israel": "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd." --John 10:16 You wrote: "How can he be God and be sent by God at the same time?!" Because He is God the Son, sent by God the Father. Read John 1. You wrote: "How can he be God and be sent to the house of Israel only?!" Like was explained above, he was sent to Israel, but for the salvation of the whole world. Isaiah speaks to this in the Tanakh as well: 'He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.' --Isaiah 49:6 You wrote: "is God only to certain people only?! A national God?!" Well, He is a national God, but to a spiritual nation, not an ethnic group or geopolitical entity: " But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY." --1 Peter 2:9-10 "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." --Eph 2:11-13 Hope this helps! --Joe! |
||||||
143 | RU saying some sanctified aren't saved? | Heb 10:26 | Reformer Joe | 63511 | ||
You wrote: "If you look back at my previous response, I did respond to vs. 39 - destruction does NOT always refer to E. life destruction, and is often used in the NT to refer to temporal destruction, waste, etc." I read that, but I was talking about the juxtaposition between "shrinking back" and "having faith". Those seem to be presented as opposites (i.e. one that falls into one of those categories does not fall into the other), as do "being destroyed" and having one's SOUL preserved. Why would the writer emphasize preservation of the soul if physical destruction is what the Holy Spirit had in view here? "But my question is whether or not you are saying that this passage here does say that these people were sanctified, yet that does NOT mean that they were regenerate!? Are you saying that one can be sanctified but not a Christian?" What I am saying is that one can be OUTWARDLY sanctified (e.g. set apart by baptism, or circumcision in the case of the OT Israelite) and not truly be a Christian. I just wanted to point out that the sanctification referred to in Hebrews 10:29 does not necessarily refer to an inward, spiritual transformation. In fact, I think to give it that meaning would lend credence to an Arminian understanding of the passage. We see outward sanctification throughout the Bible, from the consecration of the tabernacle and its contents, to the Nazirite vow (a special "setting apart"). One could even say that while the Protestant view of baptism and the Lord's Supper do not lend themselves to any kind of supernatural transformation of the the water, the bread, and the cup, that they are sanctified for a holy use. The word "sanctuary" itself comes from the same word, to connote a space set apart for the worship of God. With regard to people, we also see this in the New Testament: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." --1 Corinthians 7:14 Here we have unbelievers referred to as "sanctified." Obviously their unbelief means that they are not Christians, but they do have a special status (NOT salvation) as being set apart for the sake of the children of the believer. This is a challenging verse, but one thing is certain: there are unbelievers in the Bible who are referred to as "sanctified," and to me it makes the most sense to consider this outward "sanctification" as the one the writer of Hebrews mentions as well. --Joe! |
||||||
144 | What sort of judgment is this? | Heb 10:26 | Reformer Joe | 63485 | ||
"Now, my question: Is judgment always eternal judgment? And if not, then what sort of judgment is in view here?" All judgment is not eternal judgment, but I think that is what in view in here. The author is addressing people who are shrinking back, leaving the covenant community of God and rejecting Christ. There are several statements which indicate this: "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES."--Hebrews 10:26-27 The writer speaks here of no sacrifice remaining for these sins. Without a sacrifice for our sins, where do we stand before a just and holy God? "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." --Hebrews 10:39 We have two opposite scenarios here: 1. Shrinking back to destruction. 2. Having faith to the preserving of the soul. Since the writer juxtaposes these two scenarios, it is logical to think that those who have faith will not "shrink back" and those who are destroyed do not have their souls preserved. Also, calling attention to physical destruction does not make a lot of sense to me, because it is precisely because of physical harm and destruction that many were being tempted to deny Christ. "Shrinking back" meant in most cases being spared from physical destruction in this life. "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" --Hebrews 10:28-29 What we have above is an argument from the lesser to the greater. If violating the Mosaic Covenant called for a merciless death, how much more severe will be the merciless judgment from God? The images here are trampling Jesus underfoot, regarding the blood of Christ to be unclean, and insulting the Holy Spirit (bringing to my mind Mark 3:29). These are things that the unregenerate do, not the genuine children of God. --Joe! |
||||||
145 | Is the consuming fire in Heb. hell fire? | Heb 10:26 | Reformer Joe | 63473 | ||
I do believe that it is referring to what awaits those who have broken covenant with God and shown themselves to not be His people. The situation that the writer of Hebrews was addressing in the entire epistle was the temptation for professing Jewish believers to return to the Law. After chapters of showing both the true role of the Law and the superiority of Jesus to Moses, the author begins in 10:18 to encourage them to hold fast to the confession of faith in Christ, and to encourage the other members of the congregation to do the same. All of them have received the knowledge of the truth by being members of the Christian community. To depart from that and return to the sacrifices is foolish, for apart from Christ there remains no sacrifice for sins, only judgment. To reject Christ is to reject the only intercessor and Great High Priest there is, and what remains is yourself taking upon God's holy and eternal and just wrath. This is a very strong passage supporting the doctrine of the Preservation (Perseverance) of the Saints. Those who truly belong to Christ will by the Spirit's power hold fast to their confession (10:23), will not trample the gospel underfoot and insult the Spirit of grace (10:29), will not throw away their confidence (10:35), will endure (10:36), and will not shrink back (10:39). Those who do were never Christ's in the first place. --Joe! |
||||||
146 | Answering Anti-Missionary Arguements | Is 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 63460 | ||
'11. Yeshua "justified" the sinner in Romans 4:5, 15:9) However, Proverbs 17:15 teaches that "He who justifies the sinner is an abomination to G-d". Explain.' First of all, Jesus doesn't justify the sinner. God the Father justifies the sinner on account of what Jesus Christ had accomplished on the Cross as the Christian's Passover lamb. Jesus as my Great High Priest and as the sacrificial Lamb both MADE and WAS the sacrifice that atoned for my sins. Proverbs is speaking to someone who just winks at the sinner and doesn't acknowledge their sins. God does not do that. God abhors my sin, and His wrath was fully felt by Jesus Christ as my substitute. '12. In Mark 6:5, it says that Yeshua "could do no miracle". However, Mark 10:27 says that "with G-d, all things are possible". Which is it?' I take it to mean that Jesus was not permitted by the Father to do a miracle among them. Jesus during His earthly ministry was perfectly obedient to the Father. --Joe! |
||||||
147 | Answering Anti-Missionary Arguements | Is 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 63458 | ||
'4. In Isiah 7:14, the word translated as "virgin" is "almah" which means "young woman". Virgin, in Hebrew is "betulah"...so in Matthew 1:22-23, he misquotes Scripture.' The Septuagint uses the word for virgin, which clearly points out the translators' understanding that the word "almah" should connote a virgin. After all, how would a "young woman" bearing a child be any kind of miraculous sign? There is a word for "virgin" in Hebrew, but the use of "almah" does not rule out this understanding. '5. Mark 8:11-12 states that Yeshua would not give any signs to "this generation". However, John 12:37 and Acts 2:22 condradict that statement.' I don't see any signs FROM HEAVEN (like Elijah and the prophets of Baal) mentioned in John or Acts for the crooked generation (Pharisees and other unbelievers). '6. In John 5:31 and John 8:14, Yeshua condradicts Himself. Explain. "' http://www.carm.org/diff/John8_14.htm --Joe! |
||||||
148 | Answering Anti-Missionary Arguements | Is 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 63457 | ||
" 2. Mathew traces Joseph's genealogy back to King David, but through King Joceoniah. In Jerimiah 22:30, this king was cursed by Adonai. This curse disqualifies him, or any of his decendants of being a Messianic Candidate. His sons name was Sheatiel, and again he is disqualified. 3. In Luke's genealogy of Yeshua, Yeshua is again disqualified from being the Messiah because the Messiah must be a decendant of King David through his son Solomon. Luke lits Nathan. (2 Samuel 7:12-13, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:4-7)" This Web site provides an answer to these questions: http://www.carm.org/diff/Jer22_28.htm --Joe! |
||||||
149 | Answering Anti-Missionary Arguements | Is 7:9 | Reformer Joe | 63454 | ||
Greetings from one of the wild olive branches! (Romans 11) You listed this question: "1. The Messiah is to be a decendant of King David. Yeshua had no physical father, therefore He could not be the Messiah. (ref. Numbers 1:18,2:2)" The Bible tells us: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah." --Matthew 1:16 " When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli..." --Luke 3:23 Jesus was considered Joseph's son in a legal sense. --Joe! |
||||||
150 | Joe, baptism required for Lord's Supper? | 1 Cor 11:27 | Reformer Joe | 63075 | ||
I think the first thing that someone professing faith in Jesus Christ should do is be baptized. The fact that there is such a concept as a "Christian who has not been baptized" is a sign of how little we regard the ordinances which Christ established and commanded to mark His people as His own. Baptism should precede partaking of the Lord's Supper; and my question for anyone who professes faith in Jesus Christ and wants to partake of the Supper will be "Why haven't you been baptized?" That having been said, I do not believe that is what Paul was writing to the Corinthians about. --Joe! |
||||||
151 | complete return to biblical Christianity | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 62361 | ||
I am inclined to disagree strongly. The Reformation sought to correct the errors of late medieval Roman Catholicism, not to completely scrap everything that the RCC believes. Like it or not, for milennia, the RCC was THE CHURCH in the West. Even with its errors, it is the vehicle God used to promote His gospel. The only other alternative is to conclude that the church disappeared off the face of the earth and re-appeared sometime after the Renaissance. The Reformation was just that: a reformation, returning the church to biblical Christianity. --Joe! |
||||||
152 | Whats up with Judgement, calvinists plz? | Rom 9:21 | Reformer Joe | 61344 | ||
You wrote: "I am wondering if a calvinist could explain to me why God, if all things are ordained by him, would judge people? what I mean is, if God made us all, and God chose everything we would do, why did he give us the 'illusion' of freewill, and why would he judge us for things he made us do?" That is a good question. So goood, in fact, that the Spirit-inspired Paul addressed it in the New Testament. Here is what God has to say about it: 'You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 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? 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 9:19-24 Probably not a satisfactory answer for many, but it is the one God gives. Notice that there is not one shred of commentary here regarding man's choice in the matter. The Potter has the right. We are born as "children of wrath" by our very nature as Ephesians 2:3 states. We are part of humanity, which was represented before God by Adam. He blew it for all of us when he fell. Jesus Christ, in turn, rescued/saved/redeemed the "vessels of mercy" which he "prepared BEFOREHAND for glory." You wrote: 'I can understand it if I except God delegates Authority to man so that we may choose to love him, then I can see why all the suffering and death and pain are worth it to God, because some will "choose" to love him, But if in the end we cannot choose, why did he not simply make us perfect in the first place?' He did create humanity morally upright in the first place, but fallible. Humanity fell from that position of moral uprightness. You wrote: "God is outside of time, so to me words like foreordained, and foreknew, are meaningless in the context of God himself, though they obviously have meaning to man." It is true that God transcends time, and even created time. However, He does also act within the time-space dimensions of the universe that he created. Despite knowing the end from the beginning, he still responds to our actions. This is how I see things like Genesis 6 where God "is sorry" that He made humanity. He knew how they would turn out, and he knew that Christ would redeem His people from among fallen humanity, but God in his holiness also makes a perfect space-time response to the pre-Flood condition of the world. It is a mind-numbing thing to assess both the transcendence and the immanence of our Lord, but we have to be careful not to go too far to either extreme. "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" --Romans 11:33 --Joe! |
||||||
153 | Order of events | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60186 | ||
I hold that the order is the following: First of all, grace encompasses and is the motivation for all steps. -Regeneration (same as born-again) -Faith and Repentance (simultaneousmental decisions -- two sides of the same coin) -Justification/Forgiveness (basically the same thing) The "ordo salutis" in Romans 8:28-30 is foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, sanctification, glorification. The first two are acts of God outside of us, the first two taking place in eternity past and the third taking place in our lifetime. If you are already a Christian, sanctification is in progress and glorification will come at Christ's return. We also know that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1), so faith logically precedes justification, and the peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ is the result of our faith according to that same verse. --Joe! |
||||||
154 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60034 | ||
I believe the latest makes number 10. One has to pay too much for one, although I am not aware of the exact amount. --Joe! |
||||||
155 | follow-up question | Ps 111:7 | Reformer Joe | 57568 | ||
You wrote: "So, it safe then to say that God's will, His moral will is still binding up to this day." I would say that it is binding on God's people as a rule of life. We are not justified by following God's moral will (since we have already blown that and Christ already did it perfectly for all those who believe in him), but following God's commandments is a mark of truly having faith in Jesus Christ. Again, we still blow it all too frequently, reminding us that the need of God's grace is a continuous one. "Are we ought to obey all the ten or just a part of it?" Well, that will be a point of disagreement. There are those who think that the Fourth Commandment has been done away with, and others think that it hasn't and we still should observe the Sabbath, whether that be the original Sabbath or the "Christian Sabbath" of Sunday. Most will agree that we still shouldn't steal or commit adultery or worship idols or covet. --Joe! |
||||||
156 | The idea of Ps 111:7,8; Ps 119:89,160 | Ps 111:7 | Reformer Joe | 57268 | ||
Well, the Ten Commandments are normally considered a summation of his moral will. The verses you mention here speak of the eternality and immutability of God's will, and that his will should always be obeyed. --Joe! |
||||||
157 | strong words for sin, not sinner | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 57094 | ||
Estelle: You wrote: "However, I don't recall Jesus exhorting us to denigrate the person who is doing the action, but to rebuke the person FOR the action." If you mean by "denigrate" to give unfair insults and to do so in order to make oneself look better at anoth's expense, you are right. If you mean that Jesus never spoke harshly to his theological opponents, I suggest you go re-read the gospels. The second half of John 8 is a good place to start. Jesus referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites, vipers, blind guides, whitewashed tombs, sons of the devil, etc. Are those terms referring to sins or the people committing them? Is Jesus sinning by "calling them names"? If not, why not? 'I also don't recall Jesus or any of the disciples "starting the fights". They didn't allow themselves to be walked on, but neither did they initiate the confrontation.' I am glad that you see things that way, since this confrontation was not initiated by me, but rather by someone who dug up a post from MAY, 2001 and decided that I needed a lesson in how to embrace a false teacher and a cult member as someone who is "where he needs to be" instead of so shaprly correcting him after his constant insistence that the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is a pagan invention and twisting Scripture to try and prove it. Why she felt the need to appoint herself as my "manners instructor" FIFTEEN MONTHS after I made the post is beyond me, but she has yet to use one single verse of Scripture to correct me in what she perceives to be my "unloving attitude" (she knows my heart based on one post, apparently), which is the biblical model of correction (2 Timothy 3:16). So you tell me: who "started this confrontation"? You wrote: "Sin is what starts the confrontation, therefore the rebuke should be toward the sin. Some people are still hardheaded even after the sin is pointed out. At that point, a "HEY YOU, you're on the wrong path because of xyz" is necessary. But a "HEY STUPID, YOU'RE NOT SMART because of xyz" is never called for." 1. The direct object of the verb "rebuke" is ALWAYS a person committing the sin, not the sin itself. The apostles do not say, "Good heretic, bad heresy." 2. Please show me one instance where I have ever called ANYONE stupid on this forum. Please do not commit the sin of slandering me. Bearing false witness is one of the big ten, you know. 3. There is a difference between STUPIDITY (Lack of intelligence) and FOOLISHNESS (failure to exercise biblical wisdom). For example, this whole issue even coming up in the first place is foolishness. The fact that the one who instigated this character attack and unbiblical lesson toward me has been corrected (gently, even) by no less than four other individuals on this forum and still persists in her unbiblical stance is foolishness. She may be a rocket scientist, but she is attempting to point out that sharp rebuke against heresy is unloving, when the Bible demonstrates this not to be true. That, too, is foolishness, just as it is foolishness that this thread persists. Again, please go back into the archives, dust them off, and actually read the exchange which caused cookie to get on her soapbox in the first place. You will find that I was direct, to the point, biblical, but not insulting to anyone's intelligence. --Joe! |
||||||
158 | "What did Jesus look like?" | Ex 20:4 | Reformer Joe | 57069 | ||
I think the person who asked this question may be a member of an ethnic minority. The truth is the Bible doesn't give much more description of Jesus than to say that he was a Jewish male. Of course, I usually respond to questions like the one you got by pointing out that it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus was black or white or blue with a third nostril. I would be just as happy to boast in him as my Savior if he was as black as night. If Jesus was indeed a dark-complected Jew, then a dark-complected Jew died for my sins. Hope this helps some. --Joe! |
||||||
159 | circumcission and baptism | Col 2:12 | Reformer Joe | 56959 | ||
They both have been outward signs signifying belonging to God's people. Neither one saves, but identifies them as members of God's covenant people and point to God's promises of salvation for His own. Colossians 2:11-12 identifies baptism as the "circumcision of Christ." Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestant denominations baptize infants, just as infant males received the rite of circumcision in Israel. Is that what you were looking for? --Joe! |
||||||
160 | If they teach to their own destruction, | James 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 55505 | ||
The ones "teaching to their own destruction" are not saved in the first place. They are promoting a false gospel, one that does not save. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [25] >> |