Results 141 - 160 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | A bit of racism; a lot of sarcasm. | Jer 13:23 | Reformer Joe | 82875 | ||
"Why would only an Ethiopian want to change his skin? Yes, even a Biblical prophet living 500 years before the birth of Christ showed a hint of racism." Nonsense. You are reading more into the text than is there. --Joe! |
||||||
142 | Israel was the original race ? | Gal 3:14 | Reformer Joe | 82847 | ||
No. | ||||||
143 | The double cure of Grace | Eph 2:5 | Reformer Joe | 82799 | ||
Thanks! Reminds me of the line from "Rock of Ages": Be of sin the double cure; Save from wrath and make me pure. --Joe! |
||||||
144 | Am I saved until Christ returns? | Phil 1:6 | Reformer Joe | 82797 | ||
"I don't mean to be argumentative. I have debated it with myself for sometime and after experiencing it for myself there is no way I will be convinced otherwise." Well, if experience is truly the definitive teacher for you, I am certain that you will not be convinced otherwise. Just curious: what would you say to Mormons who are equally is convinced that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ because they prayed about it and felt the famous "burning in the bosom"? Experience is subjective and a horrible lens for interpreting Scripture, especially considering the deceitful sinfulness which still seeks to reign in our hearts. True Christian experience flows from biblical truth and is not the basis for determining it. If speaking in tongues is "meeting Jesus," how do you explain the two thousand years of God's saints who somehow managed to accomplish much greater things than you and I for His kingdom and yet did not speak in tongues? Were the expansion of Christianity, the Protestant Reformation and the modern missions movement really accomplished by so many individuals who did not show the sign you insist is necessarily a by-product of receiving the Spirit? --Joe! |
||||||
145 | Am I saved until Christ returns? | Phil 1:6 | Reformer Joe | 82796 | ||
'1st... 1 Co. 12:30 The passage states... do all speak with tongues concerning the Gift of the Spirit. I would ask you does every Christian have the gift of Faith because they believe on Jesus. The bible says without faith in him we cannot be saved, so where is the line drawn? Just becuase God would choose tounges as the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost does that not mean there couldn't be a gift of the spirit "tounges?"' So are you suggesting, according to your perspective, that there are many who receive the Holy Ghost (manifested by speaking in tongues) and then never speak in tongues again? Paul asks the question, "Do all speak in tongues?" in such a way that the implied answer is "no." "The gifts were for the church and to bless the body whereas the Holy Ghost is for the individual." Where do you get the idea that the Holy Spirit is just "for the individual"? The very fact that they are spiritual gifts suggest that they come from the Spirit. You do realize that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are One and the same, right? "How do you explain Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Easy: the Holy Spirit prays for us. If these groanings cannot be uttered, why do you consider the syllables you are UTTERING to be these "groanings"? "Why would God have empowered all the people in the upper room with the same "gift of the Spirit?" What would God need 120 people everyone in the place to be used in the same gift what was the purpose and what did it accomplish at that moment, but as a sign when they went outside Peter stood up and said this is the Holy Ghost which the prophet Joel prophesied about...." And those 120 were speaking known human languages. That is why the Jewish hearers, before conversion, could understand each in HIS OWN LANGUAGE. What you are passing off as a sure sign of receiving the Spirit is not the same thing as was manifested at Pentecost. Regarding Mark 16, you wrote: "I would propose that a true believer has the ability whenever he comes in contact with a demon possessed individual to cast it out 2) that we should all speak with tongues ((((my question is directly towards 2, how do you explain this)))) 3) in the event you are physically harmed (which we know we arent to tempt the Lord our God) God will protect his true believers or if we were to accidently drink something harmful God would protect us. " How would snake handling be tempting God? It seems that it would be a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to the unbelieving world the wonderful promises of God for his people. Maybe the "don't tempt God" line is used so much for those last two because it is a lot harder to counterfeit recovering from a cobra bite or from a 12-ounce can of Drano. No one wants to seem to fear tempting God by "speaking in tongues." By the way, nothing in the verse says that ALL will speak in tongues, anyway, unless we conclude that ALL must do the rest. Spirit-filled believers die of snake bites. Spirit-filled believers die from accidental overdoses. It happens, so your theology must accomodate that. How do I explain Mark 16? It doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts and breaks the flow of the narrative completely, so I believe (as many respected scholars do) that the last part of Mark 16 is a later addition. "1Cr 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Here Paul states he speaks with tongues MORE THAN YE ALL... stating they also speak with tongues but he does it frequently. Here it appears the whole church in Corinth which was in fact a grounded church spoke with tongues." The Corinthian church was a grounded one?!? You really need to study those two epistles a little more. The fact is that Paul clearly indicates that some had the ability to speak in tongues and some did not. "here it states they were astonished when they saw them receive the Holy Ghost for "FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES" there is no immediant visual evidence one receives the Holy Ghost but as Jn. 3:8 states it's like the wind you can hear it" John 3 has nothing to do with tongues. That is quite a reach. Nothing about hearing anything. Very bad exegesis. --Joe! |
||||||
146 | Am I saved until Christ returns? | Phil 1:6 | Reformer Joe | 82786 | ||
"When you recieve the Holy Ghost people wont be able to see it but they will hear it when you speak with other tounges. Many people choose to say it isn't essential ecspecially those who haven't experienced it." Some people like Paul said it is not essential (1 Corinthians 12:30). "They want to say it's not necessary to speak in tounges to receive the Holy Ghost. Why? because they don't want to admit they may be wrong and may not have that relationship they proclaim." Some want to say it's necessary to speak in tounges to receive the Holy Ghost. Why? because they trust in easily faked experiences and have some need of sensationalism in addition to (or in place of) the truth of God's words, and they don't want to admit they may be wrong and may not have that attention-getting gift they claim to have. "Read on it talks about some of the characteristics of a believer. NOTE it says these signs SHALL follow them that BELIEVE.... In my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tounges;..." Why did you stop there? You know that you aren't a true, Holy Ghost Christian unless you have been bitten by a snake and walked away unharmed and have imbibed a good dose of poison. Please don't take just half the Scripture. If casting out demons and speaking in tongues are necessary evidences of having received the Spirit, so is the rest of it. So go buy your arsenic and, Bottoms up! --Joe! |
||||||
147 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | Reformer Joe | 82784 | ||
"As to 1914 being a crucial date? It may be to the Jehovah's Witnesses today, but it was not to Russell in his day. You see what Russell believed was to ccur what the Witnesses now believe occurred are apples and oranges." I agree that the Watchtower radically changed its position on many things that Russell taught, but since Russell declared that 1914 was the end of this age and the establishment of a perfect paradise under the reign of the conquering Christ, how can you say that the year is not a crucial one? You also wrote: 'In his foreword to his study on chronology "The Time is at hand" he stated: '"This Volume makes no claim to infallibility, and no claim of any direct inspiration from God in the interpretation of His Word. On the contrary, it does claim that the Divine Revelation is the Bible. Its endeavor has been to collate the Bible evidences and to offer suggestions in respect to their significance. "' But what you fail to mention is that this "foreword" was actually written "afterward." At the writing of this introduction, on October 1, 1916, it was patently obvious that the "time at hand" was not two years prior. Regarding the quote you gave, he seemed pretty sure of it in 1892, referring to the dates as being "fixed" and clearly revealed in Scripture as being the end. According to Russell in 1892, 1914 was certainly the eviction date. In 1916, well, 1914 is certainly the BEGINNING of the eviction. Hindsight re-interpretation is not terribly impressive. "All of Christedom believe that someday the Kingdom of God will replace the kingdoms of this world, this is what the scriptures tell us as Messiah reigns." But none of us say that Jesus has already returned. "Was Russell a false prophet? Not at all, at least not by the scriptural definition, he did not prophecy, he simply attemptred to interpret prophecies already stated in scripture. he erred and recognized that and admitted as such." I don't see any admission of error, but rather an assertion that he never definitively took a stand on the timing of "the time at hand," which is clearly not true. --Joe! |
||||||
148 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | Reformer Joe | 82769 | ||
Sure...Zion's Watchtower, January 15, 1892 http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r1354.htm The quote I previously gave came from this article, and so do these: "While it was an agreeable surprise to us (in view of the contrary sensational accounts so often published) to find the situation in Europe as we here describe it--in harmony with what the Scriptures had led us to expect--yet so great is our confidence in the Word of God and in the light of present truth shining upon it, that we could not have doubted its testimony whatever had been the appearances. The date of the close of that "battle" is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874. Thus far it has been chiefly a battle of words and a time of organizing forces --capital, labor, armies and secret societies. " So, according to the "view from the Tower," the end of this age began in 1874 and was to culminate in Armageddon in 1914. So in Russell's pre-1914 publications, 1914 marks the violent end (not the "beginning of the end," but the end itself) of the old order and the establishment of Paradise. He also said: "The Scriptures show also that the battle of the great day will begin with the Church of God, and that the overthrow of the great nominal church systems will precede the overthrow of the present civil powers; for the Lord is about to shake, not only the earth (the civil organization of society), but heaven (the ecclesiastical powers) also (Heb. 12:26), to the end that great "Babylon," falsely called Christendom --Christ's kingdom--may be completely destroyed. The great counterfeit kingdom of Christ, with all its allied civil and ecclesiastical powers, must go down as a great millstone into the sea, preparatory to the final establishment of the true Kingdom of Christ." So he understood the Bible to teach: 1. The last great battle would begin with the church. 2. The ecclesiastical representations of "Christendom" would be destroyed wholesale in this battle "as a great millstone into the sea." 3. This overthrowing of the church will precede the overthrow of the secular government. 4. This will happen as PREPARATION for Christ's Kingdom, which according to you was established in 1914. So was Russell right about a world-altering catastrophe culminating in 1914? Certainly people can be mistaken about interpretations of Scripture; however, since 1914 is such a crucial year in Russell's theological system, one would have to wonder what else he could have been wrong about he was wrong about the nature of the end of the age. If you have another way to explain this article in such a way that fits all of the date setting of specific events, I would gladly welcome it. --Joe! |
||||||
149 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | Reformer Joe | 82753 | ||
Wait a second. Russell taught that Armageddon would occur in 1914, that the "apostate church" would be destroyed wholesale, and that October, 1914, marked the END of this battle and not the beginning. "The Scriptures give unmistakable testimony to those who have full faith in its records, that there is a great time of trouble ahead of the present comparative calm in the world--a trouble which will embroil all nations, overthrow all existing institutions, civil, social and religious, bring about a universal reign of anarchy and terror, and prostrate humanity in the very dust of despair, thus to make them ready to appreciate the power that will bring order out of that confusion and institute the new rule of righteousness." And all of this happened before 1915! I guess the liberal media kept it out of the papers. :) --Joe! |
||||||
150 | Verification on Charles Taze Russell | Col 2:9 | Reformer Joe | 82749 | ||
"Let's stick with Russell, the Watchtower of today have made many claims of Russell that were simply not true, they have simply rewritten their history to make it seem that Russell was a Jehovah's Witness in harmony with their theology of today, this is simply not true, the two are separate and distinct." Well, we aren't talking about the Watchtower of today, but rather the Watchtower of 1916. The Watchtower today agrees with you that Russell is not that servant. 'I'll save you the time, Russell in all his years, NEVER, I repeat, NEVER taught that he was "that Servant" of Matthew 24:45-48.' Whom did he teach was/is that servant, then? By the way, there is at least one group identifying themselves as "Bible students" who attest that Russell was indeed that servant: http://www.biblestudents.org/presence/signs_servant.htm --Joe! |
||||||
151 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82741 | ||
"Many reformers did not hold that view." Which ones didn't? "And your right I could never follow the teachings of Calvin. He created God in his own image and sadly many have been deceived by his tragic view of God. Calvinism is fatalistic removing all responsibility for man’s action from man and basing the final outcome to God’s responsibility. All love and desire to worship God is only present if God so wills it and without that desire man is a destined to eternal damnation." Ah, I see us coming to consensus already! :) You are illustrating perfectly why doctrinal unity will not be achieved in this age. The question is whether you can peacefully coexist with those brethren who disagree with you on this and other points. --Joe! |
||||||
152 | Are we at the mercyof Gods moodswings? | 1 Pet 2:24 | Reformer Joe | 82627 | ||
'He said to the judges, "Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe."' --2 Chronicles 19:6-7 "For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified." --Romans 2:11-13 "With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." --Ephesians 6:7-9 "For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality." --Colossians 3:25 '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 Every last one of the passages you gave speaks about lack of partiality regarding the justice of God. Nothing at all about giving everyone the same station in life, the same state of health, the same opportunities, etc. When the KJV speaks of God not being a respecter of persons, it ALWAYS has to do with God punishing the guilty and rewarding the righteous. It never has anything to do with causing and/or allowing healing and sickness. --Joe! |
||||||
153 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82590 | ||
"Rather than trading jabs with you, cause I’m sure if I said red you would say blue." Yellow, actually. :) "Can you honestly say you believe Christ is happy with the divided church?" No, but He is extremely well-pleased with doctrinal purity wherever it is found. The importance of embracing revealed truth outweighs fellowship for fellowship's sake. "If not do you think it is incumbent on us to ‘attempt’ to correct the problem or should we ignore the situation and go merrily on our way?" Well, if I could correct the problem, you would have embraced Reformed theology a long time ago. Since I cannot force people to change their minds or control how they respond to differences of opinion, I can only follow Scripture's command: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." --Romans 12:18 I respect the right of other believers to disagree with me on many issues. I can and do fellowship with many such individuals. We are members of the same body, with one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, despite the fact that we do not see eye-to-eye on everything. Christian unity despite certain doctrinal disagreements. It is not a question of ignoring the situation. We often reach an impasse with those who disagree with us. The question is whether that doctrinal impasse is significant enough to warrant a division. I agree with the many posters who have affirmed that not all separation is bad separation. For example, if a denomination gets to a point where significant numbers reject the authority of Scripture, is it right to continue to be associated with such a body? If my denomination were to begin ordaining homosexuals to the ministry, how far should I go to maintain an illusion of "unity" before the watching world? If my appeals to Scripture are completely ignored in such a situation, how long should I remain that denomination so that the watching world won't perceive the very real division that exists in that case? Attempting to correct the problem is quite noble, but one also must accept the fact that in our fallen age such resolution will frequently be impossible. --Joe! |
||||||
154 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82558 | ||
'I thought you worked with cults? You never heard “Christians can't make up their minds what to believe?” Almost every cult member I have talked to said that to me in one form or another.' Of course they do, and it is a red herring, because their own separatist existence is a declaration that, yes, "everyone else is wrong." Anyone who makes any claim to any belief is implicitly declaring that anything in opposition to that belief is in error. Muslims do it, Mormons do it, birds do it, bees do it... 'I hate to tell you but professionalism and polished doesn't win prisoners to Islam, it is the united front, Islam presents to them. By the way our prison system is being overrun by Islam. ' What does that have to do with the differences between Christian denominations? Convicts converting to Islam has very little to do with deep theological introspection. "Professionalism and polish isn't winning Mormons it is family values and a church united." Just like any other cult, the LDS is a false church that holds everyone else to be wrong. They lie about that fact frequently, of course, but the fact that they conceal their differences with evangelical Christianity doesn't make them any less exclusivistic about their own beliefs. "But I imagine every one of the thousand know the Baptist think Presbyterians are wrong and vice versa. " Of course they do, because it is a fact. The fact that I disagree with Baptists on certain issues (and that I agree with some Baptists who disagree with other Baptists on certain issues) does not mean that I do not consider both of us to be members of the same body. I disagree with Hank here and there (sometimes fervently), but I would say that we both agree on our bond of unity in Christ. The bottom line is that unsaved people merely use denominational differences as an excuse to continue in sinful rebellion against God. I have yet to meet anyone who has said, "I want to be a Christian, but I can't because of all the denominations." Nor have I heard many, if any, Christian evangelists proclaiming their denominational labels in place of Christ and Him crucified (which, incidentally, is precisely what Mormons do). "Of all the religions, all the denominations, all the churches that have tried to evangelize me, I have never been evangelized by a Presbyterian. Maybe they thought I wasn't elected. ;-)" I can't remember being evangelized by an AOG, myself. Maybe they thought speaking in tongues with a Texas accent would be annoying... :) --Joe! |
||||||
155 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82545 | ||
Mormons and Muslims are not winning converts because of any lack of division in their ranks. Islam has many sects, such as Sunni, Shi'a, and Ismali. Both the LDS and the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized LDS) claim to be the true followers of the "prophet" Joseph Smith. Divisions much more radical than those between Baptists and Presbyterians have not prevented the success of proselytizing in the U.S. Why are the cults and false religions winning more converts? Number one: unregenerate sinners prefer lies about God. Number two: the evangelistic efforts of many of these groups are professional, polished, and persistent. I contend that evangelical Christianity is not keeping pace with the growth of Islam and the LDS simply because "evangelicals" are NOT evangelizing the way we have been called to do by our Lord. --Joe! |
||||||
156 | Healing by Strips physical or not | 1 Pet 2:24 | Reformer Joe | 82450 | ||
You wrote: "but I dont believe it was His will manafested on earth for your son to die" The Bible teaches: 'You turn man back into dust And say, "Return, O children of men.' --Psalm 90:3 "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." --Matthew 10:29 --Joe! |
||||||
157 | Are there compartments in heaven or hell | Matt 25:46 | Reformer Joe | 82420 | ||
I wouldn't put too much stock in those books. --Joe! |
||||||
158 | pagan influence? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 82060 | ||
"Please explain where ‘manifold are the errors’." I think Emmaus did an adequate job regarding the Holy Spirit. Let's look at Jesus. In Paul's epistle to Titus, who is the Savior? Titus 1:2, 2:10, 3:4 says it's God. Titus 1:3, 2:13, and 3:6 says its Jesus. How do we resolve this dilemma? "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great GOD and Savior, Christ JESUS" --Titus 2:13 Then we can flip on over to Hebrews: '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 There is a good starting point, with more to follow... --Joe! |
||||||
159 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81969 | ||
"A couple of thoughts. The early (1st century) church never intended to set up an organization (too bad, RCC) because they didn't think they would be here long enough to worry about it." Oh, I disagree. The admonition for church order in 1 Corinthians, the establishment of deacons in Acts, and the appointing of elders in the pastoral epistles all point to an organized movement rather than a free-for-all. The apostles were not establishing a corporation, to be sure, but they definitely were managing the large numbers of converts by incorporating them into an organized body. "Moreover, 'doctrines' weren't important because those who were valued were (quite logically) those who personally knew Jesus and could relate first-hand knowledge." Then why does the largest epistle in the New Testament (Romans) start off with eleven chapters of nothing but doctrine. In fact, every single one of the epistles in the New Testament contain healthy chunks of doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his doctrine, to guard his doctrine. Clearly doctrine was an important issue for the church in all ages. "For example, Augustine (and later Calvin) took substantial steps (for good or ill depending on your view) to harmonize the Gospel with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle." Please illustrate how Augustinian theology is neo-Platonist. "However, some immediately saw (and others over time) that some of the 'bad' side effects were a descent to 'legalism' and coldness of spirit. So, Mr. Wesley (and others) reacted back toward an experiential emphasis and an emphasis on the uiversal and impartial application of grace which set up the debate which this thread continues." The picture of the "frozen chosen" is a highly inaccurate one, which one can discern from the fact that the modern missionary movement was undertaken not by Wesley and company, but by those who loved and embraced Reformation theology. While Wesley was a committed evangelist, he was not the first. And lest we forget, the other key players in the First Great Awakening were Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, both adherents of Reformed doctrine. I would encourage all Christians to investigate church history. It is a highly valuable exercise and keeps one from making false generalizations at the same time that it provides a very real connection to one's spiritual heritage. --Joe! |
||||||
160 | Which one is cause, which is effect? | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81568 | ||
"Why bring it back to the personal level? I never said I was immune to this. I never insinuated I was above it. Why do you ask why I think I'm above this? I have been trying to stimulate thought." My point is the following: there are only two ways to achieve doctrinal unity between me and a person with whom I disagree. 1. Convince me that I am wrong, or 2. Agree with me. Number one is a possibility, but ultimately none of us have control over number 2. "I gave you no reason to try to bring this to a personal level or attempt to bring in a combative nature and you have done both." No, I didn't. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [97] >> |