Results 141 - 160 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34573 | ||
Tim: My wife would be the one laughing the hardest at you saying I have a "gentle spirit"! I must say that is the first time I can be accused of that particular vice... :) --Joe! |
||||||
142 | Raven and John Reformed, Baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 36588 | ||
Why do you say that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins only while He was on earth? The passage you cite is totally unrelated to the thief on the cross, in any case. Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise by means of his profession of faith in the King on the Cross, not in spite of his lack of baptism. Now don't misunderstand me: baptism is a commandment to be obeyed. It is not just a "nice extra." We also have to doubt the salvation of those who absolutely refuse to be baptised. Profession of faith and baptism are certainly linked together, and the immediacy of baptism in most cases is quite apparent. However, to say that it is the baptism that completes regeneration is not supported by the weight of biblical evidence to the contrary. --Joe! |
||||||
143 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37786 | ||
I am sorry that people did such a bad job of explaining the explaining the Trinity. The egg analogy does not work just like every other analogy falls short. A skilled and knowledgeable individual should have taken the Bible and shown you why the early church concluded (correctly) that God exists eternally as one being and three persons. Jehovah's Witnesses have a great knowledge of the teachings of the Watchtower Society, and they have been trained to use Bible passages to proof-text what they have been told. They are indeed dedicated to training themselves to communicate their message, but since most do not study the Bible independently of what their Watchtower magazines and "Bible study" books tell them to look up, they are not a real match for someone who knows Christian doctrine well. I have in my own library "Reasoning From the Scriptures," which is basically their quick reference guide to tell them what to say should an individual respond with a particular question. I would disagree with the statement that they know the Bible well; I would sadly agree that they are more familiar with some of its contents than many professing Christians. "Do you think God will forgive us for ignorance and laziness especially when it comes to his Word?" I think God is extremely displeased with Christians who do not know the Scriptures, who do not take the time to know what the Bible says and teaches. You wrote: "Hasn't it ever crossed your mind why most of the Holidays we celebrate today involving Christ is led back in history to PAGANISM?" Actually, this is not accurate. While the Christian holidays are celebrated on the same days as many Roman pagan festivals, this was not a capitulation to the pagans as much as it was a conquering of them. In other words, Christmas is celebrated at the same time as Saturnalia to demonstrate Christendom's vanquishing of paganism, much as the conquistadors of the New World tore down Aztec temples and built churches on top of them. Christmas was never Saturnalia in disguise. Easter is not a celebration of Ishtar in disguise. Both represent the supplanting of one belief system with another. --Joe! |
||||||
144 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37869 | ||
Herbert W. Armstrong, eh? --Joe! |
||||||
145 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37900 | ||
"Now, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek and Latin Scholars cannot really explain it?" Well, first of all, the question itself is invalid, because we are not talking about a doctrine that God created, but rather a doctrine concerning the nature of God Himself. Since God did not create Himself (He just IS), the question is whether he eternally exists as one being in three persons or not. I can explain the Trinity in a single paragraph: The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father. There you go! The verse in 1 Corinthians 14 does not refer to the doctrines of God, but on church order. Taking the verse in its context precludes it from referring directly to the Trinity, whether it is a confusing doctrine or not. You quoted: "ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: There is no evidence of any sacred writer even suspected the existance of the Trinity, it is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers." Well, the Encyclopedia of Religion is simply wrong. Your reference to the Encyclopedia Brittanica seems to be your own paraphrase and not a direct quote. In any case, the first person to actually use the word "Trinity" was Tertullian, to describe a doctrine which had been in existence for quite some time. Problem with your view that the Trinity was invented at Constantinople is that Tertullian died about a century before the Council of Nicaea was convened, which itself was convened over fifty years before Constantinople. The references to triads of gods is invalid, because that is not what the Trinity teaches. Are you seriously saying that Christianity was influenced by an Indian culture with whom it had virtually no contact? So in all of your research, please tell me what other religions hold to one God eternally existing in three persons. While you are "searching for the truth," you might want to check out a brand new book by John Hannah entitled _Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine_. It documents quite well the doctrine of the Trinity and how it was recognized by the earliest church fathers in their writings. The idea that someone came along later and invented it is simply bad history. --Joe! |
||||||
146 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37947 | ||
Tertullian was one of the early church fathers, who died about 225 (one hundred years before Nicaea). He was the first person on record to coin the word "Trinity" to signify the doctrine of the three-in-one God revealed in the Bible and testified to by the post-apostolic writers (he did so in his apologetic work "Against Praxeas"). He didn't "invent" the doctrine, either, because we see Trinitarian teachings in the writings of Clement of Rome (first century), Ignatius (one of John's disciples -- turn of the second century), and the authors of the Epistle of Barnabas and 2 Clement. When I said that God did not "create" the doctrine, I did not mean that it was created by men or that it was not true. God is uncreated and unchanging in His nature, so anything which describes God's being or his nature could not be created. If God is one Being eternally existing in three Persons, God didn't make himself that way, nor did man make him that way. He simply IS that way, and He has chosen to reveal himself as such to His people. Again, I am under no illusion that some people in the pulpit have trouble properly proclaiming the Trinity. A lot of them seem to have a great deal of trouble when it comes to even much easier biblical topics! But the issue is not whether some preachers can't get it right, or whether the church fathers dating back to the apostolic era had the Trinity right or not. The question is whether the essential teachings of trinitarianism can be discerned from Scripture. That is something that definitely won't fit into a 5,000-word post, but I encourage you to pick up James R. White's book _The Forgotten Trinity_ for a lengthy and scholarly defense of the doctrine from the pages of Scripture. By the way, I don't think pastors in 21st-century America would be hurting from not teaching the Trinity. Many of the most famous and wealthy pastors today (one whose initials are "T.D." comes to mind) are at best fence-sitters on the issue, and that certainly hasn't stopped the flow of "green stuff." Others outright deny all kinds of other clearly biblical teachings and still have huge followings (a certain minister in a Crystal Cathedral comes to mind). It is pretty apparent that the absence of sound, biblical doctrine will not hurt too many preaching careers here in the U.S.A. --Joe! |
||||||
147 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37976 | ||
Incidentally, I do realize that most of your post here is not your won study, but a direct quote from a Jehovah's Witness publication, "Should you believe in the Trinity?" http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_04.htm I would ask you to honestly answer for us whether you are affiliated with the Watchtower or not, since you seemed to imply before that you are not. --Joe! |
||||||
148 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 37977 | ||
Alexander Hislop's book _The Wto Babylons_ has long been discredited by both sexular and Christian historians alike as incredibly erroneous in its findings. And after 150 years, it is still being quoted as authoritative. For more on Hislop's errors, see this article: http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/2babylons.htm Emmaus, you can chalk this up to another place where we stand in agreement! --Joe! |
||||||
149 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38102 | ||
Well, posting Watchtower publications is not the same as posting "facts," I can assure you. It is also somewhat dishonest to copt and paste from a Watchtower publication and pass it off as your own writing. When my students do that, we have a word for it: plagiarism. As far as facts go, what do you think of the facts that I gave you regarding the historicity of the Trinity? Do you plan on ignoring that, or are you going to look at well-reasoned views opposing the Watchtower teachings? If you are truly searching for the truth, it will do you no good if you just but what the JW's say hook, line, and sinker. And speaking of the motivations of religious organizations, what do you think the motivation is behind the Watchtower deliberately leaving the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers out of their attack on the Trinity? Do you think that their motives are pure? They have much more of an organizational structure than the evangelical church in America does, so it can truly be said that accepting Watchtower teachings means green stuff for one particular organization. Did you know that many Watchtower teachings themselves have changed dramatically since the organizations' inception in the late 1800s? Did you know that they have financially ruined the lives of thousands of their followers by falsely predicting the end of the world no less than four times in the last century, leading many of their followers to sell everything and go on the door-to-door circuit full time? Watchtower teachings on the Trinity have been answered time and time again by many notable scholars of the Bible, including the one whose book I referenced for you before. So what has the Watchtower said about the facts that I have posted this weekend? Why don't you ask them? After all, are you just going to buy into what someone tells you just because they seem to know the Bible? Or are you going to check out the best arguments from both sides for yourself? --Joe! |
||||||
150 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38171 | ||
You wrote: "You can mention Jehovah's witnesses as much as you like, this will never cover up the fact the trinity was created by Emperors and clergymen with their minds corrupted more about power and less about christianity" Well, why even investigate anything if nothing is going to change your mind about the "true" history of the Trinity? Save your money and let someone else tell you what to believe! You wrote: "*You cannot change history and how a Doctrine developed from history" You are absolutely correct. However, a group with an agenda can always withhold evidence from a non-critical audience to "prove its point." The question remains as to which group is playing fast and loose with the truth here. "*Execution was done in the past against people who did not go along with the Trinity doctrine." Execution has gone all throughout human history for countless reasons. That has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the Trinity. In Yemen today, I would be killed for espousing a Trinitarian God. That does not mean that I am right or wrong. It just means that someone doesn't like what I am saying. "**This is the doctrine you support." This is what the Bible teaches. "**And this is the Doctrine you are teaching young adults." When I can, yes. "**Are you practicing what you preach and teaching these things about paganism and execution for not believing in the Trinity Doctrine to your students?" Paganism has nothing to do with the Trinity, and see my notes on execution above. I think we have already sais just about everything we can to each other. I have examined in great detail the doctrine of the Trinity, the Biblical support of it, its history, and arguments against it (after all, how do you think I identified the source of your quotes so easily?). The fact is that history clearly testifies that the Trinity was not some fourth-century invention, and that the Bible clearly reveals there to be one God existing eternally in three Persons. The only evidence that you have presented in defense of your anti-Trinitarianism is a cut-and-paste from a JW pamphlet, which could hardly be classified as having done your homework. Go back over all of the material I have posted this weekend. Examine it for yourself. If after careful examination you have any substantive attacks against what these early Christian writers and contemporary Bible scholars have to say, I eagerly await your learned analysis. --Joe! |
||||||
151 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38172 | ||
You write: "Quotes not found in the Bible: 1. Once saved always saved 2. Once in grace always in grace 3. Once a son, always a son" Terms not found in the Bible: Trinity. Do you believe in it? If so, then stop using that argument against other doctrines. I completely disagree with Charles Stanley, for the record. However, not all who believe in preservation of the saints hold to Stanley's view. In fact, most would not, at least historically. Now, I want you to be honest with us, Zach. The quote from MacArthur's book: was he citing his own beliefs or quoting someone else with whom he disagrees? Please answer honestly, because I am going to be very very disappointed with you when I dig up the book and place the quote in its context. It would be quite sinful for you to misrepresent MacArthur's views on a public forum. Bearing false witness and all... --Joe! |
||||||
152 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38179 | ||
Reminds me of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which is the mistranslation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Why did the "translators" of the NWT use the term "inspired utterance" for the Greek word "pneuma," what is translated "spirit" everywhere else? This is a prime example of the Watchtower trying to deceive its members by deliberately hiding the fact that the Holy Spirit has personality. The Spirit says this; "inspired utterances" say nothing. Oh, that's not the answer you were looking for, was it? Thecapital letters remind me of Roman Catholicism, among other groups. I am not one. --Joe! |
||||||
153 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38305 | ||
As I said before, it is pretty hard to present the case for the Trinity in the "sound-byte" medium of the forum. the aforementioned book is among one of many that can help you in your analysis. To be brief, however, as you are well-aware, the term "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. In order to come up with the complete doctrine, we have to establish the following things: 1. There is only one God. 2. The deity of Christ. 3. The deity and personality of the Holy Spirit. 4. The fact that the Father is not Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is not the Spirit, and that the Father is not the Holy Spirit. Jehovah's Witnesses readily agree with points 1 and 4. Therefore, where we disagree is on points 2 and 3. Would you agree that if those two could be demonstrated from Scripture that the Trinity would indeed be a Biblical doctrine? --Joe! |
||||||
154 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38306 | ||
Psalm 110 isn't anti-Trinitarian in the slightest. Jehovah (God the Father) says to Jesus (God the Son) Sit thou at my right hand... You seem to have Trinitarianism confused with what is alternatively known as modalism or "Oneness," where God the Father IS Jesus Christ. Trinitarians reject that idea just like you JW's do. --Joe! |
||||||
155 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38307 | ||
What? Nothing to say about what I pointed out before? Who speaks? The Spirit? Or some "inspired utterance"? Do you want to discuss the Trinity or not? --Joe! |
||||||
156 | so, you're saying that they go to hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38309 | ||
I am sure that Makarios is aware of the difference between YHWH and Adonai. Both are used of God the Father, and Jesus emplyed the divine name to describe Himself as well (John 8:56-59). In every translation which shows the "ego eimi" of John 8:58 in the present tense, just like it is in the Greek, we see exactly why the Jews were so enraged at this statement. There is no doubt that Jesus described Himself as being one in essence and in purpose and in activity with God the Father. --Joe! |
||||||
157 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38316 | ||
I think it is you who misunderstands the meaning of the word "objective." The opposite of "objective" is "subjective," which has to do with the opinions/feelings of the individual. Examples of objective statements: The earth has one natural satellite: the moon. I have three children. Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the U.S. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. God does not exist. Examples of subjective statements: Chocolate mint chip ice cream is the superior flavor in the universe. Pro wrestling is a waste of time. My brother is annoying. Big cities are the best places to live. See the difference? Objective statements are either true or false. The opinion of individuals do not make them one bit more true or one bit more false. God either exists or he does not exist, and no amount of opinion polling is going to influence whether He does or not. Likewise, you probably believed (i.e. expressed a certain amount of FAITH) up until this sentence that I do indeed have three children. However, the objective truth is that I have none. Therefore, one should have faith that the Bible is objectively true, but the message of the Bible never falls into the subjective category. It is either objectively true or objectively false. --Joe! P.S. How do you "know" water is H20? Have you examined a water molecule with an electron microscope? If so, how do you know you can believe what you are seeing? Ultimately, we all exhibit faith in anything objective. |
||||||
158 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38322 | ||
Hank: Yes, objective. Objectively FALSE, but objective. If God does not exist, no amount of us believing in Him will make him exist. Likewise, if God does exist, no amount of us believing that He does not will make him nonexistant. --Joe! |
||||||
159 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38339 | ||
You didn't answer my question regarding MacArthur. Please go back and read again what I wrote. | ||||||
160 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38340 | ||
And while you are at it, go back and re-read my first two paragraphs. Nothing you have written in this posts connects with any of the points I made at all. --Joe! P.S. Your intention is to make sure that your side is well-represented, and you are not doing a stellar job of it by mis-representing John MacArthur, one of the prinicpal and most well-known opponents of "easy-believism." |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [97] >> |