Results 161 - 180 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Which one is cause, which is effect? | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81559 | ||
"Sounds good but is that what Jesus commanded?" Please show me where Jesus commanded doctrinal unity. "Creeds are the result of man viewing his interpretation of the Bible as being more correct than someone else's therefore breeding divison." That is not the origin of creeds, but how are you immune to this? "This all occurs even when we know there is no unresolved conflict within the Bible." Sure there is unresolved conflict in the Bible. Paul's direction regarding matters of conscience could be considered friendly disagreement. He also wrote: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." --Romans 12:18 This implies that in some cases that it will not be possible. It is just necessary that we make every effort to live at peace. But, again, peace does not imply agreement. You didn't really answer Radioman's question, however. You keep saying that the cause of Christ requires perfect doctrinal unity (despite the evidence of history that God works in spite of our disunity), but you have not given a concrete, specific, binding way for this to happen. Doctrinal unity has never happened and is never going to happen in this age, because holders of doctrines are human beings. We can lament this and strive for unity and be open to correction if necessary, but it is a fact of our existence that there are as many personal theological statements of faith as there are Christians. --Joe! |
||||||
162 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81513 | ||
"And they were denounced for this not accepted. And the true church continued in unity." Right, and what distinguished the true church from the false was its doctrine. Maybe a less-divisive issue would be more instructive. Among the second-century church there is clear indications of both premillennialists and amillennialists. Justin Martyr, a premil himself, acknowledged that there were those among his brethren who rejected a premil view. And yet both of them could not be right. As far as can be seen, no factions or splits occurred over the disagreements (a good thing). Now, if the body claiming to be the true church suddenly started denying the deity of Christ, would it be right or wrong to separate from that body (this is one of the problems that led to the formation of my denomination)? Or what if the church called you a heretic and threatened excommunication if you did not reject the "godless notion" of justification by faith alone? Splits and schisms often occur for horribly pathetic reasons, but that is not to say that all division is unnecessary. I am not terribly familiar with the specifics behind the formation of the Assemblies of God, but I assume that its founders were seeking to return to what they believed ("credere") to be a more biblical practice and doctrine. Do you think that your denomination was founded for good reasons or bad ones? I think mine was founded for good ones, and I praise God that evangelical truth is preserved in the PCA. --Joe! |
||||||
163 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81512 | ||
"And doens't that breed disunity a division in the Body of Christ?" A doctrinal disunity, to be sure, but does difference in non-essentials mean that one cannot function together as the body of Christ? I am a missionary with an organization that crosses denominational lines, and I disagree with many of those who are my co-laborers in Christ. We still manage to get the job done in unity, striving together with one mind for the purpose of evangelizing, discipling, and congregating individuals. "Shouldn't we all be singing from the same song page?" Sure we should, but which one of us is going to "switch hymnals"? :) (Actually, you wouldn't really even have to do that; many of the hymns in your hymnal were written by those on my side of the fence!) And herein lies the problem: we both are equally convinced of our point-of-view, and are equally convinced that the other is not taking all of Scripture into account or reading into it things that are not there. Both of us are Christians, but both of us can't be right on the issues on which we disagree. So do we use that as an excuse to duke it out in front of the watching world, or do we remain content to disagree as brothers in Christ and continue His work? "If Christ walked the earth today would there be 1600 denominations or one?" But He isn't, and no one here and now has the authority that the returning King does. I am sure that he will set both of us straight on a great many things once we are home. "If Paul were alive today would we have Catholics and protestants?" Doubtful, but possible. Paul certainly had his detractors within the church (e.g. the Corinthians, who did so wrongly, but nonetheless were part of the church). "Wasn't this the very thing Paul was denouncing in 1 Cor. 1:12?" I think that Paul was not specifically addressing doctrinal disunity, but rather cults of personality that had formed around the apostles and Christ. Obviously Cephas and Apollos and Paul and Jesus were not doctrinal opponents, but the Corinthians were looking for flowery speakers like the Greek orators that the pagans followed after. The disagreements among the Corinthians seemed to be rooted in greed and other petty vices and not in doctrinal issues. --Joe! |
||||||
164 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81505 | ||
"Someone mentioned the Jerusalem council of Acts 16. They didn't have the Bible to go by yet they were able to resolve the vast differences of theology without dividing into two churches." Since that someone was me, please allow me to point out a few things: 1. They didn't have the New Testament, obviously, but they did have Scripture. James quotes from Amos during the deliberations in support of his decision. 2. The decision of the council was published in written form and was considered binding upon the churches. 3. As we see elsewhere in the New Testament, this written declaration of faith and practice was violated by the Judaizers. I have no idea whether a full-fledged sect separated from the apostles and considered themselves "the true church" as a result of this decision, but the first-century church was certainly not immune to such things. --Joe! |
||||||
165 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81502 | ||
"Don't you think the very essentials of Christianity are violated by the need for statements of belief." Statements of belief (creeds and confessions) have existed as long as the church has. You have them in your church as well. If you sing hymns with any theological statements whatsoever, you are reciting a confession put to music. "No one likes to be told he is wrong yet for each church/denomination felling the need to have their own creed is in effect doing just that." No one likes to be told he is wrong, but Scripture calls for godly men to correct false teaching and wrong-headed ideas. Paul wrote to Timothy that all Scripture is useful for correction. You yourself spend a considerable amount of time telling others on this Forum where you think they are wrong (just as I do). Are you not doing so on the basis of what you believe the Bible teaches? Written or not, that is your creed. --Joe! |
||||||
166 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81478 | ||
Good questions. There will not be 100 percent disagreement between now and when we dwell in the age to come. We even see disagreements and church councils in the apostolic church, such as in Acts 15, where specific situations had to be addressed by what God had revealed. Did everyone abide by the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem? Paul's rebukes in the book of Galatians would seem to indicate that the answer would be "no." "So how are we to know which is truth and which is error? Both opposing views cannot be true, either one is correct and the other wrong, or both are wrong." Absolutely correct. God has provided us with safeguards against SERIOUS error, however. The primary one is the church. The historic, universal church has been God's means through which the traditions of Christ and the apostles (as found in the Bible) are interpreted. While the church is not infallible, when she stays within the boundaries of interpreting revelation rather than claiming to give additional revelation, she tends to be right on the essentials. When the early church devised creeds like the Apostles and the Nicene, it was for the purpose of standing together in affirming what the Bible says. While I do not hold the ancient creeds and confessions to be inspired or infallible, I do consider that God worked in and through the church so that they would be accurate interpretations of what the Bible says. "The same Holy Spirit CANNOT be claimed to be leading the churches in truth today when they disagree with each other." The Holy Spirit definitely leads in churches devoted to Jesus Christ, even those that disagree on certain issues. The question is to what degree individual denominations and congregations and members FOLLOW His leading. I would contend that every church today contains a mixture of truth and error, because our sinful selves constantly try and remake God in our image rather than conform our theology to His revelation in Scripture. The leading of the Holy Spirit does not insure infallibility of doctrine. Genuine, productive, mutually respecting and loving Christians will genuinely and passionately disagree about certain doctrines. Which brings us to the question of whether Jesus was praying for our doctrinal unity (which certainly is important, but has never, EVER existed in the church) or our unity in love and purpose (i.e. glorifying God and His Son). The Holy Spirit leads. True believers and true churches stumble after Him, sometimes tripping over one another in the process. The good news is that thanks to God's grace we will get to the same glorious destination. The bottom line is that Christianity has never been a solo experience. Too many modern-day Christians are completely ignorant of their heritage and have effectively cut off the theological branches they claim to stand on from the trunk. God has given us His infallible, inerrant word. He has also given us his fallible and sometimes-errant yet Spirit-led church to spend the remaining centuries to collectively teach, dwell upon, and live out what the word means. To disparage the latter is to disparage the former upon which she is founded. --Joe! |
||||||
167 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81471 | ||
Very astute observations. Creeds and confessions have been a part of the church since its inception, and they have served a very God-honoring, useful role in the church. We even see examples of first-century confessions in Scripture (Philippians 2:6-12; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:11-13). Far from being divisive in their purpose, creeds (coming from the word "credo" -- "I believe") and confessions articulate the truth in order to guard the purity of the church against error and for the church to rejoice together by proclaiming in unison the wonderful truths revealed in God's word. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" --Hebrews 10:23 --Joe! |
||||||
168 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81448 | ||
"Obviously, Joe, it was you who started the silliness." Thanks. It may seem like it comes naturally, but I have to work at it pretty religiously to make it appear so seamless. --Joe! |
||||||
169 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81435 | ||
Radioman2: I believe it was my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that everyone should wear their theology on their user ID that got everyone in such a tizzy. You try and take credit for EVERYTHING! :) So what does the rest of the Forum think? Did Radioman2 provide the post which started the silliness or did I? Please back up your answer with Scripture... --Joe! (that's REFORMER Joe to you) |
||||||
170 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81400 | ||
Okay. --Joe! |
||||||
171 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81399 | ||
"Your surely not saying Calvinism is representative of the Protestant reformation." Sure I am. "Besides I said I would retract the word heresy." I appreciate it! "Now can we have peace?" I hope so. --Joe! |
||||||
172 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81392 | ||
"The point I was making was because I disagree with Calvinism I was labeled as Arminianist which I'm not. Now if you don't believe that read your last sentence, which also shows you have never listened to my point of view." I read my last sentence. I am still as surprised as I was the first time. Whether you reject the label or not, I was just curious as to where you deviate from the Arminian position. You have said, "I disagree with the Arminian position as much as I do the Calvin position." Having seen your clear opposition to the latter, I honestly would like to know what problems you have with the former. If you choose not to answer, no harm done. --Joe! |
||||||
173 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81389 | ||
Then stop throwing the word "heresy" around unless you are willing to clarify what you think the term means, and how the Protestant Reformers qualify as heretics. --Joe! |
||||||
174 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81378 | ||
"1. I choose not to spend the time to look up your specific question on heresy." That's okay; the question was specifically addressed to someone else, anyway. Unless you are a mind-reader or actually had seen the answer somewhere in the archives, it would be impossible for you to answer. "People can deine it the way they want." If that were true, nothing could ever be definitively called heresy, and the term would be nothing more than an empty insult. "2. If I am shown I am in error, according to the Bibe, I must change, or I am a heretic." So are infant baptizers heretics? What about tongues-speakers? Those who worship on Saturdays? Those who say there will be no "Left Behind" scenario? What about those who think the Prayer of Jabez is nothing but a bunch of pop Christianity fluff? Those who say "trespasses" rather than "debts"? Those who think that tithing is biblical for today? Those who think that it is unbiblical to radically distinguish between OT Israel and the church? You likely side on one side or the other on these issues. So are you the heretic (bringing up sections of Scripture to support your position) or the one who disagrees with you (bringing up sections of Scripture to support his position)? "Unless, I have my own sounf Biblical support." So are you saying, then, that it is possible that two people in disagreement over an issue can each have at least a fair amount of biblical support? "3. "Minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy)" usually is eisegesis not heresy." It is never heresy, since "heresy" and "orthodoxy" are mutually exclusive opposites. My question, once more (for the person who used the term "heresy" in the first place) is where orthodoxy ends and heresy begins in such a way that the Protestant Reformers are heretics but dispensationalists and Pentecostals/charismatics are not. --Joe! |
||||||
175 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81377 | ||
"CRI does take a strong stand against heretical, extremist variations of these views: for instance, the hyper-Arminian belief that God does not know all things, or the hyper-Calvinist notion that evangelism and prayer are superfluous because everything is already preordained." Thanks for the article. I find it interesting that CRI agrees with me that open theism can be considered a kind of "hyper-Arminianism." --Joe! (always Calvinist, sometimes hyper, but NEVER hyper-Calvinist) |
||||||
176 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81329 | ||
Here is a good explanation: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html --Joe! |
||||||
177 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81328 | ||
"I join CDBJ in ruing the day when it no longer means much to call oneself a Christian without the use of modifiers. One is pressed in today's world to accept one label or another, and if he refuses to do so, along will come the label makers and slap one on him anyway." Lest we forget, however, the apostles had to deal with Judaizer Jim and Gnostic Gus (or should that be "Gnostic Neil"?). On down the line came Coptic Carla, Arian Alex, Monophysite Michelle, Nestorian Ned, Orthodox Orville, and Protestant Pete and all his spawn (both liberal and evangelical). Then we have all those modern-day, pretend relations who want the family name for themselves. I am finding it hard to locate any time in Christian history where one could say "I am a Christian" and everyone nodded their head as if that said it all. Labels are useful, even it they are not always a perfect fit. --Joe! |
||||||
178 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81298 | ||
"Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-)" I am afraid that simply is not good enough. From now on, I think we should all identify ourselves theologically by our user ID's like I do... :) --Joe! |
||||||
179 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81297 | ||
"Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-)" I am afraid that simply is not good enough. From now on, I think we should all identify ourselves theologically by our user ID's like I do... :) --Joe! |
||||||
180 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 81214 | ||
"In response to your question, what kind of grace are you asking about and what does Hebrews say about those sacrifices?" I was just trying to get a better fix on your view of what the OT rituals accomplished. I know that no one was justified by the sacrifices, but I as a Reformed Protestant also hold that one is not justified by baptism. Since the "works of the law" refer at least to these two practices, I was just wondering how they tie in, in your understanding. Do Catholics hold that grace (any kind) was conferred in the OT sacrifices for the believer? If so, what is the nature of that grace. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [97] >> |