Results 161 - 180 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Question concerning prayer. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 32443 | ||
Chynna: A couple of things I would like to touch on here. First of all, we see that "formal prayer," as you put it, is practiced by most of the God-fearing men of the Bible. David prayed (the Hebrew word for the book of Psalms actually means "prayers"). The patriarchs and prophets prayed. The apostles prayed. Even Jesus, the Son of God, prayed to his heavenly Father (John 17 is the most lengthy example) and directed His disciples on how to pray (Matthew 6:9-13). So formal praying is practiced by God's people and commanded by Christ. One thing I might suggest: remember that even though God is always present, and present in a special way of the life of a believer, you and He are not equals. Even though we have been brought near to God, adopted through the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, we should never see Him merely as a "pal" or a "buddy" to chat with. He is the holy, perfect Creator and Sustainer of the universe and everything in it, including your very existence. He still hates sin witha holy hatred, including the remaining sin in the life of a believer; and the reverential fear of God is still called for among His children. Therefore, while I wouldn;t call our relationship with God "standoffish," it definitely is not a relationship among peers. He is our Father, but retains his position as the holy, almighty King of Kings. Bowing is certainly not out of order. Prayer, above all else, is an expression of our continual dependence upon Him for everything, for the preservation of our faith to the very next breath that we take. He is our Sovereign, and from my perspective "praying without ceasing" is a constant acknowledgment of and gratitude to our Provider, our Savior, our Lord for all of the grace and mercy he has bestowed upon us; as well as a constant awareness that our position as His children is in spite of our continuous rebellion against Him in our sinful actions. Perhaps dwelling on these truths will help you develop the disciplines of prayer. I would encourage you to read the Psalms as good examples of prayer. Take a look at other prayers in the Bible. Read passages which expound upon the character of God. Maybe writing down some prayers might help. In any case, God is "right there," but that does not excuse us from going to Him in prayer. --Joe! |
||||||
162 | Church discipline | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 32597 | ||
"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and atax collector.Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." --Matthew 18:15-20 "For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." --Titus 1:7-9 "Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning." --1 Timothy 5:20 There's a start. Were you looking for something specific? --Joe! |
||||||
163 | Church discipline | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 32635 | ||
It is...and it is his job as an overseer to be a part of that oversight. He is neglecting his duties if he does not exercise church discipline, and should be referred to 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus for a lesson. --Joe! |
||||||
164 | Difference between Catholic and Baptist? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 32806 | ||
1. Well, there are a LOT of Baptists out there, with a wide range of beliefs. Generally speaking, however, the differences between the Roman Catholic church and classical Protestantism hinge on these five tenets: Scripture alone is our authority, rather than Scripture plus church tradition that carries as much or greater weight than Scripture. We are saved by God's grace alone, with our own merit contributing nothing to our salvation. We are saved through faith alone, rather than any combination of faith and works. Our works as believers are the evidence and fruit of our justification, not the grounds of it. We are saved in Christ alone. There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). We are not saved by the church, even though we are saved INTO the invisible church of all who possess saving faith in Christ. We are saved to the glory of God alone. The best way to honor Christ in your relationships with anyone, whether they be Christians or not, is to have a thorough knowledge of Scripture, having a solidly Bible-centered theology. Study the Scriptures with your relatives. Examine the truths of the Christian faith together. If they are reluctant to have anything to do with the Bible, that is a pretty sure sign that all is not well in their alleged relationship with God. --Joe! |
||||||
165 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33368 | ||
That is not what the Bible teaches. God indeed sends people to hell. "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation." --Romans 2:5-8 The unregenerate are storing up the wrath of God. It is God who will render to all men according to their deeds. Wrath and indignation are going to be poured out eternally on those who continue to oppose God until death, and it will be God who will be doing the pouring. To say that we send ourselves to hell is not quite true, because that neglects to acknowledge God's role as Judge, a role in which he glorifies Himself by punishing the enemies of righteousness. The unsaved choose to continue in disobedience, but it is God that does the just punishing. --Joe! |
||||||
166 | Why the Old and New Testament? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33385 | ||
The moral codes are never called "lifeless" in the New Testament. What is said is that the law could never impart life (Galatians 3:21). That is something very different from saying that God's unchanging moral standard itself is lifeless. You need to be clear about what you mean when you start talking about the New Testament itself being "infinitely more glorious" than the Old Testament. Both the OT and the NT text are completely and totally inspired by God, and the OT is quoted extensively in the NT as well, testifying clearly that it is not a bunch of "dead" books. We owe most of our understanding of God's standard of righteousness from the text of the Old Testament, and it is the Old Testament which reveals the coming Messiah who will save His people. The OT intimidating? Parts of it, and intentionally so. We all should be intimidated in a certain sense when we apprehend the absolute majesty, power, and holiness of Almighty God. But depressing? That would mean that all of the Jews prior to the Incarnation had a pretty depressing existence. What is so depressing about the Psalms? The only thing depressing about the Old Testament is seeing the constant failure of humanity to meet the good and right will of God. there is nothing about God's character itself that should invite depression in the believer. The fact is that while the new covenant is much more superior than the old in that the first results in our condemnation and the second results in our salvation, both covenants are good covenants from a good God. It is the other party which messed things up in the first covenant. --Joe! |
||||||
167 | Why the Old and New Testament? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33398 | ||
Well, one of the functions of the law is to convict sinners of their sin. However, for the child of God it is also the means of knowing how to serve God. I recommend that you go read Psalm 119 and see what words David uses to describe God's law and his attitude toward it, and take some time to study the reasons he gives. You are right that too many preachers have preached the law without the gospel. In our day, I think many preachers err too far in the other direction, where we hear the "good news" that isn't as good until we realize the depth of the "bad news." We need a balance. Both law and gospel are found in both Testaments, so both Testaments are useful in cross-centered preaching. --Joe! |
||||||
168 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33582 | ||
Ben: Thanks for contributing. I am sure that you have examined the Reformed view of passages which say that Christ came to save "the world." What is your assessment of them? Regarding Hebrews 2:9, I hold that the following verse is not a contrast to this one, but rather a qualifier to it. I do not see the author claiming that Jesus died for everyone who has ever existed in one verse and then saying that God through Christ brings salvation to many sons. They are not two separate thoughts, but an elaboration. The Reformed view of 1 Timothy 2 understands "all men" to mean "all kinds of men," which fits well with verses 1-2. Should we pray for all men AND kings and those in authority? Aren't kings and those in authority part of the category of "all men"? Again, many see the appositive phrase "for kings and those in authority" to be a qualifying statement. The one that really interests me is 1 Timothy 4:10. John Piper suggests that the common grace that both the believer and the unbeliever receives is a result of the cross as well. In other words, the reason that God didn't utterly and IMMEDIATELY destroy Adam and Eve as well as everyone else who has committed sin against Him is because the mercy he shows them was bought at the cross. That is how, according to Piper, that Christ can be the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. Whatever one's interpretation, it is pretty clear that there is a different degree of salvation between these two groups signified by the word "especially." Let me know what you think! --Joe! |
||||||
169 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33667 | ||
Ben: I didn't comment on the other verses because I agree with you that all are outwardly called to repent. That brings about greater judgment upon the reprobate and is a means of grace to salvation for the elect. I do not hold that 1 Timothy 2 is talking about universal governmental atonement (or whatever clever name we could come up with). My point was that the Reformed understanding of the 1 Timothy 2:1-6 has to be reconciled with other verses which explicitly place some in the category of atoned for and others that don't (John 6:37,44,65 in its context being a prime example). Hence, does God want every single human being to be saved (and ultimately does not accomplish His desire), or does the "all" refer to all the elect rather than all of humanity? Scripture interprets Scripture, and I cannot reconcile an universal redemption view with the balance of the New Testament. What I find interesting is that you hold to election but reject particular redemption. In your view, why did Christ die for those who had not been chosen? Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
170 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33670 | ||
Well, I am ReformER Joe. As Martin Luther put it, "semper reformanda": the church must always be reforming itself. The spirit of every age and its false teaching is always at the door to come in and twist the truth. American evangelicalism in general (and not just the PCUSA) certainly could use some reform right about now. I am glad to know that there are still folks within the denomination to which you belong who hold to the truth as revealed in Scripture. It must be tough to be so outnumbered! I always think of people like you and confessional Anglicans, and wonder how you guys manage to hang in there! I agree on the "all" verses, primarily because we would have a contradiction in Scripture otherwise. --Joe! |
||||||
171 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33672 | ||
Tim: You wrote: 'Notice though that John 6:44 never says that the one drawn "will come". It says that he is not "able to come" unless drawn.' You are correct. It is John 6:37 which says that they WILL come. We can imply that, because Christ will raise them up on the last day, those people mentioned in 6:44 are people who WILL come. --Joe! |
||||||
172 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33746 | ||
I have already posted more than most people would like for me to have posted on this issue, and you can view my posts from the past to get your fill (and more) of my point of view. I am not sure what you mean precisely when you argue that the blood of Christ is ABLE to save more than the elect. By no means do I believe that God COULDN'T have saved more. The question in my mind isn't whether Jesus could have died for the sins of all human beings. Of course that is the case. The question is "For whose sins did He indeed die?" Which brings me to the question of God's justice. Who dies for the sins of those who will spend eternity in hell? If Christ died for the sins of the damned and the sinner pays for them as well, we have two beings dying for the same offenses. How is it just for someone to die for sins that Christ has died for? Double payment for sin just doesn't seem to mesh with a God who is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His justice. --Joe! |
||||||
173 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33747 | ||
Well, I don't know if I could share your optimism about your denomination, but I am confident that no one will prevail against the church invisible, which quite apparently includes you! --Joe! |
||||||
174 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33748 | ||
I am glad to hear that. I never was a PCUSA member myself, but I often hear stories from fellow church members who were. One of the teaching elders at our church was one of the principal architects of the PCA, and it is pretty clear that it wasn't an easy decision at all for most people. --Joe! |
||||||
175 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 33749 | ||
Just out of curiosity, this Greek-ignorant brother would like to know if the same word for come is used throughout this passage (v. 37 to the end of the chapter). --Joe! |
||||||
176 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34308 | ||
Zach: You wrote: "Without choice love is rendered as something meaningless." That kind of stuff sounds really great on Oprah, but where is your Scriptural support for such a notion? My love for God, although wrought in me by God, is something quite meaningful. You are demonstrating a misunderstanding of election. There is indeed relationship between the regenerate and God. Neither party in this dialogue disagrees with that. Both parties are willing. The question is not whether we are willing or not, but rather: would we be the slightest bit willing to embrace Christ were we not enabled and persuaded by the Holy Spirit to do so? Please support your arguments with Scripture and not with catch-phrases which may or may not have biblical authority. --Joe! |
||||||
177 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34498 | ||
Of course, you implied that Charles Spurgeon was an inconsistent fence-sitter... :) --Joe! |
||||||
178 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34502 | ||
Zach: I must say that in typical Arminian fashion, you quote all of the "whosoever will" passages, which do not present the slightest problem for the Reformed theologian; and completely ignore those passages which explicitly speak of man's inability and unwillingness to come to Christ unless persuaded to do so by the Holy Spirit. Those persuaded to do so will willingly embrace Him, and those not persuaded to do so will willingly reject Him. Our wills are constrained by our nature, and our sinful natures must be changed supernaturally so that we will indeed love God instead of hate Him. 'And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."' --John 6:65 (not "The Father accepts whomever decides on this/her own initiative to come to Him.") "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." --John 6:44 (not "you are free to accept or reject Jesus") "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." --John 6:37 (not "God accepts whoever comes to Christ on their own"; notice in all of these verses who is initiating and causing the activity) We can play "quotation ping-pong" all day long if you wish Zach, with every Arminian quoted being contradicted by a Reformed theologian. Those of us in the other camp understand the Arminian view far better than you seem to understand the Reformed one, so it really doesn't contribute to the discussion to hear from any Arminian scholar unless the Arminian view is being misrepresented by us. I contend that it isn't being misrepresented here, only challenged. In closing, you write: "How can man be held accountable to God for his actions in judgment without freewill?" We do have free will, and our depraved nature makes us want nothing but sin (Romans 3:10-18). Until God changes us, that is all we will ever want, and we are unable to want anything else (Romans 8:7-9). Paul anticipates your question, however, and answers it in Romans 9:19 ff. "Is it fair to send someone to hell for sins he was forced to commit having no freewill?" No one is forced by God to be a sinner (James 1:13). Thanks to the Fall, that is what we WANT to do. It is our nature. Sin itself is a willful rebellion AGAINST God's will. That is the category in which we all have found ourselves. The difference between us and the non-Christian is that God has allowed some to continue down the sinful path to destruction, and has rescued some of us, changing our natures and causing us to WANT to embrace Christ. Just to clear up your understanding of effectual calling, here is the Westminster Shorter Catechism's rendering of the doctrine: "Q31. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our will, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel." So, according to our view, it is God who enlightens our minds (not us), God who enables us to embrace Christ (not us), and God who renews our wills (which were previously contrained by our fallen, depraved natures), and God who persuades us to trust in Christ (we trust, but it is God who must persuade us to do so, and He accomplishes this perfectly). --Joe! |
||||||
179 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34527 | ||
I am sorry if the terms I use make you uncomfortable because they are not found in Scripture. Does this mean that the word "Trinity" disturbs you as well? What about the term "deity of Christ"? There are lots of terms that are very biblical even though the exact term is not employed in Scripture. Words like "Reformed" are very good to describe a particular understanding of the Bible, distinguishing it from other interpretations (such as the Catholic and Arminian views). If the labels bother you, then I apologize in advance for continuing to use them. It simply makes life much easier than reciting everything that I hold that the Bible teaches every time someone asks me where I stand on an issue. "Reformed" sums a lot of it up in one word. Likewise, a confession of faith or a catechism is a very useful tool for defining what a particular communion understands the Bible to be teaching. You have a creed or confession as well, whether it is written or not. Every time you say, "the Bible teaches __________," you are reciting from your own confession of faith. Are you against theology, too? Then please never make another statement about God again, because as soon as you do, you have made yourself a theologian. Everyone who says anything about God is a theologian. The question is whether one is a good theologian or a bad one. You wrote: 'How about, " you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" :)" Didn't see THAT one in the NASB nor the KJV... You wrote: "yes it is God that draws the person, but does this mean that the one that is being drawn has to accept the gift of Salvation? I don't think so." Thanks for sharing what you think. The question is whether it matches up with what the Bible teaches or not. That seemed to be the point of the first part of your post, in any case REVELATION 3:20 IS NOT AN EVANGELISTIC VERSE! Go back and read it in its context. Jesus is talking to a church congregation, not to an unbelieving individual. The point is that the church was NOT supping with Christ and that their attitudes and actions had left Christ "outside the door." I find the notion of Jesus standing in the cold outside the door of the sinner's life, begging for the sinner to PLEASE open the door, to be quite insulting to the King of Kings. If Jesus wants in, He will kick the door down. Ask Saul of Tarsus. --Joe! |
||||||
180 | What is Free Will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 34540 | ||
Tim: Of course, your Reformed brethren would counter your take on John 12:32 with the question: "Are indeed ALL human beings drawn to Christ?" I see many who are nothing but repelled by him... John 6:44 itself does not limit the extent of the drawing, but we see in the larger context of Jesus' discourse that there is some limitation. In John 6:37 we see that all that God has given to Jesus WILL come to him, and that He will not cast us out. Verse 6:39 says that Jesus will lose none of those the Father has given him, and that he will raise us up on the last day. That second phrase is repeated in the next verse (a "whosoever will" verse) and in 6:44 and in 6:54. I think it is safe to conclude that those whom Jesus is talking about are the saints of God. So what we see about those who will be "raised up on the last day" is the following I use "we" and "us" here because we as believers belong to this category): 1. God has given us to the Son, and all of us WILL come to Christ (John 6:37,39) 2. We are those who will believe in Christ (6:40). 3. We cannot come unless the Father draws us (6:44,65). 3. We will "eat the flesh and drink the blood" of the Son (6:54) This is why I hold that we CANNOT come without the Father drawing us, and that we WILL come when the Father does draw us. Therefore, one can infer that the reason people do not come to the Son is because the Father does not draw them. In fact, we see from John 6:66 that Jesus' words had precisely the opposite effect on some who had been following him (for whatever reason) up to that point. Therefore, I hold that John 6:44 contributes to the larger discourse in John 6 of who is able to come, and who will or will not believe in the Son. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [123] >> |