Results 1781 - 1800 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1781 | Mercy's God's prerogative | Rom 9:15 | Reformer Joe | 13631 | ||
Tim: You wrote: "1) The thurst of the quotes about Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, all have to do with God's sovereign right to use them in anyway He sees fit, since He is the potter. However, it never says anything about their individual salvation. In fact, all of the quotes about Jacob and Esau all refer to the nations involved." Well, the question raised was not about individual salvation, but whether God is required by His very nature to show mercy to all. In the case of Pharaoh, we are definitely talking about an individual who was not the object of God's mercy. And even if Paul intends his references to Jacob and Esau to refer to the Israelites and the Edomites (which is not a point I concede), these nations are still made up of individuals, so we still come down to individuals not receiving mercy (i.e. "being hated") from God. "2) Nowhere in chapter 9 does it say that the vessels are locked into the postion that they are in currently. Notice in Ephesians, that Paul says that they were all at one time 'vessels of wrath'. But, God had mercy on them." I think the term "prepared beforehand for destruction" implies exactly that these vessels serve the purpose God intended for them. Ephesians 2 refers to us as "formerly...children of wrath, even as the rest" rather than "vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction." And the big difference is seen in the very next verse: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" --Ephesians 2:4-5 It is clear that: a) we were all children of wrath b) now we (i.e. believers) are not c) Paul differentiates us from "the rest (i.e. the lost--v.3) d) the difference between the elect (Ephesians 1:4, 11) and the lost is God's rich mercy toward the elect It is not to hard to conclude by this epistle that the elect receive mercy that "the rest," those who will remain "children of wrath" do not receive. You continue: "3) Chapter 9 cannot be understood in isolation from chapter's 10 and 11. Both of these chapters stress that whoever calls will be saved and that even those, in chapter 11, who are not of the elect can be saved if they do not continue in their unbelief." The Reformed position agrees that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. We are not in disagreement there. Where we disagree is that the Calvinist position holds that all those who will truly call on the Lord are precisely the ones that God has predestined, called, and regenerated (and no one else). Chapter 11 does not distinguish the elect from those who will be grafted back in. The ones who will be grafted back in are those whom God will regenerate. When Paul says that the condition is "if they do not continue in their unbelief," that is not contrary to Calvinism, either. If they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be the ones re-grafted and therefore among the elect. "4) Concerning "all Israel", I believe Paul is refering to the Spiritual Israel of 9:1-6 here. He specifically mentions the full number of Gentiles being brought in, and then he says, "Thus, all Israel will be saved." Agreed. --Joe! |
||||||
1782 | Mercy's God's prerogative | Rom 9:15 | Reformer Joe | 13610 | ||
Tim: This view simply robs Romans 9 of any meaning whatsoever. The whole thrust of that chapter is that some are "vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory," (9:23) and others are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (9:22). Notice that both sets of vessels were PREPARED for their purposes. There is no logical way of getting around that. In addition, we know that these vessels of mercy are not a particular nation or ethnic group, but rather believers from both Jew and Gentile ethnicities: "even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." --Romans 9:24 Therefore, the clear reading of Romans 9 tells us: 1. God will have mercy upon whom he chooses (9:15). 2. We are the creation, and have no right to tell the Potter what we shall be used for (9:19-21). 3. Some were prepared for destruction (9:22) 4. Others were prepared for mercy and glory (9:23) 5. Those vessels prepared for mercy are not entire races, but subsets of races set apart for this purpose (9:24). Romans 11:32 does not say that God WILL show mercy to all men. Paul is referring here to the remnant of Israel that will be grafted back in, along with the Gentile "wild olive branches." If you think that "all" here necessarily means "everyone," look back at 11:26. Does his use of "all Israel" mean that every single descendent of Jacob WILL be saved? If you are consistent with the view you are putting forth with regard to 11:32, then by the same logic you must conclude that there will be universal salvation for every member of the twelve tribes. --Joe! |
||||||
1783 | Does anyone really *do* this? | Luke 14:12 | Reformer Joe | 13562 | ||
Nolan: I would hardly call it "being crucified." :) --Joe! |
||||||
1784 | Does anyone really *do* this? | Luke 14:12 | Reformer Joe | 13551 | ||
Nolan: I understand your motive. However, it is important not to compromise Gospel essentials. There has been enough of that with "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and "The Gift of Salvation" to muddying the waters. Have you ever read the document "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration"? It is quite a well-crafted articulation of the biblical gospel, cast in the form of affirmations and denials. It is well worth a read by all on the forum, and several sites have it online. Here's one: http://www.antithesis.com/toolbox/evang_celebration.html Hope this is found to be enlightening! --Joe! |
||||||
1785 | Does anyone really *do* this? | Luke 14:12 | Reformer Joe | 13502 | ||
Nolan: You wrote: "You believe in Jesus Christ, and that He rose from the dead! That is enough, my friend, for you to warrant brotherhood and for you to be a part of our fellowship!" Does this make Mormons our brothers, too, then? --Joe! |
||||||
1786 | What do you base your belief on? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13500 | ||
Brian: You wrote: "How do we know Peter was choosen by Jesus to head his Church. "Three reasons: first, Matthew 16:17-19, And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church " And that was fulfilled in Acts 2. Nothing popish about this at all. --Joe! |
||||||
1787 | Follow up Peter first Pope | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13498 | ||
None of the five tenets of the Reformation Church had anything to do with hatred. They were: 1. Scripture alone is our authority (i.e. while the church is important, church tradition is fallible and does not carry the same authority as the Bible). 2. We are saved by God's grace alone (not by any merit on our part whatsoever) 3. We are saved through faith alone (not by any works on our part whatsoever) 4. We are saved in Christ alone (i.e. by his sinless life and substitutionary death on the cross in the place of sinners, not through any institution or human intermediaries) 5. All of this is to the glory of God alone. Notice that the key word here in all five tenets is the word "alone." Martin Luther said he would not recant unless he could be convinced by the Holy Scriptures that his positions were wrong. Did he get a biblical refutation of his position? Nope. And Luther did not divide the church. He reformed it. He initially tried to point out the errors made by the Pope and church tradition in the light of Scripture. It was the Pope who excommunicated Luther, not Luther leaving the church. Now, is the Roman Catholic church wiser for clinging to church traditions and practices and beliefs which are clearly contrary to what God has revealed in His holy book? --Joe! |
||||||
1788 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | Reformer Joe | 13495 | ||
Tim: I think his point was that you had already said you knew what the Reformed arguments would be, and that there was no point in re-stating them. --Joe! P.S. You know that there are already other threads where you and I have gone around on this. Why are we bringing it to a thread based on a verse which has absolutely nothing to do with election? |
||||||
1789 | Why didn't tHe relent from His anger? | 2 Kin 23:26 | Reformer Joe | 13392 | ||
That doesn't answer the question of why God did not change his mind when hhis grandson Josiah implemented nationwide reforms. The fact is that God had had enough (1 Kings 21:10-15), and his will was that Judah would be judged. An important lesson for us: Do we fully understand how patient God is with us, but also how much he absolutely abhors sin with a wrathful, holy hatred? My guess is that most people do not get this at all. --Joe! |
||||||
1790 | What is "the Law" and grace about? | Rom 7:12 | Reformer Joe | 13389 | ||
And don't forget that for those who are already believers, the moral law reminds us of what God's will is for our sanctification. --Joe! |
||||||
1791 | What is your definition of Law and grace | Mark 10:21 | Reformer Joe | 13174 | ||
Bill: Whoa. First you say Jesus fulfilled the Law, and then go and say that it was the Pharisees who were "full of Law" compared with Christ, who was "full of grace and truth." The statement about Jesus is correct, but the problem with the Pharisees was not their following of Law, but rather their seeking justification through the Law and also looking at it as a tool to outwardly follow in order to win the praises of men, while their hearts were wicked and uncircumcized. I would also disagree with your definition of grace as well. Grace is God's extension of forgiveness to us in spite of the fact that we deserve exactly the opposite. You keep quoting Romans 7 and keep divorcing it from the point Paul is making at the end of the chapter: "I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. FOR I JOYFULLY CONCUR WITH THE LAW IN THE INNER MAN, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I MYSELF WITH MY MIND AM SERVING THE LAW OF GOD, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:21-25 Notice while we are free from the curse of the Law, the regenerated Paul concurs that the moral commands of the law are just and holy and good and spiritual, all of which are terms he uses to describe them in this chapter. The biggest issue that the antinomian has to address, however, is the fact that Paul quotes the Decalogue in his instructions to believers: "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." --Romans 13:8-10 So if Christ is the fulfillment of the moral law in every sense (i.e. that we are not expected to follow it), how is our loving our neighbor (which is actually a quote from Leviticus--more law) "the fulfillment of the law" as well? He quotes four of the Ten Commandments here and says that WE are fulfilling the moral obligations of the law by loving others. Ephesians 6 shows us another quote from the Decalogue: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH." --Ephesians 6:1-3 Paul quotes straight from commandment number five here and reminds believing Gentiles that this is a commandment that needs to be continued. There is no other reasonable way to interpret this passage. He doesn't say, "The Ten Commandments don't matter, but it is a good idea to honor your parents." He re-issues the commandment verbatim. James has more to say on this: "If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty." --James 2:8-12 James again quote Leviticus, and uses the Ten Commandments as a standard of determining the sinfulness of the believers he is addressing. Taking the whole counsel of God into consideration, there is no reasonable way to say that the Ten Commandments and God's larger moral law that encompasses these commandments have no value or application to the believer. The very apostles you cite as evidence for your position deny what you say in their writings. --Joe! |
||||||
1792 | MEANING OF 40CHAPTER V 11? | Isaiah | Reformer Joe | 13065 | ||
Again, nice non-answer. --Joe! |
||||||
1793 | MEANING OF 40CHAPTER V 11? | Isaiah | Reformer Joe | 12992 | ||
Nice non-answer. Show us how Isaiah 40 is about you and not God. --Joe! By the way, you are not my enemy , but rather the enemy of God and His truth. |
||||||
1794 | Is the Christian under Law? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12986 | ||
True enough. God regenerated us, however, to lead holy, moral lives which glorify Him. This comes not from circumcision, nor from keeping the Old Testament feasts, but come from sanctification in obedience to God's moral law. Obedience is not the BASIS of our being saved, or we would all be in some serious trouble! But it definitely is an inevitable fruit of our new birth. We are not saved BY works, but we are saved UNTO works. Following God's moral law with the motivation of honoring Him should be the sole occuption of the life of a believer. That certainly was not limited to pre-Christian Jews! Thanks for your input! --Joe! |
||||||
1795 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12984 | ||
Bill: I agree with Spurgeon completely here. However, he is speaking of forgiveness. That is justification, not sanctification. Undoubtedly, we are justified by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Works play no part of our justification. My justification is complete. However, in certain senses my sanctification is not. When I was justified at conversion, I was also "set apart" for SERVICE to God. Salvation is not and end in itself, but rather God's means of glorifying Himself both in our redemption from sin, but also in the fruit that we will bear. Works are not the basis of our justification, but they very much play a part in our sanctification. Note what I am saying here: we are not saved BY our works, but we are saved UNTO good works which glorify God. You may continue to dismiss the tri-partite view of sanctification I and most believers in church history have held, but the fact is that sanctification is presented in Scripture in one sense as a past event, in another as an ongoing event, and in yet another as a future, completed event. I have already cited many verses which point to sanctification as a goal of the Christian life, not merely a "done deal" like our justification. Again, how do you explain those verses in light of your view that sanctification is complete in every sense? Justification and sanctification are not the same thing. My salvation is assured when I was justified, and I was "set apart" when i was sanctified, but God gave me the Spirit to enable me to submit to God's law (not my words, but His -- Romans 8:7) and to be transformed by the renewing of my mind (Romans 12:2 -- our transformation is not yet complete). All of this is designed to glorify Him, to accomplish His purposes. My salvation has benefits for me, but it is only a means to God being glorified in his mercy and grace (1 Peter 2:10). The whole ball of wax is about Him, not me. I am God's workmanship (Ephesians 2:10), created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS which are in keeping with his law. Every time we see the gospel mentioned and the blessings we have received, the passage continues to define a larger purpose for why we were chosen and regenerated. The will of God is that we live a holy life which testifies to the excellencies of God and silences the ignorant talk of foolish men (1 Peter 2:15). This comes from following God's moral law, which among other places is demonstrated in the Ten Commandments. We are free from the curse that comes from our non-compliance with the law, because Christ has fulfilled it completely for us. God's moral guidelines that are reflected both within and outside the Mosaic Law still are moral guidelines for us. If you ignore these guidelines, saying they are not applicable to the believer, what exactly are the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit uses in your life "to conform us outwardly to the image of Christ"? Any commandment from God forms part of His moral Law, and it is from His commandments that we have a standard on what righteous living is. This is what is known as the law/gospel distinction. God's law shows us what is good and what the Lord requires of us. From the gospel do not come guidelines for obedience to Christ, but rather grace and mercy despite our rebellion against God and His perfect law, as well as the power of the Holy Spirit for us to honor and glorify Him by following His moral law. Incidentally, for Spurgeon's take on the uses of law in the life of the believer, you can read some of his sermons online. These two in particular address the issue in question: www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0128.htm www.spurgeon.org/sermons/3418.htm Don't dismiss what we can learn from the heroes of the faith. They are certainly not infallible (and I myself disagree with some of what they have to say, just as they disagree with each other on some points), but one should weigh seriously what they have to show us from the Word before a summary dismissal is made in favor of "just God, me, and the Bible!" Thanks for your comments --Joe! |
||||||
1796 | Is the Christian under Law? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12944 | ||
I agree with your statement about both the Pharisees and of David. The spiritual deadness of the Pharisees found its expression through superficial and hypocritical adherence to the letter of the Law. I am not sure what you mean by "established," but we agree that the Holy Spirit caused David to embrace and love God's moral law rather than to despise it and consider it irrelevant to someone who has the Spirit. --Joe! |
||||||
1797 | What is your identity in Christ? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12918 | ||
You wrote: "I am a saint, a child of God, who occasionally still sins." What do you think the term "sinner IN PRACTICE" means, Bill? Someone who commits sins (and if your life is like mine and most of those I know, I hope that "occasionally" is an understatement). You wrote: "Well, brother, I feel we've probably taken this as far as is profitable. You can cling to what you allege that Catholics, Protestants, Reformed, Dispensationalists, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Edwards, and Spurgeon say. I'm going to 'rest' in Sola Scriptura." Now you are both demonstrating ignorance and arrogance, Bill. Where do you think "sola Scriptura" came from? Where do you think it would be today without God's intervention through the lives of Luther and Calvin? Do you not realize the way in which Augustine and Edwards and Spurgeon preserved and passed on the biblical idea of grace? To spit on their contributions in the way you do really makes me think much less of you, because somehow you think that you have become wiser than all the saints who have come before, and that there is absolutely nothing to be gleaned from their application of "sola Scriptura." Speaking of sola Scriptura, there didn't seem to be much Scriptura in your post here, while mine seems to be replete with it. And I must confess that your view seems to be anything but the whole counsel of God. It's more like "sola the Scriptura that I am comfortable with." Your NT must be a lot thinner than mine, because while you reject law wholesale, I see that the God of the New Testament very much cares whether believers worship him alone, refrain from stealing and cheating on their spouses, reject the building of idols, abstain from blaspheming, tell the truth, and honor their parents. Your view is the one that has been the most disastrous to evangelicalism in America, and is the primary reason why the Church is the fat, lazy, impotent element of society that it is, looking very much like the world we are supposedly so set apart from. "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" --1 Peter 4:17 --Joe! |
||||||
1798 | Did Adam die lost? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 12890 | ||
What is most likely is that God called Abram (Genesis 12:1-2), who was most likely a polytheist, like the rest of his community, before God intervened. Abram's heart was far from the one, true God, just like all of ours are before being called. There is no evidence that Paul was the author of Hebrews, by the way. Most scholars believe otherwise, in fact. In any case, I don't think that the Hebrews 11 "hall of faith" should be considered an exhaustive list. We see that despite Adam's sin, and that God provided for him and for Eve (Genesis 3:21, for example). It isn't conclusive proof, but there is a sense of restoration after the rebellion. In any case, I don't think anyone could look at what was recorded about Adam in the biblical narrative and conclude that he is a shining example of faithfulness in his deeds. Abel does serve as much more of a clear example, from his faithful obedience, which is the point of Hebrews 11 -- that true faith displays itself in action (look at v. 6 for that point to be made). --Joe! |
||||||
1799 | MEANING OF 40CHAPTER V 11? | Isaiah | Reformer Joe | 12885 | ||
Nope. Isaiah 40 is all about GOD, not any "Elijah to come." --Joe! |
||||||
1800 | Is the Christian under Law? | Ex 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 12867 | ||
Adam's first sin was the transgression of God's law to him (Genesis 2:16-17). It is clear from verses 3:11,17 that God referred back to his commandment in his judgment of Adam. Cain, likewise, apparently knew the sacrifice guidelines and violated them (Genesis 4:5-7). God had clearly revealed His will to the patriarchs as well, even though the Mosaic Law had not been established. The book of Romans even teaches us that for Gentiles such as myself, who were never subjects of the Mosaic Covenant with its Law, had the moral requirements of that Law written upon my heart (Romans 2:12-15). I was never "under the Law." However, had God not regenerated me, I would have "died without law," because God's larger covenant of works was established with Adam and his posterity, and I like all men (save Christ) have violated that covenant. The error of the Pharisees was not embracing the Law with all their hearts, but rather superficially keeping the outward trappings of the Law while their hearts were wicked and prideful. That is the whole theme of Jesus' discourse in Matthew 5 chastizing the "righteousness" of the Pharisees in only going as far as the letter of the Law dictated. Seriously, can one really look at the Pharisees' attitude toward law in the four Gospels and say that it was law's fault? Jesus condemns the Pharisees not for OBEYING the Law, but rather for not embracing the higher morality behind the Law, using several examples from the Law and indicating that God's standard of righteousness is far higher than what the Pharisees demonstrate (Matthew 5:17-48). The moral law is not unrighteous (Romans 7:7-12) nor is it "dead." Try reading Psalm 119 and witness in those 176 verses how useful, how vivid and alive the law was to King David, who was a partaker of the Holy Spirit just as we are (1 Samuel 16:13). The difference between David's embracing of God's moral law and the manner of the Pharisees toward the same law clearly demonstrates that it is not law that is dead, but the hearts of those who attempt to use it as a basis for their own works righteousness. The Spirit uses law to convict us of our sin (even after we are saved), to show us God's perfection and holiness (i.e the goal of our sanctification), and gives us the clear boundaries of His moral will: "Oh, how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; For they are ever with me... Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way." --Psalm 119:97-98,104 (NKJV) Q: What is sin? A: Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. --Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 14 --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ] Next > Last [97] >> |