Results 181 - 200 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | 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! |
||||||
182 | 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! |
||||||
183 | Are we at the mercyof Gods moodswings? | 1 Pet 2:24 | Reformer Joe | 82547 | ||
You wrote: "That reminds me of a story I heard of God aand Jesus sitting in heaven. God turns to Jesus and says what shall we do today? and Jesus says well lets heal this one give this one cancer make that one rich and take that ones home. That will cause them to worship us big time." Very simplistic view of the interaction between the Father and Jesus. Did they share some peach cobbler after this exchange? Toss some horseshoes? The fact is that God has brought individuals to Himself by means of unpleasant circumstances. Both Scripture and church history attest to this fact. Mocking God's sovereign interaction with humanity because you are not omniscient enough to fully grasp it is quite immature. "God says He is no respecter of persons so how can He heal at the same time as caausing sickness?" Where does Scripture say that God is not a "respecter of persons"? According to the context of that statement, in what regard is God not a respecter of persons? --Joe! |
||||||
184 | 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! |
||||||
185 | What is God's covenant with believers | John 11:25 | Reformer Joe | 82453 | ||
Chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains it thusly: ---------------- II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. --Joe! |
||||||
186 | 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! |
||||||
187 | Are there compartments in heaven or hell | Matt 25:46 | Reformer Joe | 82420 | ||
I wouldn't put too much stock in those books. --Joe! |
||||||
188 | 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! |
||||||
189 | Are habitual sinners still Christians? | 1 Cor 6:11 | Reformer Joe | 81974 | ||
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." --1 Corinthians 6:9-10 While we never will be sinless until we are glorified, God's work of sanctification in ALL believers works true behavioral change. If someone is living an unrepentant homosexual lifestyle, one could biblically question that person's state of salvation. A good book on this issue is called _The Same-Sex Controversy_ by James White and Jeffrey Neill. http://www.discerningreader.com/samsexconjam.html --Joe! |
||||||
190 | 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! |
||||||
191 | Do I need facts, or just faith? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 81861 | ||
In order to have faith, that faith must have an object, a truth-claim. When I say that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I am saying that the resurrection was a historical reality. When the Muslim asserts that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammed is his prophet, he is making the claim that Allah did indeed appoint Muhammed as the "seal of the prophets." Now, which truth-claim reflects reality? Or, to put it the way the skeptic does, what makes Christians so sure that they are right? Muslims have faith, so who are you to say they are wrong? Evidence does not eliminate faith. God did not leave us to blindly guess (or FEEL) what He is really like or if He even exists. --Joe! |
||||||
192 | How was Jesus slain 'before' ? | 1 Pet 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 81598 | ||
"I am just puzzled about the concept of Jesus being slain 'before the foundations of the world'. If I understand this right, I am hearing that He was already in the process of being slain before the world was ever formed. What exactly is meant here by this Scripture and what is it really saying?" Even though Christ was put to death in human history, at a specific place and time, the act has always been a part of the eternal decree of God. It was as certain of an event as Jesus' second coming, as far as God's eternal purpose is concerned. Additionally, the redemption purchased by Jesus on the cross benefits all of God's people from the Fall to the end of the age. Jesus died for Abraham's sins and David's sins just as surely as He did for mine, despite the fact that they lived before the Crucifixion. --Joe! |
||||||
193 | Jesus of history | 1 Cor 15:14 | Reformer Joe | 81597 | ||
If you mean the Christ of the historic, orthodox Christian faith, there is no distinction. --Joe! |
||||||
194 | 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! |
||||||
195 | 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! |
||||||
196 | 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! |
||||||
197 | 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! |
||||||
198 | 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! |
||||||
199 | 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! |
||||||
200 | 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! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [123] >> |