Results 1821 - 1840 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1821 | After Salvation, What? | Luke 9:23 | Reformer Joe | 8239 | ||
Well, I can't take credit for most of the words! :) It is amazing, however, when we truly do put the words of God forward to speak for Him! Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1822 | Is the Word-Faith movement biblical ? | John 10:27 | Reformer Joe | 8170 | ||
I did not intend the "scoffing" remark to be a personal attack, Mark. I apologize if it seemed so. It was more of a general statement to those who unquestioningly accept whatever is said to be a prophecy from God. Having some experience with such groups, I am sure you have heard at least one leader try and put himself above discernment and correction by some out-of-context quote such as "Touch not the Lord's anointed." The fact I was trying to put forth is that for us, there is nothing like a strong and ever-growing familiarity with orthodox Christianity as expressed in the Holy Scriptures to discern and name false prophets and heresies which threaten the pure bride of Christ. We all must be zealous for the truth, and even our emotional experiences and joy must be based on God's true character and revelation. After all, as we simply dwell on the chracteristics of our amazing Lord, the Spirit who indwells us causes us to marvel and praise him for who He really is! As a side note, my mother-in-law, while not so steeped in Word-Faith, is very much a product of a less-than-discerning, jump-on-every-bandwagon kind of Christianity. I do indeed love her, but I am often saddened at how frequently I have to gently "burst her bubble" about some trend, fad, emerging cult-like leader (e.g. Gwen Shamblin), or other flavor of the month for a movement which emphasizes signs and wonders and emotional experience over solid exegesis of God's holy Word. --Joe! |
||||||
1823 | Is the Word-Faith movement biblical ? | John 10:27 | Reformer Joe | 8104 | ||
That isn't what God told Israel to do But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. You may say in your heart, "How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?" When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) In other words, the guy who prophesied a worldwide revival for last October that would be unprecedented in the history of the human race is -- yes -- a FALSE PROPHET. One who claims to speak for God but is inconsistent with Scripture is a FALSE PROPHET. One who denies the essentials of Christian doctrine and prophesies in the name of the God of the Bible is...well, you get the idea. God has already passed judgment on the false prophet and has given us the tools we need to identify him. The apostle Peter did not say "leave it up to God" in 2 Peter 2, so I will follow the advice of Scripture on this one. True, Biblical discernment is an absolute essential in the church; and scoffing at those of us who possess such spiritual gifts is doing nothing but inviting heresy, false teaching, and apostasy right in the front door of the church. --Joe! |
||||||
1824 | How did Paul know they were checking? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 8103 | ||
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. About the essentials of the Christian faith? I hope so, since a good chunk of the New Testament has his name on the by-line. I hold that his words in the epistles were divinely superintended rather than brought about by convincing arguments from other infallible people. 4. "If he was wrong"? Where do we ever get the slightest hint from Acts 17 that the Bereans proved Paul wrong about anything? They examined his words in light of the Scriptures, and -- surprise -- it checked out! Therefore, many became believers. That is all he wrote. 5. Yes, and I also know what Peter wrote about them in 2 Peter 2. Much more colorful, in my opinion. Still, I don't know where this question fits into your argument. What we have here is an extreme leap in logic. Examination does not equal correction. If I come to you and insist that sinners are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and then you go examine my claims for yourself in the Bible, does that mean I am wrong? --Joe! |
||||||
1825 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 7025 | ||
Tim: You wrote, "May I point out that every time you deal with a passage that says "all" or the "world", your objection is based upon your theology, not upon the text itself. 2 Cor. 5:11-20 simply does not make any sense under Calvinism, but it makes perfect sense under Arminianism. Our reconciliation is an accomplished objective fact at the cross (God was reconciling the world to Himself), but we must accept God's gift (and be reconciled.)" Actually, I used to hold a view similar to yours, so my adoption of Calvinist theology was based in part on the fact that ALL are obviously not saved, and therefore reconciliation is not an "accomplished objective" for all human beings. In addition, I do not conclude as you do that the other passages we previously have discussed reveal a "nations" view, rather than an "individual" view on election, unless one pre-supposes an Arminian free-willism. Actually, the more troubling thing about 2 Corinthians 5:19 for me is that the "Be reconciled" command seems to be directed toward those who are believers already (i.e. already "reconciled" in a salvific sense). Why do you think Paul would tell the saints to "be reconciled"? --Joe! |
||||||
1826 | How do you respond to these passages? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 7024 | ||
Tim: You said, "You ask whose sins are people suffering in hell for? Their own, because they refused to accept the sacrifice of Christ, which was sufficient to pay for all our sins." This is precisely my problem with the view of unlimited atonement. Did Christ die for any ACTUAL sins? Take a person (let's call him "George" for simplicity's sake). The view of unlimited atonement says that Christ died for George's sin on the cross. If George "refuses the payment," according to Arminianism, then George pays for his own sins for all eternity. Therefore, we have a case where Jesus AND George pay the penalty for George's sin. The only other alternative I see is viewing Jesus' death on the Cross as only a POTENTIAL atonement for everyone, rather than an ACTUAL atonement for the elect as Calvinists view it. Christ's death really saves no one unless we act in accordance with it. It is terribly troublesome to think that Christ and I both have to do something for Christ's sacrifice to not be a futile one. If there is another alternative that I am missing in which God ends up being just (no "double jeopardy") and Christ's sacrifice was an actual payment for the actual sins of actual people on the first Good Friday, please point that out to me. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1827 | Receive? | 1 John 2:2 | Reformer Joe | 6967 | ||
Thanks for the prayer, Tim. We have about 50 teens who are investing at least two weeks in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in a variety of different settings this summer. I do hold to a "sovereign will"/"moral will" distinction myself on the part of God, in which God's sovereign will is everything done according to his active involvement in affairs of creation, as well as his allowance of things that he allows that are outside his moral will (e.g. rebellious acts on the part of demons and humans, or "non-moral" acts such as me choosing the red shirt over the blue one). What I meant on the whole "God's will failing" is the following: 1. God is omnipotent and omniscient 2. If God is willing that no humans perish at all, then 3. He is either incapable of saving everyone or chooses to limit Himself in some way, stopping short of doing everything possible to convert the sinner. And from a Calvinist perspective, the only way God "prevents people from being saved" is by not extending saving grace to them. It is the depravity of their nature, their sin, their active rebellion against a holy God which prevents them from being in a right standing with God. It just doesn't logically follow that if God chooses to show undeserved kindness to some that all the rest suddenly deserve the kindness shown to the elect. The elect are shown mercy; the reprobate receive justice. No one is shown injustice. I would contend that NO ONE wants to submit to God in their unregenerate state. In looking at an Arminian view, why is God's "prevenient grace" effective in some and not in others? Does God not know what the "hook" is to reel the sinner in? Or is it that the one who chooses Christ is wiser or smarter or more intuitive or whatever? If the latter is the case, how can the one who chooses Christ not have a reason to boast superiority to the one who also received "prevenient grace" and didn't choose Christ? In short, what is the quality in the sinner that makes her choose Christ rather than reject Him if God's saving grace is extended to all, and how is that not meritorious in itself? --Joe! |
||||||
1828 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6786 | ||
You lost your original answer? Jesus saves...why don't you? :) Thanks for providing your perspective on Romans 9. It doesn't seem that many people who hold a "free-will" view want to go there. I would like to point out two things that keep me from accepting the "nations" view in Romans 9. The first is that God clearly is shown to not extend his mercy to some, which included Esau as an individual in Genesis, not the Edomites. The second is that the "vessels of mercy" referred to are not the Jews nor the Gentiles as a race, but those "of the Jews" and also "of the Gentiles," i.e. individuals within those nations (v. 24). Also, Paul takes the time to clearly delineate in the first part of Romans 9 that not all descended from Jacob are considered "all Israel" for the purposes of his discourse (v. 6). I don't see how one concludes that Paul is speaking of Gentiles and Jews in general in Ephesians 1. He is addressing Gentile believers, but he himself is a Jew, and he groups them both together (i.e. the church at Ephesus and Paul, not nations) as those chosen according to the kind intention of God's will. What do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
1829 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Reformer Joe | 6768 | ||
Apology accepted without reservation, and if I have offended you with my manner, please accept mine as well. My point about modalism is that your post provides a very good defense against it regarding the Isaiah verse that Oneness folks are so fond of quoting as "indisputable evidence" that Jesus is the Father. --Joe! |
||||||
1830 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6767 | ||
That question in itself demonstrates that you possess wisdom, Hank! :) | ||||||
1831 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6737 | ||
I understand, Mel. I just can't imagine why you think that obedience is such an easy thing, living in a world system which hates Christ and all who follow Him. Try reading 1 Peter to get an idea of living with trials in true obedience. Or Philippians. Yes, obedience is carried out by cooperation with the Holy Spirit, but from one vantage point it is terribly challenging. By the way, you still haven't addressed my original post. --Joe! |
||||||
1832 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6724 | ||
At times, harsh language does indeed have its place. Paul himself used it. So did our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not an apostle, but nowhere do I find in Scripture that harsh language is to be used only by Messiahs and apostles. We are to rightly divide the word of truth and be discerning toward unscriptural notions and heresies. Unrelenting and unrepentent heresy certainly calls for harsh language sometimes to convey the seriousness of the matter, especially when it is confusing believers and causing some of the brethren to fall away. We are indeed to judge, using as our standard the word of God. --Joe! |
||||||
1833 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6723 | ||
Actually, it was the town council of Geneva who voted to burn Servetus at the stake for his incessant heresy. Contrary to your assumptions, John Calvin did not run the entire town, and actually opposed burning Servetus at the stake. Yes, he was in favor of hanging Servetus, but putting Calvin in the context of his times, such a punishment was not considered inappropriate. Consider the fact that in the United States during the 1800s horse thieves were hung on a regular basis. Capital punishment for repeated offenses (such as the case of Serevtus, where his heresies would do a lot more than leave a man without his horse) was par for the course. What SHOULD be appreciated, on the other hand, is that there was only one person executed for heresy during an era when many,MANY more people were killed by the Catholic clergy for their "crime" of Protestantism. In any case, whether Calvin was part of a committee which voted to execute Servetus says nothing about whether his theology was true. My post was an admonishment not to be so quick to paint Calvin as some bloodthirsty, evil overlord. That is simply an unfair characterization, and that is precisely how you were intending to characterize him in your original post. Martin Luther was pretty anti-Semitic himself. We can find all kinds of sins among the Reformers. Does this mean that the Protestant Reformation was not of God, or that their theology is flawed? Perhaps you should take a little more time to study Church history and realize what a radical turn of events it took to get us back our Bible. --Joe! |
||||||
1834 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6542 | ||
You are right; 10 percent is not a lot to work with. Sorry about the typo! :) The law of non-contradiction may not be explicitly stated in the Bible, but it is pretty hard to reason without it. For example, the Bible clearly says that there is one God. That means there is not more than one God nor less than one God. If God is just, that means that he is not unjust. That is just simple logic, and everyone operates with an understanding of the law of non-contradiction, whether they admit to it or not. Likewise, if Calvinism is an accurate representation of God's revealed plan, then Arminianism cannot be, due to the fact that they make contradictory claims. The vice versa holds true as well. Thanks again. --Joe! |
||||||
1835 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | Reformer Joe | 6532 | ||
This idea is not too far off from the Christian Science view of God as some "divine principle," a force of nature to be tapped into. It saddens me greatly to see many Christians who think of God as something like the Force from Star Wars, an impersonal law of nature whose forgiveness we gain and whose power we can obtain for ourselves if only we focus our own wills and energy in the right way. Terribly New Age, and it has no place in a biblical, Christian worldview where God actually says "no" at times when we pray to him, no matter how much faith we can "muster." Then, many Christians blame themselves when bad things happen despite all their prayer. "My sister wouldn't have died if only I had had enough faith" and that kind of talk. As Christians, we must all strive in our own congregations at lovingly but firmly eliminating such spiritual pollution. Trouble is, there aren't enough people speaking out against popular yet ungodly trends due to the fact that they would be perceived as not being "nice" or "trying to quench the Spirit," etc. Thanks for your insight! --Joe! |
||||||
1836 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6531 | ||
With all due respect, you didn't respond to the content of my post at all. Please re-read and address what I wrote. Simply repeating an unsupported assumption regarding election does not make you any more or less right than you were the first time. By the way, I did look at the two verses, and they do nothing to support your original contentions. God is anything but "simple and easy." From the human side of things, our salvation is easy, but it cost Christ a great deal. Furthermore, since God does all the work in regenerating us and causing us to desire to place our faith in Christ, it again is easy for us. Our holy God, however, is anything but simple; and the committed Christian life is one of external difficulty and trials (ask Paul). Our eternal rest comes later. Lastly, one cannot pick and choose from Scripture the attributes of God that we are most comfortable with (well, I suppose we can, but it will not be the real God we will be worshipping). God is loving, but God is also completely holy. Check out Revelation 1 for John's first-hand experience of the utter holiness of Christ. He is also completely just, and will not compromise His justice for the sake of love. He is also a God of wrath toward sin. The God who sent Christ to die for my sins is the same one who destroyed all humanity with the exception of Noah's family. He is the God who will let many spend all eternity in Hell to justly pay the penalty for their sins against Him. Simple? I don't think God is the simple One here. --Joe! |
||||||
1837 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6514 | ||
I am afraid that I misunderstand you (at least I hope that you are not saying what it appears that you are saying). Are you saying that Paul and Christ were unwarranted in the tone of their correction? I am not convinced that I hold in myself the knowledge of right and wrong. However, I do hold a Bible in my hands, and it makes a lot of things very clear. I am convinced that God is holy. Is that too dogmatic? I hold to the universal depravity of mankind. That certainly can't be called self-righteous! I hold that we are saved by the grace of God through faith in the sinless life and substitutionary death of Christ. Please tell me when I am getting too bigoted or narrow-minded. I also hold that Ephesians 1 clearly points out that it is God who chooses those who will be saved. I hold that Romans 9 does the same, as do other lengthy passages in the Old and New Testaments.If someone has a reasonable, alternate exegesis of these passages, I am more than willing to hear them. So far, I have heard none. What is your viewpoint on this issue, by the way? If God has revealed His nature in the Bible, it is most definitely because he wants us to know what He is like. As I said previously, ignorance of God's word is no excuse. I assume you have a Bible. Examine the Scriptures and explain from the text your own views rather than posturing as noble for sitting on the doctrinal fence and hinting that those who have examined them and drawn very reasonable conclusions are being "dogmatic" and "self-righteous." --Joe! |
||||||
1838 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6513 | ||
Your manner of speech doesn't trouble me in the slightest. Your hypocrisy in "correcting" me in the tone of my response to Nolan while referring to me as a "bigot" I just found strange... I am 10 percent open to discussing other viewpoints. If I am wrong in the historical interpretation of God's methods and motive in salvation, please point that out to me from Scripture. I have yet to see anyone effectively address the problems I have with an Arminian view in light of clearly expounded passages to the contrary in Scripture. You speak of Calvinism as if it is something other than Christian. Do you hold the two as mutually exclusive? Yes, I hold to my views because I believe they are correct. Everyone does that, including yourself. Likewise, due to the law of non-contradiction, I hold opposing views to be wrong. By claiming that salvation is by God's grace through faith and not of works, does that make me "narrow-minded" to views that I must work my way to heaven? In the same manner, is my conviction that the Calvinist view is correct mean that I think Arminians are wrong? Absolutely. Do I think that means that no Arminians are saved? Of course not. Am I open to discussion on the issue? Without question. Has any discussion that has ensued on the topic satisfactorily addressed my concerns with an Arminian view in light of Ephesians 1, Romans 9:15 ff, John 6:35-65, etc.? Not at all. In short, do I think that I am right? Of course I do. If I thought I was wrong, I would believe something else. You painting me as someone who is convinced that he is right and others are wrong is what philosophers call a "red herring." Everyone falls into that category. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
1839 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | Reformer Joe | 6481 | ||
Hank, I was wondering if you had actually taken the time to browse through the book. I haven't, but then I always am kind of allergic to whatever is on the "Top 10" shelf at my local Christian bookstore. If you have taken a look at it, what are your thoughts? --Joe! |
||||||
1840 | We may be missing something here | 1 Pet 3:20 | Reformer Joe | 6470 | ||
Indeed, let's get the whole meaning. I don't see the connection you are trying to make between 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 3, so please elaborate how you think the passage is relevant. And the question is, who is the "all" referred to in 2 Peter 3:9? The fact that God is patient not toward unbelievers, but believers (the "you" in 3:9 refers to the believers reading this passage -- v. 1:1) indicates that God is not waiting for "ALL" to be saved (which will take forever if that is what God is truly waiting for), but rather for those who are elected to eternal life throughout human history to born again. That includes people who have not been born a first time. Fact is that this verse isn't inconsistent with an election viewpoint, where many, MANY lengthy passages (Ephesians 1:1 - 2:10; Romans 9:15 ff.; 1 Peter 1:1-2; John 6:35-65 and so on) directly eliminate alternate views. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ] Next > Last [97] >> |