Results 1881 - 1900 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1881 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5787 | ||
Well, I agree with everything you wrote here, Chris. I also agree that the Holy Spirit testifies along with us both to believers and non-believers. For those who already believers, that is encouragement and exhortation. For those who will accept Christ (i.e. the elect), the followers of Christ are the ordained means or vehicles through which the message of the gospel is presented that they will accept. The Holy Spirit and those whom He indwells also testify to those who will die in their sins, convicting them of their sins as you said, but also glorifying God by speaking of His holiness and his justice, which they will face all too soon. Therefore, the the Christian message is to be proclaimed by all followers of Christ, even though some are not going to be regenerated and respond to that message. Either way, Christ is lifted up and our great God is glorified. And, of course, while I believe in unconditional election by God, he certainly hasn't sent out a photocopy of the Book of Life so that we know who will respond and who won't. And since God has turned around such hard cases at that Pharisee Saul, we certainly would be overstepping our bounds by trying to decide for ourselves who are the ones "chosen before the foundation of the world." Therefore, the Holy Spirit through us and with us gives testimony to all individuals to whom the Gospel is preached, but I do not think that logically leads to a human being's freedom to accept or reject Christ without first being supernaturally reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit. What do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
1882 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5765 | ||
It is a doctrinal slant derived from Scripture, which becomes perfectly clear when one divorces oneself from the completely humanistic notion that we have any spark of life in our corrupt souls before the Holy Spirit totally re-makes us! Read my response to his question, and feel free to comment on my post. However, please refrain from questioning the motives of those who hold to divine elction, since it is actually this doctrine that holds the highest, most powerful view of God and firmly places humanity into the category of the Sovereign's creation. On the off-chance that you just may be wrong, I would recommend that you not blaspheme by calling God's divine choice a mere "doctrinal slant." --Joe! |
||||||
1883 | So? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5764 | ||
The calling of God is determined by His own wise counsel: "Also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will." Ephesians 1:11. Who is predestined? Believers (i.e. those who will obtain an inheritance) Who predestines/chooses? God, according to HIS purpose! Did God involve our "input"? No, because he works ALL things after the counsel of HIS WILL. Our input (that is, those who are not yet regenerated) is to rebel continually and completely against God, the sworn enemy of all the unsaved. (Romans 3:10-18) We are the creation, who has no control over the Creator. Get used to it. It is who we are. --Joe! |
||||||
1884 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5762 | ||
Predestination inevitably leads to regeneration and belief in Christ, but predestination and belief are not the same thing. Predestination is wholly God's decision (Ephesians 1:11). Belief is the response elicited from us after the Holy Spirit regenerates an individual who has been predestined. --Joe! |
||||||
1885 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5759 | ||
No. The "bus" is not predestined. The Bible does not say that a way to salvation is predestined or elected or chosen. The Bible clearly says that it is individual HUMAN BEINGS who are predestined! Don't take my word alone for it, however. See John 6:35-65, Romans 8:29, and Ephesians 1 to see if I am right (among a great number of other passages in Scripture which clearly show God choosing those whom He will save from our earned destruction). --Joe! |
||||||
1886 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5713 | ||
The problem here is that you are taking it as axiomatic that unregenerate man in any way has the ability to "choose God," that he is morally free to do so. Please show us in Scripture where it declares that man's will is free in this regard. Therefore, you seem to be interpreting Scripture in any way possible to protect this idea that man is free to choose, which I hold to be refuted soundly by Romans 3:10-18 and John 6 and Romans 9. Christ died not to OFFER payment of sins to all men, but to become sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), to die in our place (Galatians 2:20). Nowhere in the Bible do we see that he is a "hypothetical redeemer" or a "propitiation in theory." Your entire re-hashing of Norman Geisler does nothing but say that Jesus' death on the cross was incomplete in some fashion. Either Christ atoned for MY sin on the cross, undergoing the just wrath of God for MY sin, or he did not. It is not up to me to decide 2,000 years later whose sin Christ paid for. That is so undermining to the very biblical notion of God's freedom and sovereignty, and only exists to support the very unbiblical notion of man's unlimited moral freedom and sovereignty concerning salvation. Try to look at these Scriptures without the assumption that humans are morally capable of choosing to follow Christ (whether unaided or merely "wooed" by the Holy Spirit), and see if the freedom of man's will can be exegeted from the Bible. It is God who chooses, the Son who dies for those who are chosen, and the Holy Spirit who regenerates the chosen and causes them to believe in the Son who died in their place. The unsaved are completely left out of the salvation scenario. The unsaved are not chosen by God, and therefore they will justly suffer for all eternity for their own sins, since Christ did not pay for them on the cross. Any other scenario breaks down when carried to its logical conclusion. We end up with either universalism, an impotent God, or the penalty for sin being paid for by Christ AND the unbeliever. --Joe! |
||||||
1887 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5712 | ||
The problem here is that you are taking it as axiomatic that unregenerate man in any way has the ability to "choose God," that he is morally free to do so. Please show us in Scripture where it declares that man's will is free in this regard. Therefore, you seem to be interpreting Scripture in any way possible to protect this idea that man is free to choose, which I hold to be refuted soundly by Romans 3:10-18 and John 6 and Romans 9. Christ died not to OFFER payment of sins to all men, but to become sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), to die in our place (Galatians 2:20). Nowhere in the Bible do we see that he is a "hypothetical redeemer" or a "propitiation in theory." Your entire re-hashing of Norman Geisler does nothing but say that Jesus' death on the cross was incomplete in some fashion. Either Christ atoned for MY sin on the cross, undergoing the just wrath of God for MY sin, or he did not. It is not up to me to decide 2,000 years later whose sin Christ paid for. That is so undermining to the very biblical notion of God's freedom and sovereignty, and only exists to support the very unbiblical notion of man's unlimited moral freedom and sovereignty concerning salvation. Try to look at these Scriptures without the assumption that humans are morally capable of choosing to follow Christ (whether unaided or merely "wooed" by the Holy Spirit), and see if the freedom of man's will can be exegeted from the Bible. It is God who chooses, the Son who dies for those who are chosen, and the Holy Spirit who regenerates the chosen and causes them to believe in the Son who died in their place. The unsaved are completely left out of the salvation scenario. The unsaved are not chosen by God, and therefore they will justly suffer for all eternity for their own sins, since Christ did not pay for them on the cross. Any other scenario breaks down when carried to its logical conclusion. We end up with either universalism, an impotent God, or the penalty for sin being paid for by Christ AND the unbeliever. --Joe! |
||||||
1888 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5704 | ||
"Predestined" means that one's destiny is decided beforehand, in this case "before the creation of the world." (Ephesians 1:4) Who did the electing? See Ephesians 1:11 for the answer to that one. Saying that we are all predestined to be saved is universalism, the idea that all are going to heaven, which I think we will both agree is unbiblical. The key is understanding the meaning of the word "foreknew." If we follow Romans 8:29 on down by assuming that by God "foreknew" everyone in the sense that he simply "knew of their existence," we have some serious problems. Why? Because those he foreknew he predestined. These same people he called. No problem so far for the "free-will" camp. But then we see that those he called he JUSTIFIED? Are all men justified before God? No. Then we see that this same group is also GLORIFIED. I know of no one who would suggest that those going to hell are glorified! The foreknowing has a more intimate connotation than simply being aware of their existence. In the Bible we see many places where knowing has the idea of familiarity and personal initimacy. If we are to reject the idea that all are saved, then we have to adopt this understanding of the verb. --Joe! |
||||||
1889 | A silly question? | Josh 10:12 | Reformer Joe | 5630 | ||
What do you mean by "obligated" to believe something? Whether you choose to believe it or not has nothing to do with its objective reality. True, no one can obligate you to believe anything that is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but I contend that in your everyday life you do just that. Otherwise, you might be facing some very disastrous consequences. A few examples. The Bible does not tell us that throwing a chunk of sodium into water will produce a violent explosion. According to your logic, you are not obligated to believe it. I would doubt that you would go combining the two, however. The Bible does not say that pollution is bad on our health. You can deny that, but sucking on a car's tailpipe for several minutes will most likely convince you of the reality of it. The Bible also says nothing about the law of gravity being universal, but no matter how much you deny it, I would not recommend that you take a walk off a high ledge. I am a Calvinist myself, and I respectfully think that you have a misunderstanding of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This sola has to do with spiritual truth, that tradition or public opinion or science or technology or human philosophy cannot add nor subtract from the message of Scripture regarding the nature and character of God, how we are saved, how we are to follow Christ, our own spiritual condition, etc. Sola Scriptura was NEVER a doctrine that was meant to encompass our own perception of the physical universe, its operation, or its composition. Because Scripture is valid, it will never contradict empirical discovery about our universe; however, the Bible was not intended by God to be the compendium of all things that can be known about the natural universe. By the way, the Institute for Creation Research is known for notoriously bad methodology itself, and jumping to conclusions on a regular basis that don't even come close to fitting the data. In other words, they take the scientific revelation that agrees with a particular point of view (which in most cases is not essentially Biblical) and throws out anything that doesn't fit their preconceived conclusions. This is the very SAME error that the neo-Darwinist's make in their pathetic attempt to keep afloat the concepts of abiogenesis and common descent. Some better sites for showing the harmony between science and the word of God are the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (www.discovery.org/crsc) or the Access Research Network (www.arn.org). Both of these institutes are at the forefront of showing how unbiased scientific inquiry is deflating scientific naturalism on all fronts. --Joe! |
||||||
1890 | What obligates to believe earth spinds? | Josh 10:12 | Reformer Joe | 5628 | ||
I think you are confusing science with revelation. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that science itself is revelation. Rather, science classifies what is revealed and also provides a methodology for revealing more of God's general revelation. I guess I am confused by the posts you have submitted the last several days. Are you denying that the earth revolves around the sun? That is not "science" itself, but an observable truth. I think that the last forty years of space exploration has revealed to us that either our perceptions are wrong (that the earth "seems" to go around the sun), or that the solar system is indeed heliocentric. I do not see how this "general revelation" contradicts Scripture in the slightest. In fact, it can be quite reassuring to us as believers that the Bible is a book that describes and doesn't contradict observable reality. That is much more than we can say for these man-made "holy books" (e.g. the Book of Mormon) which have been rightfully discredited by most when we discover and delve deeper into the wonders of God's creation and discover that the words on the page cannot be reconciled to what we have observed. Science is not the enemy of Christianity, if by "science" one means the exploration and documentation of God's creation. What is opposed to Christianity, however, is "scientific naturalism," the ruling out of any supernatural explanations before the exploration and inquiry even starts. This is not a scientific conclusion, though; it is a philosophical presupposition which science cannot prove nor disprove. There is no question that atheistic naturalism governs the study and research of most scientists, but it is not science itself. It is very crucial to make the distinction here, because once we start questioning whether anything we observe can be trusted, we lose the whole ball of wax on both general and special revelation. --Joe! |
||||||
1891 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5231 | ||
I think MacArthur's view does mirror your own (which is also the view I have). One thing you pointed out which a great number of people seem to miss is that we were not merely saved for our sakes. Yes, we do have eternal life, but almost every passage which talks about God's free gift of salvation also mentions our PURPOSE (glorification of God), such as Eph. 2:10 or 1 Peter 2:9,10 or 2 Corinthians 2:17-20. So many people are fond of quoting the "we are saved by grace through faith" without showing that we are indeed saved unto good works. I think that the crux of the problem has to do with two aspects of God's salvation. As you mentioned, both parties have the JUSTIFICATION part down, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account. What Ryrie and company downplay, in my opinion, is God's REGENERATION, the new birth. It just seems almost impossible to miss that we are not only declared righteous when we are saved, but that we indeed become "new creations." By focusing on justification, many of the Dallas Theological Seminary camp overlook (at least in practice) the supernatural change that is not just a legal declaration, but a true spiritual transformation. Thanks again for your comments! --Joe! |
||||||
1892 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5216 | ||
Thanks for your encouragement, Hank. Of course, the trouble is "shutting off the valve" before I bore everyone to death! By the way, Hank, a personal question for you. You say in your profile that you use both the Ryrie and the MacArthur study Bibles as references. As you undoubtedly know, they have a very big difference of opinion when it comes to the so-called "Free Grace"/"Lordship Salvation" debate. Which one do you side with? --Joe! |
||||||
1893 | Will you join me? | Acts 2:33 | Reformer Joe | 5145 | ||
RevC: Whether the teachings you adhere "work" for you and your family do not make them true. I have met Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, adherents of the Baha'i faith, Christian Scientists, and New Agers of various stripes who insist how their lives have been changed and how their particular faith has turned them around. Many of them claim that the beliefs they now hold got them off drugs, changed their whole outlook on life, etc., etc. Would you say that they are correct to hold their beliefs? I know you are no relativist, RevC. Discernment of the truth is not "dangerous"; in fact, it is commanded by God in the Scriptures. God is not glorified if we speak falsely about him, and whether you have said so or not, if you are a Oneness believer, then we most likely differ on a great number of other areas. Case in point: tell me in a couple of sentences how we are saved and if we can know that we are going to heaven. Then we can discuss how being wrong on the nature of God most often leads to all sorts of other major rifts between what you and Trinitarians believe. It is not a minor point of disagreement, such as how often to have communion. This is an issue having to do with the very nature of the One in whom we live and move and have our being. Saying that lack of doctrine is beneficial is absolutely absurd! --Joe! |
||||||
1894 | Jesus God/God God still unclear | Matt 1:23 | Reformer Joe | 4978 | ||
Well, if you are going to build your theology incorporating one verse, without examining the rest of Scripture, have fun while it lasts! Any Christian theology MUST incorporate the entire text of the Old and New Testaments and be internally consistent (i.e. no contradictions). Only a Trinitarian theology does that without having to do some really heavy duty explaining away of very lengthy passages of Scripture that for the last two millenia have convinced men that God is one, and yet three separate subsistences are identified as God. I think it is the height of human pride to claim to have some relatively new revelation about the Bible that contradicts 2,000 years of sound Biblical scholarship. This, of course, is not proof that everyone who has come before couldn't be wrong, but it makes that scholarship worth a great deal of examination before rushing to such a sober (and possibly damning) conclusion. I am not going to re-hash another argument for the Trinity in this thread. Feel free to look at 80 percent of the answers I have given in the last week and jump in there. --Joe! |
||||||
1895 | Jesus God/God God still unclear | Matt 1:23 | Reformer Joe | 4977 | ||
Thanks for the compliment on the explanation. We all must be careful, I contend, to present the truth without taking shortcuts that could lead to error. You spelled Arian right. :) The reason I do not use the analogies you gave is that like all anaologies, they fall short. Yes, the Bible does illustrate diversity in unity. The reason I think they do not apply to God is becuase while the church is indeed "one body with many members," The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not "members" of God. They are each fully God. Same with marriage. My wife and I comprise a marriage, but I myself am not the marriage, nor is she. We may also be members of the same race, but the fullness of the human race does not dwell in me bodily. Therefore, that is why I am careful when using analogies to describe God. They will always break down when we consider His uniqueness. Thanks again for your comments! --Joe! |
||||||
1896 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4976 | ||
What we do never see in Scripture, RevC, is Jesus saying "I am the Father." He says that the Father and he are one (one God, no problem here--I agree that it doesn't mean simply unity of purpose). Jesus also says that the Father is in Him and he is in the Father. If one takes that to mean that the Jesus is the Father, then we have additional problems to deal with things like John 14:20, where Jesus says He is in his Father and that followers of Jesus are in him and that Jesus is in them. If we are in Jesus and Jesus is in us in the same way that Jesus is in his Father, by your interpretation we are Jesus also, and therefore God! I know you don't believe in the deity of mankind, so how can you interpret Jesus being in the Father one way, and us being in Jesus in a different way within the very same verse? To address your 4 points: 1. Who is this Comforter? The Holy Spirit. So is Jesus sending himself? Is the Father sending himself? If the Holy Spirit is Jesus, what is the point of Him ascending and coming back ten days later? Couldn't he have just "changed offices" here? It seems that if I adopt a Oneness view, Jesus is involved in some big-time slight of hand when a plain reading of the text would indicate a distinction between the three. Why would he be so confusing if you are right? 2. It doesn't say in John 6:44 that the Father alone draws men, but rather no man is drawn unless the Father draws him. Trinitarians have no problem in stating that both the Father and the Son draw men. 3. The Father and the Son raising us together is not a problem for Trinitarians. Incidentally, 1 Cor 6:14 talks about God (the Father) raising the Lord (Jesus). Again we have the subject-object ditinction we see throughout the entire New Testament when it comes to different persons of the Trinity. 4. Again, all three persons have their part in sanctification. That does not mean that they are the same person, only that all three persons are one God. What also concerns me is your last paragraph. You say he "is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son." While I certainly agree that God the Son took on a second nature, are you saying that Jesus' Sonship is only his human nature? Please clarify. --Joe! |
||||||
1897 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4895 | ||
Paragraphs, man! Why do you still fail to address the fact that the three persons of the Trinity constantly communicated with each other, did things with and to each other? If they are all Jesus, we have a real problem in logic, or at least an apparent deception on God's part. Why would Jesus try so hard to make everyone think that he was talking to the Father and that the Father would give the Spirit and that the Father sent the Son into the world, and that the Son obeyed the Father, and on and on? (John 14:16,17 would be a great couple of verses to unravel. I *AM* listening for any explanation, but you have yet to provide one). I agree with the deity of Jesus, as do you. I agree that the Father is God, as do you. I agree that the Holy Spirit is God, as do you. I believe there is one God, as do you. Oneness stands or falls on the ability to explain the problem stated in the previous paragraph.. Why do you keep dodging that central problem with modalism? --Joe! |
||||||
1898 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4892 | ||
Read the Old Testament and the New Testament. Study everything said about God, the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God). There you will find the Trinity revealed. The term Trinity is credited to Tertullian. You will not find the word in the Bible. That has no bearing on the fact that God is revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit; and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed as distinct from each other. The fact that the word "Trinity" is not in Scripture really is the weakest of arguments, by the way. A similar example would be this: Do you adhere to a particular theology? I hope not, because the word "theology" is nowhere to be found in the Bible. See how weak the argument is? Simply because we use terms not found in the Bible to describe what is revealed in the Bible does not make that revelation invalid. --Joe! |
||||||
1899 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4890 | ||
If exclamation and strong words do not become a disciple of Jesus, then I need to go tear 1 and 2 Corinthians out of my Bible! :) As far as my stance, I consider all human beings, including myself, unworthy of salvation. That is the beauty of God's grace! (That is an exclamation point of praise, by the way, not anger.) Nowhere in Scripture do we have a model of Old Testament judges, Christ, or the apostles going easy on heresy. While I bear no personal animosity toward any Oneness adherent, what they hold to is most definitely heresy. One of the greatest problems in our church today is that sound, life-changing theology has been discarded for the sake of "everybody getting along." While we should without a doubt glorify God through our actions, that also includes telling the truth about his word, and speaking out against its dilution or distortion. Thanks for your comments, in any case. Praise the Lord in word and in deed! --Joe! |
||||||
1900 | JOE THROWS ONENESS INTO HERESY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4868 | ||
It is not hostility, RevC; it is, however, conviction. If we were talking about differences of opinion within Christian orthodoxy, such as Arminism vs. Calvinism, or how often to have communion, or whether choruses should replace the old hymns of the faith, I would be a lot more charitable in my answers (not less convicted, but much more charitable with a true brother or sister in Christ). However, our disagreement is over a heresy that was addressed 1700 years ago. This is not a mere difference of opinion, RevC. This is dealing with the very nature of God, and it is impossible to have a true Christian theology without having the correct view of THEOS. I do not object greatly to Boyd's scholarship, but rather than focusing on the errors of Oneness, I prefer to make the positive case, as I have, of the Trinity that is spelled out in Scripture. What you have demonstrated in your posts is a complete misunderstanding of the Trinity. Most of the points you made were not anti-Trinitarian in the slightest. Even your re-hashing of verses above are not contested by Trinitarians. However, you did not address ANYTHING in my response showing the extensive Biblical narrative of the Father, Son, and Spirit talking with each other, interacting with each other (Son obeying Father, Father exalting Son, Son returning to Father, Son parying to Father, all three persons present at Jesus' baptism, Father speaking at the transfiguration of Son, Father sending Spirit, Spirit leading Son, etc.). Either God is playing ventriloquist, deliberately deceiving people into thinking that there are three persons, or there is indeed a distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. However, you do not seem interested in dialoguing with me on these verses, but rather posting over and over again a rehearsed, "one-size-fits-all" set of statements which you claim proves modalism. I will be happy to address and dialogue with you on the points where we disagree, but it would be much more productive if you did not beat Trinitarians over the head with points with which we heartily agree. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ] Next > Last [97] >> |