Results 201 - 220 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Labels? My church just goes by the Bible | 1 Cor 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 81471 | ||
Very astute observations. Creeds and confessions have been a part of the church since its inception, and they have served a very God-honoring, useful role in the church. We even see examples of first-century confessions in Scripture (Philippians 2:6-12; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:11-13). Far from being divisive in their purpose, creeds (coming from the word "credo" -- "I believe") and confessions articulate the truth in order to guard the purity of the church against error and for the church to rejoice together by proclaiming in unison the wonderful truths revealed in God's word. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" --Hebrews 10:23 --Joe! |
||||||
202 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81448 | ||
"Obviously, Joe, it was you who started the silliness." Thanks. It may seem like it comes naturally, but I have to work at it pretty religiously to make it appear so seamless. --Joe! |
||||||
203 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81435 | ||
Radioman2: I believe it was my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that everyone should wear their theology on their user ID that got everyone in such a tizzy. You try and take credit for EVERYTHING! :) So what does the rest of the Forum think? Did Radioman2 provide the post which started the silliness or did I? Please back up your answer with Scripture... --Joe! (that's REFORMER Joe to you) |
||||||
204 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81400 | ||
Okay. --Joe! |
||||||
205 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81399 | ||
"Your surely not saying Calvinism is representative of the Protestant reformation." Sure I am. "Besides I said I would retract the word heresy." I appreciate it! "Now can we have peace?" I hope so. --Joe! |
||||||
206 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81392 | ||
"The point I was making was because I disagree with Calvinism I was labeled as Arminianist which I'm not. Now if you don't believe that read your last sentence, which also shows you have never listened to my point of view." I read my last sentence. I am still as surprised as I was the first time. Whether you reject the label or not, I was just curious as to where you deviate from the Arminian position. You have said, "I disagree with the Arminian position as much as I do the Calvin position." Having seen your clear opposition to the latter, I honestly would like to know what problems you have with the former. If you choose not to answer, no harm done. --Joe! |
||||||
207 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81389 | ||
Then stop throwing the word "heresy" around unless you are willing to clarify what you think the term means, and how the Protestant Reformers qualify as heretics. --Joe! |
||||||
208 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81378 | ||
"1. I choose not to spend the time to look up your specific question on heresy." That's okay; the question was specifically addressed to someone else, anyway. Unless you are a mind-reader or actually had seen the answer somewhere in the archives, it would be impossible for you to answer. "People can deine it the way they want." If that were true, nothing could ever be definitively called heresy, and the term would be nothing more than an empty insult. "2. If I am shown I am in error, according to the Bibe, I must change, or I am a heretic." So are infant baptizers heretics? What about tongues-speakers? Those who worship on Saturdays? Those who say there will be no "Left Behind" scenario? What about those who think the Prayer of Jabez is nothing but a bunch of pop Christianity fluff? Those who say "trespasses" rather than "debts"? Those who think that tithing is biblical for today? Those who think that it is unbiblical to radically distinguish between OT Israel and the church? You likely side on one side or the other on these issues. So are you the heretic (bringing up sections of Scripture to support your position) or the one who disagrees with you (bringing up sections of Scripture to support his position)? "Unless, I have my own sounf Biblical support." So are you saying, then, that it is possible that two people in disagreement over an issue can each have at least a fair amount of biblical support? "3. "Minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy)" usually is eisegesis not heresy." It is never heresy, since "heresy" and "orthodoxy" are mutually exclusive opposites. My question, once more (for the person who used the term "heresy" in the first place) is where orthodoxy ends and heresy begins in such a way that the Protestant Reformers are heretics but dispensationalists and Pentecostals/charismatics are not. --Joe! |
||||||
209 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81377 | ||
"CRI does take a strong stand against heretical, extremist variations of these views: for instance, the hyper-Arminian belief that God does not know all things, or the hyper-Calvinist notion that evangelism and prayer are superfluous because everything is already preordained." Thanks for the article. I find it interesting that CRI agrees with me that open theism can be considered a kind of "hyper-Arminianism." --Joe! (always Calvinist, sometimes hyper, but NEVER hyper-Calvinist) |
||||||
210 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81365 | ||
"This topic Has been discussed before ..." Could you point me to a specific post where my question was answered? Specifically, where has EdB clarified what he means by heresy in such a way that historic, Reformational, Protestant theology fits; but in a way that modern Pentacostalism and pretribulational dispensationalism does not? Thanks. "I think it is anything that is contrary to the Bible." Do you not think it possible that any of your beliefs (down to the tinest detail) might be actually contrary to Scripture? Assuming that you allow yourself even the slightest margin for error, do you consider yourself a heretic? "Both sides use the Bible to prove there point ... so is that heresy? I think it is more eisgesis (sp)." I agree, but "eisegesis" was not the term that was employed. "Heresy" was. So I continue to ask, what is the line between minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy) and heresy? --Joe! |
||||||
211 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81358 | ||
"I have been told more than once that since I view Calvinism as totally heretical I have to be Arminianistic." How do you define the word "heresy"? Please define it in such a way that historically-held Reformation theology could be considered heresy. Then please explain how modern-day Pentecostalism and pretributlational dispensationalism could not fall into that category, using the same criteria. While I hold these two things to be wrong interpretations of Scripture, I would not consider them "heresy." So, what is your criteria for slapping the "heresy" label on a particular system of doctrine? "However I view Arminianism as equally aberrant." That's news. On what points? --Joe! |
||||||
212 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81329 | ||
Here is a good explanation: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html --Joe! |
||||||
213 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81328 | ||
"I join CDBJ in ruing the day when it no longer means much to call oneself a Christian without the use of modifiers. One is pressed in today's world to accept one label or another, and if he refuses to do so, along will come the label makers and slap one on him anyway." Lest we forget, however, the apostles had to deal with Judaizer Jim and Gnostic Gus (or should that be "Gnostic Neil"?). On down the line came Coptic Carla, Arian Alex, Monophysite Michelle, Nestorian Ned, Orthodox Orville, and Protestant Pete and all his spawn (both liberal and evangelical). Then we have all those modern-day, pretend relations who want the family name for themselves. I am finding it hard to locate any time in Christian history where one could say "I am a Christian" and everyone nodded their head as if that said it all. Labels are useful, even it they are not always a perfect fit. --Joe! |
||||||
214 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81298 | ||
"Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-)" I am afraid that simply is not good enough. From now on, I think we should all identify ourselves theologically by our user ID's like I do... :) --Joe! |
||||||
215 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81297 | ||
"Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-)" I am afraid that simply is not good enough. From now on, I think we should all identify ourselves theologically by our user ID's like I do... :) --Joe! |
||||||
216 | Where in the Bible ? | Joel 2:13 | Reformer Joe | 81283 | ||
Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13 --Joe! |
||||||
217 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81249 | ||
A covenant theology perspective on Scripture eliminates the "problems" with the predominant Reformed understanding of this verse. Peter can be addressing the covenant people of God with the implicit understanding that not all of God's covenant people are true believers (and therefore objects of God's patience). --Joe! |
||||||
218 | salvation and Cath Church | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 81245 | ||
"I keep trying to ask the Bible Answer Man on the radio, but keep getting busy signals." For a Protestant view on Catholicism, I would recommend looking into Alpha and Omega Ministries: http://www.aomin.org "I ask these questions not in an inflammatory way, not to induce any sort of anti-Catholic rhetoric, but it seems amazing to me that so many people for so many centuries could be so wrong." Well, the number of adherents does not mean that the beliefs themselves are true. Look at the Muslim world. Look at liberal Protestantism. While there are significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, both have existed for centuries at this point, and at least one of these branches of Christianity has to be in error. Catholics hold that the Protestant Reformation was a turn from the truth. Protestants hold themselves to have returned to the essential truths that the RCC gradually drifted from over the centuries. In addition to studying Scripture, I would recommend a good book on church history, such as Bruce Shelley's _Church History in Plain Language_ to examine the path that led to where the church is today. --Joe! |
||||||
219 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 81214 | ||
"In response to your question, what kind of grace are you asking about and what does Hebrews say about those sacrifices?" I was just trying to get a better fix on your view of what the OT rituals accomplished. I know that no one was justified by the sacrifices, but I as a Reformed Protestant also hold that one is not justified by baptism. Since the "works of the law" refer at least to these two practices, I was just wondering how they tie in, in your understanding. Do Catholics hold that grace (any kind) was conferred in the OT sacrifices for the believer? If so, what is the nature of that grace. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
220 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 81206 | ||
It is tied into understanding the distinction between justification and sanctification. The classical Protestant understanding is that our sins are forgiven and Christ's perfect merit is put on our account, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is justification. However, all those God justifies he also sanctifies. Sanctification is the work of grace in our hearts which bring us to obedience and make us more like Jesus Christ in practice. Justification is a one time event. Sanctification shows itself in our works and starts at the same time we believe (justification), but continues throughout the lives of those who truly are justified. So Jesus is addressing sanctification in many passages (although passages like John 3:16 and John 5:24 point out that faith is what justifies). Simply put, we are saved by faith, not works; but no evidential works likely means no faith. We can never earn our place in heaven, but God in his grace makes true believers more obedient to His law. True believers show their true faith in the way that Jesus describes. Incidentally, passages like 1 Corinthians 6:11 show that Paul also agrees that works follow faith. Certain people will not inherit the kingdom of God, and their works often show them to be false believers. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [123] >> |