Results 201 - 220 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38313 | ||
wak: "Objective" truth is something that reflects reality. It does not depend on the opnion of an individual to make it true or false. A non-Biblical example would be Chicago. What state is Chicago in? That is an example of objective truth. If I were to insist until my dying breath that Chicago is the capital of Iowa, that doesn't change the objectivity of the truth; it just means I am in error about that truth. Going back to the Bible now, you are absolutely correct that people disagree on what the Bible teaches. First of all, godly, prayerful people can be wrong, despite all of their prayers and their godliness and their study. Who knows? I might even be wrong on one or two things, myself! ;) However, the fact that some misinterpret the Bible, for whatever reason (and a big reason for many is not careful study, but a desire to make it say what one wants it to say), does not mean that the Bible isn't objectively true. If there is disagreement among people, then at least one of those people is in error, but the Bible's contents themselves remain as objectively true as the location of Chicago. --Joe! |
||||||
202 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38316 | ||
I think it is you who misunderstands the meaning of the word "objective." The opposite of "objective" is "subjective," which has to do with the opinions/feelings of the individual. Examples of objective statements: The earth has one natural satellite: the moon. I have three children. Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the U.S. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. God does not exist. Examples of subjective statements: Chocolate mint chip ice cream is the superior flavor in the universe. Pro wrestling is a waste of time. My brother is annoying. Big cities are the best places to live. See the difference? Objective statements are either true or false. The opinion of individuals do not make them one bit more true or one bit more false. God either exists or he does not exist, and no amount of opinion polling is going to influence whether He does or not. Likewise, you probably believed (i.e. expressed a certain amount of FAITH) up until this sentence that I do indeed have three children. However, the objective truth is that I have none. Therefore, one should have faith that the Bible is objectively true, but the message of the Bible never falls into the subjective category. It is either objectively true or objectively false. --Joe! P.S. How do you "know" water is H20? Have you examined a water molecule with an electron microscope? If so, how do you know you can believe what you are seeing? Ultimately, we all exhibit faith in anything objective. |
||||||
203 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38322 | ||
Hank: Yes, objective. Objectively FALSE, but objective. If God does not exist, no amount of us believing in Him will make him exist. Likewise, if God does exist, no amount of us believing that He does not will make him nonexistant. --Joe! |
||||||
204 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38339 | ||
You didn't answer my question regarding MacArthur. Please go back and read again what I wrote. | ||||||
205 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38340 | ||
And while you are at it, go back and re-read my first two paragraphs. Nothing you have written in this posts connects with any of the points I made at all. --Joe! P.S. Your intention is to make sure that your side is well-represented, and you are not doing a stellar job of it by mis-representing John MacArthur, one of the prinicpal and most well-known opponents of "easy-believism." |
||||||
206 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38350 | ||
My problem with your reference to MacArthur is that it is not HIS words you are quoting from his book! --Joe! |
||||||
207 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38351 | ||
My problem with your reference to MacArthur is that it is not HIS words you are quoting from his book! --Joe! |
||||||
208 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38353 | ||
Okay...since I cannot track down a copy of _The Gospel According to Jesus_ in my vastly unorganized library, this one has to go out to the forum as a whole. Zach, in trying to paint John MacArthur as an antinomian, posted the following quote from his book: '"believers who become agnostics are still saved; they are still born again. You can even become an atheist; but if you once accepted Christ as saviour, you cannot lose your salvation, even though you deny God" as quoted in The Gospel According To Jesus by John F. MacArthur, p. 98,' Now, having read the book and knowing that this is precisely the position that Macrthur dedicates the whole book (and another one) to opposing, would someone please dig up their copy and put this quote in its context, since Zacj insists that the words in the quote above reflect MacArthur's own position. Thanks in advance! --Joe! |
||||||
209 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38381 | ||
Zach: Since you apparently don't have a copy of the book itself, exactly where did YOU get the quote you posted? Was it from a Web site? If so, please post it so that we can all have a looksie. Thanks for your honesty! --Joe! |
||||||
210 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38382 | ||
Thanks, Ed! --Joe! |
||||||
211 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38391 | ||
My mother-in-law already taught me that one! :) --Joe! |
||||||
212 | can you lose your salvation | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38392 | ||
No need to go away, Zach. Just be more careful of your sources, and listen carefully to the points that people make. I would hate for anyone to miss out on insights into God's Word simply because he has already made his mind up as to what the other person is going to say. --Joe! |
||||||
213 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38416 | ||
Mommapbs: There is not and never has been any bitterness on my part. What there was on my part was a concern for the truth of what God's Word does indeed say, and for the reputation of another brother in Christ who had been falsely accused of holding some very unbiblical teachings. We can love one another and still vigorously contend for the truth. I have not suggested that anyone withdraw from the forum, and I would be disappointed if that were to happen. However, correction is called for within the body of Christ, and I would say that the attempted correction started out quite gently. Rebuke is also sometimes necessary within the body of Christ, and that is also very biblically supported. Loving one's brothers and sisters in Christ does not mean allowing them to propagate error. It seems that mercy is one of your spiritual gifts, and it is a very needed one in the communion of saints. However, teaching and knowledge and discernment are also important gifts, all of which I have been given to some degree. The exercise of them is just as crucial as the exercise of mercy and service. I harbor no ill will against anyone, and even if I had felt personally offended (which I did not), what is Christianity without forgiveness? --Joe! |
||||||
214 | John MacArthur an antinomian?!? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38458 | ||
Mommapbs: The quotes attributed to Charles Stanley do indeed reflect his views. If he had read the post, I have no doubt that he would have nodded his head and said, "Yes, that's what I believe the Bible teaches." So, while I disagree with Charles Stanley on this important issue, his point of view was well-represented by the quotes given by Zach. --Joe! |
||||||
215 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38838 | ||
What Scriptures do you use to support such notions that violate in so many ways the historic Christian faith? --Joe! |
||||||
216 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 39710 | ||
Tim: Thanks for this valuable argument for the use of LORD in the OT translations. This is a very valid argument for use with the Jehovah's Witnesses who complain about our "tainted" translations! --Joe! |
||||||
217 | Was Satan on earth before Adam | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40565 | ||
Just out of curiosity, have you ever examined the arguments against the higher criticism and textual criticism that you are supporting on this forum? By that I mean works such as Josh McDowell's _More Evidence that Demands a Verdict_. If so, what do you think of it? The main concern I have with your position is that the scholarship you are referring to exists for the sole purpose of pointing out that the Bible is a product of human hands alone, that they are NOT the words of God. If the Bible has been written and re-written (and by that I assume that you also mean "edited" by human beings over and over again), how can you say that they are indeed the words of God? --Joe! |
||||||
218 | Was Satan on earth before Adam | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40567 | ||
If the authorship of the books of the Law were by someone else other than Moses, then Jesus was a liar: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" --John 5:46-47 So was Jesus mistaken? Or deceptive? --Joe! P.S. I am sure that this has been brought up already, but "all caps" makes for very hard reading. Please use the caps lock sparingly. Thanks! |
||||||
219 | Was Satan on earth before Adam | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40584 | ||
The KJV is not a REWRITE of the Bible, but rather a translation of the Bible from manuscripts in the original languages. The most accurate versions would be in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, not in English or any other modern language. I would recommend the McDowell book, because it is always helpful to look at scholarly work that presents the opposite view of the one which one holds. I know that you said that the Bible is the word of God, but then you say that specific books of the Bible are edits and re-edits and compilations and the efforts of men who lived centuries apart. This is why all of the JEDP "scholars" say that the Bible is NOT the word of God. You claim that Scripture has been proven to be accurate "in your life." Does that mean that if the Qu'ran proved to be accurate in your life (as Muslims claim that it is accurate in theirs), that it would suddenly be the word of God? Either the Bible is what it claims to be or it is not the word of God. Those two points of view are not able to be logically reconciled. --Joe! |
||||||
220 | Crusifiction of Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40967 | ||
There's a lot of troublesome teachings on the Web site you posted, but speaking of the Cross, here is a more accurate rendering of history: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [123] >> |