Results 21 - 40 of 101
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156029 | ||
I have to correct you. The party of Nestorius held that Christ was two distinct persons - divine and human. He very much has two natures according to historic Christology (not confused, not confounded, etc.). Otherwise Doc, you stray into the Monophysite heresy when you suggest an amalgamation of divine and human natures into one. This really is the ABC's of classical Christian doctrine. It is alleged, with some validity, that those who do not accept that Mary is the Mother of God are reviving the Nestorian heresy. (It is generally accepted by scholars that 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood is an oversimplication, another story). Historic orthodoxy understands that Jesus is one person and it would be entirely inappropriate to say that Mary is the Mother of his humanity only. A person is a single unit. Catholics talk of the 'communication of idioms' when referring to Mary as the Mother of the Person of Jesus. He only had one mother. The title of Mary, Mother of God, sets important Christological boundaries, if you accept the title Theotokos you should not err in understanding who Jesus really is. Mary is of course, Mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, not the Father and this in no way should be understood, or misrepresented, as saying she existed before God. It is most incorrect to refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics as it is a perjorative coined by the English Reformers. It is not on the level of 'papist' 'Romish' and 'popery' but is a perjorative nevertheless. You of course are at liberty to address anyone by a perjorative to make a point but it is certainly not accepted by Catholics, nor do Muslims like being called Mohammedians as the old books say. On the otherhand, you can claim the moniker catholic , small 'c' for yourself, I am of course a baptist, a pentecostal, orthodox etc. in the non-denominational senses of the word. When you call a Catholic a Roman Catholic you are telling him in no uncertains terms "I do not accept the claims of your Church to be the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles, you are just one of many denominations." The Church Fathers referred to themselves as Catholic, not Roman Catholics and their writings shows they held distinctively Roman doctrine. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers if you disagree, you can get them on e-sword for free. You probably would not do better then reading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, which everyone gives amazing reviews on Amazon. It is a masterpiece of erudition. Dalcent MA Catholic Theology |
||||||
22 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156034 | ||
Hi there, You wrote 'When you say that it is inappropriate to refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity only, are you then saying that Mary is the mother of the Deity of God the Son?' No I am not. Essentially, Mary is the mother of Jesus period. Natures don't have mothers, people do. Everything that is said about Jesus is said about him as a single unit. Mary is the mother of Jesus. The mother of the carpenter, the mother of the baby, the mother of everything that can be said about Jesus. Because he is one person. When you write 'We know that Jesus did not originate at His incarnation. Jesus pre-existed Mary,' I fully agree but when you say 'we use the word "mother" we refer to a person who pre-existed their offspring' then I would disagree for no other reason than the case is exceptional. A mother is the one who bears us, is the legal definition even if she is a surrogate carrying a fertilised egg that is not her own (this is the law in my country), usually they are human and their offspring are simply human without a pre-existent Lord of the Universe element. In this singular case something very peculiar is occuring, the entry of God into the world. You said 'And why would we ever want to?' If we can forget worrying about Mary being over-emphasised then it is easy to answer this. It is virtually impossible to hold most of the Christological errors that arose in the early Church (let us say Spirit Christology, a modern heresy too - that Jesus only became the Christ, when he was "adopted" at his baptism). Mary is properly Mother of God, this is virtually stated in Scripture in Luke 1, i.e. who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me... If you want to go into this deeply here you may wish to look over the documents of the Third Ecumenical Council where Nestorius was condemned. You can find it here, but I can't post the link properly as the forum doesn't alllow certain syllables. http://www.victorclaveau.com/ |
||||||
23 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156043 | ||
Hi Mark, If mothers hypothetically gave birth to attributes then you and I would agree Mary is not the mother of Christ's deity. However, mothers give birth to persons. If a white woman has a black man's child she is that person's mother. Not the mother of the whiteness but not of the blackness; this is a bit odd; I am not quite sure why Jesus is being chopped up here; he is a person he had a mother. We admit the relevant caveats regarding his pre-existence, godhood etc. I think have only capitalized Mother of God, the Christological title , not for she, her, etc. which is a proper title, like Doctor or Master of Ceremonies. As I'm sure you subscribe to the exact formula of the Trinity (defined at the 1st Ecumenical Council) and the dual natures of Christ (human and divine) presumably exactly as articulated at the 4th Ecumenical Council. It would be inconsistent if you don't seem to be going with the 3rd Ecumenical Council. The 4th was very much related to tying up questions raised by the 3rd. The Scripture does say "all generations" will call Mary "blessed". Furthermore, I believe Luke 1 deliberately compares Mary with the Ark of the Covenant: both were vessels which carried God! 2 Sam 6 Verse 2 David “arose and went†…to bring up from there the ark of God … Verse 9 So David …said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" Verse 11 Thus the ark of the LORD remained… “three months†… in the Judean hill country. Verses 6:14, 16 David danced for JOY in the presence of the Ark, indeed he LEAPED Now, look how Luke undeniably parallels 2 Sam 6 Luke 1 Verse 39 Mary “arose and went†in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, “arose and went†occurs TWICE ONLY IN THE NT Verse 43 "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? verse 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for JOY. Verse 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby LEAPED in her womb Verse 56 And Mary stayed with her about “three monthsâ€, and then returned to her home. I’m sure you can work out the statistical improbalities of this being no more than coincidence. Clearly Mary is no less than the New Testament’s Ark of God. And, the OT Ark was just a humble vessel of wood, etc, before God dwelt in it. You said that you disagree 'that Jesus is simply the Man who was born to Mary.' I am saying that Jesus is the God-Man who is born to Mary: her son. I'm fairly certain the Reformers and historic Baptists hold to the Marian title: Mother of God In His Name Dalcent |
||||||
24 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156045 | ||
Doc, You wrote 'back to the study of the Bible... whose sole authority you affirmed when becoming a member of the forum' I no more affirmed this than the Bible affirms this about itself when it says in 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. I will check the forum rules to see if this is so. I believe you err, this is not a forum rule surely. I affirm that salvation is in Christ and no one else, and that I follow what scripture says about scripture: follow the oral and written traditions, as opposed to any 16th century theories. |
||||||
25 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156051 | ||
I am not so sure the Reformation spelt out the [Roman] Catholic Church was not the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles. I believe if Luther's novel theory of justification had been accepted he for one would have been happy to stay. I think the Reformers believed the Catholic Church had become increasingly corrupt. Also, they still believed the Greek-speaking East was founded by Christ and went back to the Apostles. |
||||||
26 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154772 | ||
With due respect what constitutes evidence? You can't say you've proven anything other than say you've present your best argument if the point remains disputed. Personally I'm going with the plain sense of scripture, the voluminous body of writings by the Church fathers, the Nicene Creed, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, etc. etc. etc. If truth were decided by the majority vote of all Christians then you most certainly have been proven wrong. Please note that Scripture is a whole; I believe your exegesis is based on an either/or approach to Scripture, rather than an and/with methodology. Herein lies your error. As the majority of Christians believe BAPTISM AND/WITH FAITH saves, I agree entirely with you when you present verses which only mention faith/belief, you simply present one half of the historic orthodox Christian doctrine, you don't contradict it... |
||||||
27 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154813 | ||
The PLAIN SENSE of scripture teaches faith alone does it? So I take it James 2:24 reads in the plain sense we are saved by faith alone. The one and only place in the Bible where we find the expression 'faith alone' is where Scripture denies we are saved by faith alone. I think your understanding of the plain sense and mine are a little different. Sorry, who are you saying is the 'supreme judge' where there is disagreement over the meaning of scripture as in your disagreement here with Martin Luther et al's interpretation of Scripture? |
||||||
28 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154830 | ||
Sorry Doc, I have nothing to do with Boston Church of Christ. Never have. The only Churches you'll find me in are Catholic, Orthodox, or conservative Episcopalian. Mine is the voice of the bi-millenial Church. The voice of the historic Christian Church, of the creeds, of the Councils, of the Fathers of the Church. My Masters degree education in Theology is from the great universities of Europe older than your country. Talking of universities, I have to inform you that "Dr" James White is DUPING YOU calling himself a Doctor of Theology. His "degree" is bogus, it is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary which is a little room above a shop, it is unaccredited, it's students set their own syllabus. I'm perfectly happy to hear Mr. White's opinions but please don't call the pseud a Doctor, he isn't. http://www.columbiaseminary.org/ http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_socrates58_archive.html Photo of the Columbia evangelical seminary; no one is sure if the park bench outside the shop is part of the campus. Note to the moderator: if any of this is untrue I will gladly post an apology. But check. |
||||||
29 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154843 | ||
Dear Doc, You wrongly posted that James White is a Doctor, and I pointed out he is Mr James White. I would not be happy with you calling someone Apostle Brown or Prophet Jones. A false title needs addressing. Besides Mr White obviously uses "Doctor" to lend authority to his views: at least its not as bad as a phoney doctor working in a hospital. |
||||||
30 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154848 | ||
Hi Tim Moran, What translation of Rom 3:4 follows 'proved right'; mine all translate as 'justified' including the NASB. Regardless, my claim is that my historic orthodox Christianity needs no controversial and contorted explanations of the text nor does it require any one re-translate the Greek to order. Every reputable Bible translates 2:24 properly; God's Word is too sacred to do otherwise: Jam 2:24 (ASV) Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. (DRB) Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? (ESV) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (ISV) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NASB) You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NET) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NIV) You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. HSCB You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. KJV Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. No one is translating the verse to read anything like: You see that a person evidences his justification by works and not by faith alone. And certainly no one has dared translate it as: You see that a person is justified by faith alone and not by works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to carry on arguing for the plain sense of the text. I certainly am not contending that James 2:24, contains enough biblical data to explain the biblical doctrine of justification. It does however state clearly what justification isn't: by faith alone. To be blunt Tim, if you want me to take any of your "translations" seriously with all the myriads on the market, I'd like to see a mere 3 reputable versions following your rendering. A translator's note which wasn't even used, in a blatantly evangelical bible just won't do. Best Regards my friend, please don't take offence but I call a spade a spade. |
||||||
31 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154849 | ||
I am not boasting that I have a master's degree in theology or that I am mainstream Christian; but I was answering the groundless charge that I was a troll from the cult known as the Church of Christ. I know only too well aware that we only do our best to understand God. However, it is perfectly expected to reason with other people on a Forum (a place of public discussion) and quite biblical. Act 17:17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. |
||||||
32 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154856 | ||
A mere 3 reputable versions following any of your home translations please. Why would that not be fair? In this case of James 2:24. Thanks. |
||||||
33 | 1st 400 yrs. "all" agreed on John 3:5 | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134505 | ||
Dear Tim, What are you talking about????? There were no debates about about whether baptism was necessary for salvation. The belief was held by all. For my Master's degree in Catholic theology I read broadly across the patrology (Catholic and heretics) of the first hundreds of years of the Christian era. There was no sect advancing your novel doctrine. Anyway give me quotes and I'll stand corrected! Dalcent |
||||||
34 | Hank, all I need is just one quote. | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134506 | ||
Kalos, Your 'Acts 2:38 should be translated..' is nonsense. Check every translation on the market, and tell me which one follows your avowedly biased rendering. You would rather change the Word of God, than change your doctrine. Shame. Clearly Acts 2:38 is among those passages of the Scriptures "which the unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:16)" Changing scripture because you have a doctrine in mind is really pathetic! Dalcent |
||||||
35 | 1st 400 yrs. "all" agreed on John 3:5 | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134512 | ||
Mommabps, You write: Do we believe in what we do (water baptism) or what Jesus has DONE (the blood) to save us? This is an utterly illogical statement. Water baptism APPROPRIATES what Jesus has done on the cross OR in you theory 'The born-again sinner's prayer' APPROPRIATES what Jesus has done on the cross. Why is Baptism DOING something to be approved by God, and Praying the sinner's prayer to recieve Christ is not? Please, please explain to me why praying a prayer is not DOing something!!! You object to those who think they must DO something to be approved by God?? What about: 2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one APPROVED, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 1Co 9:27 sounds like Paul thinks he has to DO something too: But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. Anyway, there is nothing more certainly taught in Scripture than that faith AND baptism saves. There are certainly various sects that appeared from the 17th century onwards who teach otherwise: Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; (AN ODD MOMENT FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT TO DESCEND EH?) Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (TIM MORAN WILL TELL YOU HOW IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK 'BAPTIZED' HERE MEANS THE EXACT OPPOSITE) 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Act 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Act 8:36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" Act 10:48 And he COMMANDED (EMPHASIS MINE) them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Act 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized AT ONCE, he and all his family. Act 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (OF COURSE YOU'VE EXPLAINED HOW THIS MEANS THE EXACT OPPOSITE) Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.' Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Tim will no doubt explain in the arfoklopist greek sub-tense this means 'one Lord, one faith, one born-again prayer!!!' Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Conform to the Bible: don't conform it to your pre-conceptions. Dalcent. |
||||||
36 | 1st 400 yrs. "all" agreed on John 3:5 | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134562 | ||
Dear Tim, Since I have been on the forum you have done nothing but give convoluted, twisted renderings of every verse of Scripture which contradicts your evangelical theology. I am frankly appalled that you chose to pervert scripture with silly interpretations worked backward from your theological convictions. This makes you a charlatan in my book. All my bibles reflecting the scholarship of hundreds of qualified Greek scholars disagree with your "translations." Have you any qualifications in Greek to back your rearrangements of scripture. You say I attacked A.T.Robinson when I accused him of working back into scripture his baptist theology. Well that is exactly what he did; and I'll tell you when you mentioned him supporting your Acts 2:38 theory, 'Oh, yeah: nineteeth century baptist, I'll bet' popped into my head. (for your information when I studied Greek at King's College, University of London the standard text was by J.W.Wenham) Tim, I can't 'show' you anything in Scripture because you deny scripture when it doesn't agree with your sect. Just like JW's do, although thankfully you haven't produced an abomination like the New World Translation yet. You are now saying that when Scripture mentions 'baptism' it doesn't mean 'water baptism' unless it specifies 'water baptism'. Tim, I will gladly never mention you or "misrepresent" your positions on this forum again. Thank God that the men he has risen up to translate our Bible translations are capable of translating and not reinterpreting the Word of God! Note how Mommabps never addressed my question why baptism is a work and praying the born-again prayer isn't. Or how she can't understand why I think baptism appropriates the blood of Christ, and is not contrary to the atonement. The depths of ignorance displayed by some makes me want to weep for them. Dalcent |
||||||
37 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134563 | ||
"I am seeking a more specifically Biblical interpretation rather than a traditional one." Is this a game DocTrinsograce? Someone proposes a scripture and we "interpret" a goofy new meaning. As long as the Christian Church didn't believe it for 1600 years it's cool. Dalcent |
||||||
38 | Hank, all I need is just one quote. | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134564 | ||
Kalos, The NET Bible does not favor this rendering but gives it as a footnote. I have no problem with reading about any hypothesis in a footnote in an evangelical Bible. Plenty of objections are raised such as 'difficult to maintain', 'awkward' etc. Nonetheless, the NET Bible correctly renders the verse the same as all the others. Dalcent |
||||||
39 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134568 | ||
Doc, You'll find that Titus 3:5 in the NAB and my Interlinear NT is: called 'the bath of rebirth' and that loutrou (bath)is a noun. Check it with Strong's etc. C'mon, how could anyone deny this is the baptismal tank and keep a straight face. Dalcent |
||||||
40 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134569 | ||
Jerome certainly believed in baptismal regeneration: he was a Catholic! 382 AD Jerome "[S]eeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6). I'm sure you know that Irenaeus sat at the feet of Polycarp and Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. What are people thinking interpreting 2,000 year old texts anew utterly removed from those who knew the Apostles? And most of the time, denying the plain sense of Scripture for allegories, spiritualizations and metaphors which support the traditions of their own groups. 120-205 AD IRENAEUS "This class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith." (Against Heresies, bk. 1, chap. 21, sec. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 345.) 120-205 AD IRENAEUS "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, "Fragments From Lost Writings", no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574) 110-165 AD Justin Martyr The "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" also refer to John 3:5. There, the one who refuses to be baptized is to be condemned as an unbeliever, partially on the basis of what Jesus told Nicodemus…. "He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.'" (Justin Martyr "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg. 456-457.) 217 AD Hippolytus "The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8). 75 AD The Letter of Barnabas "Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer. 22:13; Is. 16:1Letter of Barnabas 11:1) 80 AD Hermas "'I have heard, sir,' said I, 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'" (The Shepherd 4:3:1) THEODOTUS "Now, regeneration is by water and spirit, as was all creation: 'For the Spirit of God moved on the deep.' And for this reason the Savior was baptized, though not Himself needing to be so, in order that He might consecrate the whole water for those who were being regenerated. Thus it is not the body only, but the soul, that we cleanse." ("Excerpts of Theodotus," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 44) I've kept these quotes brief but suggest that to those who would dismiss the first centuries of the Christian era, try letting history judge you: not you judging history. Don't ask whether these great Christians (many who were martyrs)are in your Church; ask whether you are in theirs! God Bless |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |