Results 21 - 40 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4379 | ||
These three verses depict the same statement of Jesus, saying that "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me." This says what the follower of Christ must do, but says nothing about WHO will follow Christ. The fact is that Scripture very forcefully teaches that: (1) God chooses us (do a NT search for the words "chosen" and "elect" and you will see way too many verses to list here); there really can be no dispute on that matter for Bible-believers, and I really have met few who will rejct that idea; (2) we are dead in our sins and tresspasses, and while we do have free will, we are morally unable to choose God without the Holy Spirit's regeneration (Romans 3:10-18; 1 Cor. 2:14); (3)the question becomes whether God chooses us because of our choice, or whether God chooses believers of His own sovereign, unconditional choice and leaves some to suffer the just punishment for their sins. Read Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 to see when God chose us, the reasons God chose us, and whether we have a say-so in the matter (pay careful attention to Romans 9:18-23). To answer the original question, Hell is for both the non-elect (i.e. those who will never place their faith in Christ) as well as for Satan and his angels. We can see eternal punishment for human beings in Matthew 25, Luke 16, and Revelation 20:13,14. Once we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, we have the power to please God (i.e. not to sin) which did not previously exist before (Romans 8:8). We have been made new creatures (2 Cor 5:17), but we have the problem of having our old, sinful nature still present within us that will not be fully conquered until we are glorified in Heaven. Therefore, while we are commanded as believers not to sin (1 Peter 2:14-16), the very fact that this command is issued to believers indicates that sin is still present in our daily lives. Sanctification is the process by which, by yielding to the Spirit who lives within us, we are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:1,2). Of course, the ability to choose to yield to the Spirit is only available to those who HAVE the Spirit (i.e. those who believe). Romans 8 gives a very good treatment of life in the Spirit. Hope this is of help, and I welcome any feedback as always! --Joe! |
||||||
22 | Does this explain Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4456 | ||
I did re-read it, and the question I asked was NOT address in what you said. According to Hebrews 1:8, who is God calling "God"? And according to Hebrews 1:10, what did the Lord Jesus do? Speaking of Christ, John writes "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." NOTHING came into being apart from Christ. If Christ is a part of creation, then this verse testifies that Christ created himself, which is illogical nonsense. So, who is the creator, God (Genesis 1:1) or Christ as we see in the verses above? The answer is Trinitarian. Colossians 1:16 does indeed say that Christ is "the image of the invisible God," which loses a lot of its theological punch if that just means that he reveals attributes of his creator. After all, you yourself said that we were made in the image of God. Why would Paul need to make the point if what he was intending to say is that Christ is just like us in this respect. By the way, this understanding of Christ's representing God's nature simply does not jibe with the context of Paul's extended treatment of Christ's nature in Colossians 1. The idea that "Jesus being in the image of God and having the authority of God is allowed to be God in only a sense" contradicts every monotheistic passage in the Bible as well. How many God's are there is God the Father "lets" Jesus (an entirely separate being in your view) have the attributes of deity? In addition, the term translated "firstborn" in many translations does not necessarily mean the first one out of the womb. If can also mean "heir," or the one possessing the birthright. We see this in the Old Testament where Isaac was the heir of God's promise to Abraham, even though he was not the oldest; and how Jacob received the blessing, not Esau; and how Solomon became David's successor even though HE was not the oldest. In the same way, taken in context with the rest of Scripture (such as John 1:3 above and the two verses following Colossians 1:15 -- CONTEXT), Jesus is the uncreated heir of all things. I AM being open-minded, Elijah, and I think that you should be open-minded enough to question why in 2000 years that the unique view of Christ presented in your post has hardly ever been articulated, if indeed it ever has. Also, I would suggest you being open-minded enough to check out the book I recommended in my previous post, since the ironclad arguments for the Trinity are much too numerous to present in a bulletin-board format. If you have responses to White's thorough analysis of the Trinity which takes into account the entire body of Scripture, I will be more than happy to look at them with an open-mind! --Joe! |
||||||
23 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4627 | ||
Of course, you didn't answer the question, Elijah. To sum it up in three steps: 1. Do you hold that the Bible is the guide for truth? (It seems that you claim to do so) 2. Do you hold that Jesus is God? (Apparently you don't) 3. How do you account for all of the passages of Scripture which say, directly or indirectly, that Jesus is either God Himself or divine in nature? Start with John 1:3 as cited above. Were all things made by Jesus or not? The verse says that "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." If Jesus "came into being" (i.e. if he was created), then he created himself, which would be a completely illogical statement. Please explain to me how he could be the creator of EVERYTHING that was created and be created himself? --Joe! |
||||||
24 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4628 | ||
You are correct about 1 John 5:7-8. The Scripture that actually teaches the Trinity is the Old Testament and the New Testament. Whether the word is used or not is irrelevant. The question has to do with whether the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all clearly revealed in Scripture as God; and whether the Bible reveals that there is only one God. I hold that both are true. --Joe! |
||||||
25 | What does Bible teach on election? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4633 | ||
Second Peter 3:9 must be put in its context to see who the "none" is. In this chapter, Peter is addressing those who are asking why Christ has not returned yet, why the resurrection of all men has not occurred (v. 4). The apostle contends that God's timetable is not our own (v. 8), and then says that he is holding back the end because he "is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Who is the "you" being referred to here? If we look at the first verse of the chapter, we see that Peter is addressing believers. If The addressees are already saved, why is God being patient toward them? The answer is that in addressing the entire church, Peter proclaims that God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but come to repentence. It does not make sense in the context to think that "all" means "all men," rather than "all of you" (i.e. the elect). Why would God be holding back the end for almost 2,000 years so far, waiting for everyone to come to reprentance? Both of us will agree that universalism is not a Biblical dosctrine. People going to Hell is just. If I were not among the elect, I would merely be getting what I deserve in facing eternal wrath from an infinitely holy God. The fact that I am saved is thanks to God's mercy and his grace. I think that all who understand the depth of our sinful rebellion against God (Romans 3:10-18) would agree that we do not deserve salvation. None of us are "entitled" to it. The fact that God shows mercy to some and not others is clearly expressed in Romans 9. The "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4 means "all kinds of men," unless in verses 1 and 2 "all men" and "kings and those in authority" are two different groups as well. The fact is that Ephesians 1 points out that those who are (or will be) believers have been predestined before the world began, based not on God's foreknowledge of our choices, but rather according to his own will (1:5,9,11). In John 6:37,38 Jesus himself unequivocally says that those that the Father GIVES to Christ will come to Him. He says the same thing in John 10:25-29. God is not unjust for allowing some to go to Hell while he rescues those he will. If God were acting solely on the basis of justice we would ALL go to Hell and Christ would never have come. On the other hand, if he is required to show mercy to all, then it becomes something we each are entitled to, which is the exact opposite of what mercy is. While the issue of free will is not a salvific one, it certainly is important to gain a deeper understanding of who God is and our purpose in evangelism. If you can interpret Romans 9 in an Arminian light, I would be happy to discuss it with you, revbob. It just seems that the passage is undeniably Calvinist in its approach to salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
26 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4635 | ||
I undertand Oneness view of God. Thanks for the clarification on your position! Isn't it exciting being a Trinitarian? You get to defend the Holy Scriptures from both sides, from those who deny that the Son and the Spirit are God, *and* from those who claim that the Father is the Son is the Spirit. This is why it is so crucial for Christians to have a firm understanding of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture to keep themselves from doctrinal error. Christians do not deny the deity of Christ, but I have seen quite a few slip into the heresy of modalism/Oneness due to a poor knowledge of Scripture. One's theology stands or falls on apprehending God correctly. --Joe! |
||||||
27 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4653 | ||
God the Father. This statement is not inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine. Now about John 1:3...? --Joe! |
||||||
28 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4654 | ||
It doesn't say "other" things. John makes it clear by affirming something ("Jesus made all things") and then denying its antithesis ("without him NOTHING has come into being that has come into being"). The inspired evangelist leaves no logical room for the placement of the word "other" in this verse. It simply is not there in the Greek text, and inserting it would make this verse completely nonsensical. Jesus is either God (not the Father) or a created being. John 1:1 affirms the former. John 1:3 denies the latter. Ergo, a Trinitarian understanding is required. --Joe! |
||||||
29 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4743 | ||
Well, even if it was an unfair accusation, I wish I could take credit for it! I could really sell some books with that kind of reputation... Thanks for the commentary! --Joe! |
||||||
30 | 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! |
||||||
31 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5901 | ||
I think Free Will means the ability to act ACCORDING to our nature. God's nature has been, is, and always will be morally incorruptible, not fallible in the slightest. Man's initial nature was perfect, but fallible or corruptible (Genesis 1-2). After the Fall, man's nature was corrupted and now sinful (Romans 5:12). When the Holy Spirit regenerates us, He gives us a new nature, which allows us to please God once more (Romans 8:8). We are still corruptible, but we are now capable of pleasing Him and serving Him as well. Therefore, God acts according to His nature. The unsaved act according to theirs, and the believer has two competing natures. In the case of the Christian, depending on which one is "fed" the most, that nature will be the one whose will is carried out. Man, of course, does not have the power, perspective, and soverieignty of God; so by our very nature as creatures we do not have the ability to carry out our purposes the way God does His. That's a good thing considering our nature... :) Tag, you're it! |
||||||
32 | earth 6-10000 years old | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5907 | ||
Of course, there are many folks who would disagree with Ryrie on this (well, at least points 1 and 3). That is definitely not a can of worms I intend to serve up here, though! --Joe! |
||||||
33 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5958 | ||
Yes, I understand. I don't think it is a question of tying His own hands, however. God's nature being immutably perfect, he will never desire to act any other way than according to that perfect nature. That's why we say "God can do anything" when we really mean that "God can and will accomplish His purposes." You are correct in that when God makes an unconditional covenant with his people, he is bound to it because it would violate his nature to do otherwise. I contend additionally that God WILL NOT desire to do otherwise, since that too would violate his nature. Of course, being omnipotent and omniscient, God already sees the end from the beginning. Therefore, when He makes His covenants, there are no conditions or extenuating circumstances in the future which take him by surprise. I believe that when God makes His covenants with humanity, it is not so much a case of "Let's make a deal" as much as it is "here is what I am going to do for you." Therefore, God is not putting Himself into a box that He will ever want to get Himself out of later. The only two things God cannot do are "not be God" and do what is impossible in logical sense. For example, God cannot make a square circle if by definition a circle is round. --Joe! |
||||||
34 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5959 | ||
God has freedom of choice, but he is perfect by his very nature, so he will never desire anything but what ultimately brings Him the most glory. What we have to understand is that there is not even the slightest shadow of unholiness or imperfection in God, so the impossibility of him doing evil springs not from any lack of omnipotence, but the very fact that sin and God don't even belong in the same sentence. Praise be to God that one day all believers will share in this luxury of freedom from sin! Of course, being of the Reformed persuasion, I hold that the unregenerate man's free will is in bondage to sin, so that he will not desire to choose good until liberated by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to Romans, we are bondslaves to sin and death or liberated by Christ. Sin is bondage, not freedom. Paul expounds on sin as slavery in Romans 6. Give it a read! Sin is not an act of freedom. --Joe! |
||||||
35 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6016 | ||
I myself am a 5-point Calvinist with regard to my soteriology. However, I must admit my biggest "hang-up" with the traditional Reformed position is what we are discussing here: paedobaptism. The question is not whether the Reformation and the Roman Catholics banded together against the Anabaptists or not. It is theoretically possible that both are wrong. I do not argue that the salvation of the elect is monergistic on the part of our Lord. What I need to resolve this question in my mind is more evidence that (a) the church did indeed practice infant baptism from its EARLIEST days (which is not erribly apparent from Scripture; and, tied into that, (b) the Scriptural evidence of the covenental nature of baptism. I pretty much have the answer to (b) in the fact that household baptisms were common. The question in my mind is whether that included infants or whether everyone who was baptized first believed as well. In any case, this thread is worth the in-house discussion, and your view is definitely within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. --Joe! |
||||||
36 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6468 | ||
Well, if we use Rextar's muddled thinking as an example of proper treatment of the issues, we as the body of Christ are in a lot of trouble! Name me two people that Calvin burned at the stake. --Joe! |
||||||
37 | 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! |
||||||
38 | 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! |
||||||
39 | WILL WE HAVE BODIES? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 10219 | ||
Thanks...I was away on missions work the past several weeks. Our sovereign God was doing some great things and allowing my unworthy self to be a part of it. But to get back on topic, but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." --1 Corinthians 2:9 Later! --Joe! |
||||||
40 | CAN A CHRISTIAN FALL FROM GRACE? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 10606 | ||
I never expected a Wesleyan to so eloquently cite the Reformation view of perseverance of the saints! :) --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [97] >> |