Results 21 - 40 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Prophetic perfect tense in other verses? | Ps 102:16 | Reformer Joe | 100120 | ||
Before the NWT was first published in the 1950s, the JW's used the KJV exclusively (as do most cults that don't have their own "translation"). --Joe! |
||||||
22 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100118 | ||
You wrote: "In principle I agree but the specifics are to vague." Huh? You wrote: 'So when you speak of the pursuit of holiness it must mean the pursuit of Christ who produces in me the 'fruit' of His Spirit one of which is "Holiness", His.' What does Scripture say? "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." --Hebrews 12:14 'As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."' --1 Peter 1:14-16 You wrote: "Today my need may be to be holy but tomorrow what will my need be? Patience? Long suffering? Joy?" The patience which God produces in us ia a holy patience. The joy produced is a holy joy. Holiness is characteristic of all of the fruits of our sanctification. --Joe! |
||||||
23 | What does it mean to be "in Christ?" | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 100112 | ||
An interesting point is that baptized believers are still commanded to "put on Christ": "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts." --Romans 13:14 |
||||||
24 | ?self effort 2 B holy now vs befor saved | Phil 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 100109 | ||
"What is the difference between my self effort to be holy now that I am saved and my self effort to be good when I was saved?" I assume you meant your self-effort to be good before you were saved, right? :) Your self-effort before you are saved is a pointless exercise, because no one can attain the perfection that God requires. We all have sinned, and legalism (the idea of earning salvation by law-keeping) is thoroughly refuted in Scripture. We need the imputed righteousness of Christ to be able to stand before an infinitely holy God. The key is understanding that you were not saved just so that you will go to heaven, but so that God's glory would be displayed through your sanctification. So, the Spirit of God motivates us and empowers us to fight against our old sin nature, to put sin to death (Colossians 3). Our role in our sanctification is to wage "no-holds-barred" war against our sin and thereby glorify God (1 Peter 2:11-12). To do this, we rely on God's Spirit that is working within us to give us the strength to do so, and we make use of the means of grace God has given us (word, sacraments, prayer) as our tools and weapons in this struggle. None of those things is effectual in the life of the unbeliever seeking to establish his own righteousness (other than to be used as visual aids for a hypocritical legalism), but they are God's gifts to the Christian, ways in which the Spirit works to glorify the Triune God through our cooperation and transformation (Romans 12:2). A great book on this subject is _The Discipline of Grace_ by Jerry Bridges: http://www.discerningreader.com/disofgracjer.html --Joe! |
||||||
25 | Why don't you know for sure? | Eccl 11:6 | Reformer Joe | 100102 | ||
"'m just going by the history of God's anger among the people of Israel, Yes there was forgiveness from God and He gave them another chance but once God got fed up that was it He destroyed the earth by the flood, and He also destroyed Sodom and Gomora" Both of those are pre-Israelite examples, but I get the idea. The Assyrian invasion and the Babylonian captivity were examples of God's judgment of Israel's apostasy. But we do not need to scan the New Testament too long to see that God has the same thing planned for rebellious humanity in the New Testament. In Revelation 1-3 Jesus declares that churches that dishonor his name will be removed or even spit out of his mouth. The second epistle of Peter reveals an even greater judgment ahead for the people of this world. God was very gracious in the OT, giving the Law, delivering Israel from captivity, sending judges to rescure Israel, sending prophets to proclaim His truth, raising up godly kings from time to time who called Israel to repentance, and declaring redemption through the coming Messiah. "Joe I am not an expert but this is what has been said in the new testament and is always being said around me that we are now living under God's grace and Mercy. I hear countless Pastor's say this." I know you probably do, and I agree when people say we are living under the grace of God. My disagreement is when they say Old Testament Israel was not living under God's grace and mercy. They were. There is a false distinction given between the "Old Testament" people of God and the "New Testament" people of God. While we are the beneficiaries of more revelation and greater grace in a certain sense, and while some changes took place at Pentecost, there is one people of God, not two (Ephesians 2:14 ff.) --Joe! |
||||||
26 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100101 | ||
"But then, on the other hand, if you say God chose first strictly for His good pleasure then what you are saying is God is a respector of persons. But then that's not so, correct?" Not with regard to his holy judgment. Every time the KJV speaks of God not being a respecter of persons, it is in reference to His justice. Check it out for yourself. God's divine justice is the same for all persons; otherwise it would not be justice. All of us deserve to go to hell because of our sins. God punishes the sins of all human beings. God does show mercy to some that He withholds from others. He is not morally obligated to extend mercy equally to all His enemies, nor does He do so. --Joe! |
||||||
27 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100098 | ||
"How could there be? No salvation by the Christ" No one has ever been saved apart from Christ. Ever. Abraham was saved by Christ. So was David, even if they didn't have the fulness of God's revelation, they were saved by the promise of God's redemption (Romans 4). 'No "coming unto the Father except the Spirit draw him"...cause He hadn't been given yet' The Spirit had not been given in the sense that He was at Pentecost, but one can be drawn by the Spirit without being indwelt by the Spirit. Since Jesus himself said the words you quoted above (and he did so before his crucifixion), apparently this was an OT principle as well as an NT principle (as if these were two different things). "If you say there was none righteous" I didn't say it; David did, and Paul quoted him. "then please explain a few people to me. David, Daniel, Jeremiah...Need I go on?" Yes you do, because I still don't know what you think Paul meant when he quoted Psalm 14 in Romans 3. I am not arguing that the Bible didn't call men "righteous"; it certainly does (don't forget to include Lot, by the way). Now, what about what Paul said? --Joe! |
||||||
28 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100090 | ||
"By reading the verses in context." I guess that's what I get for trying to engage in serious discussion around here. This is like talking to the high-school freshmen I teach. Let's try again, just for fun: What does the Bible mean when it calls Noah and Lot "righteous"? Is that righteousness different from the righteousness that the OT and Paul declares that "no one is"? If so, how? Answer in an essay of 50-100 words, please. "Answer me this question: Were there the "Elect" in the Old Testament?" Yes. :) --Joe! |
||||||
29 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100078 | ||
"I wasn't debating I was trying to keep the record straight." What a coincidence! Me, too! :) "Joe call it humor, call it satire, call it anything you want, but you know exactly what you were doing using those terms and this new list is even worst." You do know where I got the "new list," right? :) I wasn't directing the other "epithets" at anyone in particular, just providing them by way of illustration. I do stand by "doofus," however. :) --Joe! |
||||||
30 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100072 | ||
You didn't really answer my question. The Bible referred to certain people as "righteous," and then in other places say that "no one is righteous." If we assume that the Bible gives a consistent message, how can we conclude that both statements are true? --Joe! |
||||||
31 | Why don't you know for sure? | Eccl 11:6 | Reformer Joe | 100061 | ||
"We are living in a time of Grace and Mercy which was not available to those in the Old Testament days." If there was no grace and mercy in those days, what was the purpose of the sacrificial system? Was that not a visible demonstration of God's grace? I also think that David spoke enough about God's efficacious, "steadfast love" in the Psalms to eliminate any doubt of God's grace in the OT. --Joe! |
||||||
32 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100059 | ||
"OOOOH!! Ouch!!" Good point for discussion. How do you reconcile these quotes with the ones I gave? --Joe! |
||||||
33 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100057 | ||
'Once again you bring it down to a personal level. "Doofuses" and "silly" certainly aren't endearing terms.' They weren't meant to be. Neither is referring to people as "vipers" and "blind guides" and "whitewashed tombs" or "ravenous wolves" or "hypocrites," nor telling people that they are Satan or that their daddy is the devil, nor suggesting that those who insist on circumcision should completely emasculate themselves, nor referring to one's parishoners as "foolish." Sometimes "endearing" just isn't appropriate, and good old biblically sanctioned satire is called for. "May I answer? NOTHING. What has been the outcome? Animosity, anger, hatefulness, hurt, bitterness and the things we want so much to display to the world watching how Christians shoot other Christians" Then stop debating. --Joe! |
||||||
34 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100050 | ||
"Easy now, what about those now dead who have never heard to name of Christ yet lived righteous lives? Where are they and why?" Hell, because no one is righteous (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:9 ff.) and: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." --Romans 1:18-20 "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified." --Romans 2:12-13 --Joe! |
||||||
35 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100040 | ||
"That isn't the point at all. The thing that started this discussion was John Hepting calling the WCF nothing more than an opinion of man (my wording)." That is your wording (which, incidentally, is very different from the manifesto found in your profile). His was that what I believe is "not Biblical at all." Those are very different statements. "Then you and John jumped on him crying foul, saying the forum header prohibits that." Please understand: I am not crying foul. I am wholeheartedly making fun. The people who think that their own opinions do not reflect denominational biases are doofuses (is that the plural? or is it "doofi"?) Those who appealed to the new moderator to "put a stop" to skirmishes that they too frequently initiate(after the previous moderator had already handed down a "ruling" on this one) are just plain silly. Maybe you know some of those people... The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. However, I hope you think it is biblical and "more than an opinion of man." --Joe! |
||||||
36 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100032 | ||
'Your the one raising the fuss over someone calling the Westminister Confession doctrine of man. So what is your point?' A fuss? Is it a "campaign" or a "fuss"? :) I thought my point was obvious: 'EVERYONE interprets. The question is, "Who is interpreting correctly?"' --Joe! |
||||||
37 | What does it mean to be "in Christ?" | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 100025 | ||
I would hasten to add that there is an external "putting on of Christ" which does not always correspond to the any true conversion of the individual. Just as one can be circumcised physically and not spiritually (Romans 2:28-29), so one can be baptized physically and not in the heart. --Joe! |
||||||
38 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100024 | ||
The pursuit of holiness is a lifelong struggle of waging a fierce war against one's sin (1 Peter 2:11) and putting one's sin to death (Colossians 3). It is effort on our part (hence all the New Testament commands to "strive" and "press on" and "labor"), but the strength comes from the Spirit of God (Colossians 1:29) and it is God working within us through the means He provides to change our disposition and give us resolve to obey Him (Philippians 2:12-13), all for His glory. --Joe! |
||||||
39 | What does it mean to be "in Christ?" | 2 Cor 5:17 | Reformer Joe | 100020 | ||
'"What does it mean to be "in Christ?" Although this is the verse that may most often come to mind, there are many other references to consider . . . any comments or observations?' I think Romans 6 speaks to this quite well. --Joe! |
||||||
40 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100010 | ||
"Joe, specifically what hypocrisy, and whose hypocrisy, are you alluding to here?" The hypocrisy of those who think that their own views are not "denominational views" and therefore are above critique, and who try to squelch opposing points of view that fall within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy while they want free rein to post their own. Hypocrisy. "And are you presuming to speak for Jesus?" Of course I am. I am Christ's ambassador. "What do you think He would be critical of -- the posting of the notice banning Calvinism/Arminianism debates perhaps?" I would say what I think he would be critical of, but that is now "VERBOTEN"... :) --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [123] >> |