Results 221 - 240 of 500
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | spiritual healing or physical healing? | Is 53:6 | Reformer Joe | 49379 | ||
Spiritual healing. Peter is quoting Isaiah 53, which addresses the fact that the iniquities of the believer are removed through Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross. Take a look at the chapter. It is a fascinating prophecy of the ministry of Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
222 | Gaius Julio | Luke 2:1 | Reformer Joe | 49376 | ||
Julius Caesar was assasinated in 44 B.C., approximately four decades before the Word became flesh. --Joe! |
||||||
223 | Not God in 3 persons blessed trinty! | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49373 | ||
Well, aren't you a treasure! You are about as charming as all of the other Oneness folks that I have had the pleasure of dialoguing with. And just as open-minded to discussing Biblical truth I might add. At least you didn't refer to me as "trinity filth" as one of your brethren did once. :) Okay, as Makarios pointed out, there is quite enough Trinitarian dialogue on the Forum if you care to browse through it. However, to recap briefly, the Trinity is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn when you put the following Biblical teachings together: 1. There is one God. 2. The Father is God. 3. The Son is God. 4. The Holy Spirit is God. 5. There is a subject-object distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, one Person refers to a different person as "another." The Father and the Son dialogue. The Father sent the Son. The Father and the Son send the Spirit. The Son prays to the Father (and this is not the human nature of Jesus communicating with the divine nature of Jesus, although we could examine those passages if you wish). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit demonstrate that each exists simultaneously with the others at the baptism of Jesus. In short, we agree on points one through four above (with a variation on point three, if you are like most Oneness people), and disagree on point five. I have yet to have a Oneness person adequately explain away the obvious interaction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so I remain a Trinitarian. If you can point out where all three are Jesus Christ, addressing all those verses where they seem to be acting upon one another, I am all ears. You wrote: "The book of Rev. state John only saw one on the throne.I think the word proves your Catholic teachings wrong" Not Roman Catholic, in case you couldn't tell by the name. But let's look at Revelation: 'And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they *sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."' --Revelation 5:6-10 Who is the One on the throne? Who is the Lamb who was slain to purchase people from every tribe, tongue, and nation for God? And considering the Lamb before the throne is taking the book from the hand of the One on the throne, we have a hard time saying that the Lamb (Jesus) is the One on the throne (the Father). Whose teachings are shown to be wrong in Revelation? "why does the Roman catholic allow the Trinty Baptism and Deney the very name the say they belieave in?" Well, I will let Roman Catholics speak for themselves. We Protestants allow the Trinity baptism, using the same formula that Jesus gave to his disciples in Matthew 28:19,20. Protestants do not deny the name of Jesus, and I am quite sure that the Catholics on this forum do not, either. And yes, I know Acts 2:38. --Joe! |
||||||
224 | How were ppl saved before Jesus came? | Heb 11:6 | Reformer Joe | 49227 | ||
Nope. Those who came before Jesus' earthly ministry were saved via his substitutionary death on the Cross as well. Now, of course, the means of their justification wasn't as clear to them as is it to us who look back at the event rather than forward to it. However, God did reveal a coming redemption from Genesis 3:15 on. Throughout the Old Testament the coming Redeemer was foreshadowed and prefigured in the prophecies and in the sacrificial system under the Mosaic Covenant. However, faith in God's provision for our sins was the instrument through which the Old Testament saints were saved as well. Paul addresses this in Romans: "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.' --Romans 4:1-5 Abraham was saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in God's promised redemption alone, just like we are. The Redeemer has been clearly revealed by God to us, but God's redemption has always been placed before His people. --Joe! |
||||||
225 | WHY DOES GOD WANT US TO BE HOLY? | 1 Pet 1:16 | Reformer Joe | 49180 | ||
Because God is holy Himself. God being the single example in existence of infinite goodness and moral perfection, there is no other goal we should have than to pursue that same moral perfection. God knows that there is no one or nothing that is better than Himself, so we should reflect God's glory as humanity was created to do. --Joe! |
||||||
226 | how do we know that verse is accurate? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 49176 | ||
Well, one could respond by saying: "Do you have a good reason to believe that it is not?" How would you answer such a question? Do you not find it interesting that no one questions whether Plato REALLY wrote the Republic or whether Julius Caesar REALLY wrote The Gallic Wars, but once we get to the New Testament, we find a much more substantiated work under almost constant "scholarly" attack? I think it is good to examine one's faith for the sake of substantiating one's beliefs. I am confident that by examining a balanced group of sources that you will see that Biblical Christianity does indeed "hold water." --Joe! |
||||||
227 | accuracy of oral traditions? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 49174 | ||
The Bible was pretty much completed (if not completely so) before 60 years after the resurrection had elapsed. The gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the risen Christ or by their associates. Therefore, we do not have generations between the events of the gospels and the accounts being written down. The epistles, likewise, were written by the apostles, and all of the New Testament books are extensively quoted by the early church fathers and cited as authoritative. For more information on the history of the writing of Scripture, I suggest checking out this site: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html In addition, one of the best books on the subject remains _The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?_ by F.F. Bruce. I would recommend beginning there to investigate the historicity of the New Testament. --Joe! |
||||||
228 | What is sin? | 1 John 3:4 | Reformer Joe | 49052 | ||
"Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God." --Westminster Shorter Catechism, Answer to Question 14 In other words, God has revealed His law (i.e. His good and perfect will for His creatures), and we as His creatures are bound not only to keep from violating it, but also to conform to it completely. This law is revealed both in our consciences (Romans 2:12-16) and most clearly in his commandments in the Old and New Testaments (Psalm 1, Psalm 19 and Psalm 119). Both of these tell us God's law, and any breaking of it or failing to fulfill it completely is sin. And that is why we can readily agree with Scripture that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) --Joe! |
||||||
229 | Gods will for your life | John 16:13 | Reformer Joe | 48932 | ||
Start out with the general: Ephesians 2:10 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 1 Peter 2:9-10 1 Peter 1:13-16 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 --Joe! |
||||||
230 | Primary purpose of the written Gospels | Luke 1:4 | Reformer Joe | 48818 | ||
It seems that some of them were definitely written for that primary purpose. Luke was (Luke 1:1-4). We know that the churches were recipients of the epistles. John seems to be a lot more evangelical (John 20:30-31). The other gospels are not as explicit, but it would seem that the Jews are the initial recipients of Matthew, since it appears to be largely an defense of the ministry and Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth based heavily on the Old Testament. Mark reads like an abbbreviated evangelical tract It would seem that the New Testament books would have beem used largely in the same way as they are today, as written records of the apostolic tradition, both as bases of doctrinal decisions and as communication to the unbelieving world, especially as the apostles began to die. You see, while Paul is writing to the Romans, for example, he has never seen them, and that work takes the form of the most complete theological treatise in the New Testament. The whole book starts from scratch and basically assumes that the Romans know next-to-nothing about God, sin, the law, grace, the life of the unbeliever, and the life of a Christian. I haven't studied in great detail the use of the Scriptures in the sub-apostolic era. They were obviously referred to as standard, authoritative documents by the early church fathers, adn Christians such as Justin Martyr used them in his Apology as well. Therefore, as far back as we can go in church history outside the Bible, it would seem that they served as a standard for both purposes. --Joe! |
||||||
231 | Is "slavery" condemned in the Bible? | Gal 3:28 | Reformer Joe | 48775 | ||
"Is there any condemnation of slavery in the Bible?" Nope. Lifelong servitude is forbidden in the Mosaic Covenant, and master-slave relationships were governed by Christ-like principles (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1; among others). It was God's decree that slavery was to continue, and that He would call both masters and slaves to Himself as His children, making people from both groups His own. In other words, while not giving a nod of approval to slavery itself, and while cruelty toward slaves was expressly forbidden, God utilized the system to glorify Himself: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise." --Galatians 3:28-29 Jaknik, please let us know exactly what your agenda is here. There are guidelines for posting on this Forum, listed at the bottom every time before you make your final submission. If you would like to debate the inerrancy, inspiration, and infallibility of Scripture, or simply attack the God of the Bible, there are a multitude of sites on the net that serve that purpose. However, this is not one of them. Again, I warmly welcome any friendly debate on the reliability of Scripture and the nature of God, but this is simply not the place for it. Feel free to email me or Tim to continue this discussion, but I must ask you to adhere to Lockman's guidelines if you wish to continue posting here. --Joe! |
||||||
232 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Reformer Joe | 48688 | ||
There are lots of things that are only recorded in one of the gospels. Only Luke contains Jesus' account of the Good Samaritan. Only John contains the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Only Matthew and Luke record Jesus' birth. How many gospels must contain an account before one can acknowledge that it is indeed the inspired word of God and therefore a true account? --Joe! |
||||||
233 | isn'tr it different for the saved? | 1 Cor 10:5 | Reformer Joe | 48673 | ||
Hi, Sandre. This is a very good topic to address on the forum, and I commend you for raising it! The best way to understand it is that God works on two levels. God chose the nation of Israel as His covenant people. Not all of them showed themselves to be His children (i.e. those God set apart as His own for redemption), but as Romans 3 puts it, the twelve tribes were entrusted with the oracles of God. Salvation until the time of Christ was almost exclusively limited to one particular nation, and those from the outside came into the covenant community for salvation. However, as I stated previously, not all of those who were in God's covenant community showed themselves to be the children of God. One only need to read books like Judges and Kings and Chronicles to see that God's covenant community as a whole was often set against the very God who called them out of Egypt. Within the nation of Israel were God's people chosen for salvation, the "true believers" if you will, but the nation of Israel and "the saved" were not precisely the same group. The Bible shows that not all of those who were among the nation of Israel were the saved: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" --Romans 9:6 Paul distinguishes between a "physical" Israel made up of Jacob's descendants, and a "spiritual" Israel who are God's adopted children among the physical Israel. Jesus had the following to say when the Pharisees asserted that they were "children of Abraham": "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." --John 8:44 So we have physical children of Abraham who are the spiritual children of the devil, not heirs to the promise made by God to Abraham. The same is true of the church in the present day. There is a "visible church" that corresponds to the "physical" Israel of the Old Testament. This consists of all those who fellowship together in the name of Jesus Christ and hold to the "oracles of God" (i.e. God's revelation in the Old and New Testaments). However, all of those who find themselves in the visible church are not saved, just like every Israelite was not saved. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" --Matthew 7:21-23 Therefore, it is perfectly within reason for Paul to warn the church as a whole that they need to make sure that they are among the "spiritual" Israel, the heirs to the promises of God made to Abraham. We are not saved by our works in any sense, but those who possess true saving faith in Christ will be transformed gradually so that they will grwo to hate their sin more and more as Paul does in Romans 7. Peter tells us the way that we make our "calling and election sure" is by "adding" a list of virtues to our faith (2 Peter 1). Paul tells us right after that we are not saved by good works that we are saved for the purpose of good works (Epehsians 2:10). James 2 demonstrates that true saving faith is accompanied by God-honoring works. Romans 6 asks : How can those who have died to sin live in it any longer? Answer: they can't. Of course, the power to not sin comes from God, and those who are in the flesh are completely unable to please God in the slightest (Romans 8:7-9; Hebrews 11:6). But those who are truly His will be transformed in their wills to trust Him more (albeit imperfectly) and to follow Him by performing works that honor Him (albeit imperfectly) and to say "no" to sin (albeit imperfectly). It is a minister's duty to point this out to one's congregation, which is undoubtedly made up of those who are truly saved and those who think that they are Christians but really aren't. Works are not the basis of our salvation, but they are the evidence of it (Matthew 7:16-20). Therefore, I think this warning falls under the category of "live like a Christian to prove to yourselves that you are one." Just because you are a partaker in the visible church does NOT mean that you are truly a child of God. Menacing words? I think so, but we couldn't really call it a "warning" if it didn't have some unpleasantness to it, right? "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?" --2 Corinthians 13:5 --Joe! |
||||||
234 | Arguing for the historical Jesus | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48518 | ||
Well, if you are really wanting to immerse yourself in the "historical Jesus" controversy, I can point you to a few good sources, but beware! It is definitely not light reading. Two of the guys you want to examine in detail are William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright. Craig is a philosopher at Biola, and his Web site, with plenty of "historical Gospel" stuff such as articles and debates he has had with teh Jesus Seminar folks, is found at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html Craig also co-authored a work entitled _Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?_. Another good resource to examine the historical truth of the Jesus of the Bible. Two of N.T. Wright's books are _The Challenge of Jesus_ and _What Saint Paul Really Said._ I recommend both of these scholars as staunch and well-researched defenders of the biblical Jesus. However, please keep in mind that your opponent's point of view is not going to be changed by the bare presentation of historical facts, but by a work of the Holy Spirit in his life. His core problem is not an intellectual one, but rather a problem of the willful resistance to God. Be sure to pray for Him, and continue to use Scriptural truth, which is the Holy Spirit's main avenue for regenerating the unbeliever. May you be blessed in your own studies! --Joe! |
||||||
235 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48023 | ||
Jawz: I don't think that Hank was disparaging church tradition. He said: "When the authority of Scripture plays second fiddle to man's tradition in the orchestra of the church, translational accuracy becomes rather a moot issue anyway." He was criticizing the elevation of extra-biblical tradition above the revelation of Scripture. For a clear understanding of the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (and it is not a rejection of all tradition and the church in favor of "just me and my Bible"), I would recommend that you read _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ by Keith Mathison. It presents a very clear historical and biblical analysis of the doctrine, as well as commentary on the Roman and Orthodox views and the "solo Scriptura" view of far-too many contemporary evangelicals. Personally, I enjoy the traditions in my church. I attend a very liturgical church, but also one that holds that only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), that it is our only source of God's revelation since the apostolic age, and it is the sole INFALLIBLE authority for our faith and practice. That is not to discard the role of the church, but to place it subordinate to God's written revelation, as the early church recognized it to be. --Joe! |
||||||
236 | Kingdom of Heaven vs. Kingdom of God | Matt 13:24 | Reformer Joe | 46640 | ||
No difference. Matthew uses the term "kingdom of Heaven," while Luke uses the term "kingdom of God" in precisely the same contexts. --Joe! |
||||||
237 | Meaning of christian to be deep rooted? | Ps 1:2 | Reformer Joe | 45962 | ||
The previous verse answers the question. By delighting in the instruction of the Lord, by meditating upon it day and night, we develop a "root system" that is well-nourished by streams of the living water (John 4) and we will grow strong and sturdy in the Lord. What a wonderful thing it is to know that a disciplined study of the "spiritual plant food" that is the Scriptures is what God uses to keep us from being driven away like the wicked! --Joe! |
||||||
238 | How do I find a fellowship? | Eph 4:11 | Reformer Joe | 45912 | ||
Yes, there are different denominations and sects, and many of them do disagree with each other on important doctrines. Some of the differences are not so major (i.e. fall into the category of seriously false teachings), and many differences stem from differences in practice and not in doctrine. My wife and I left the church we had been attending because of an irreconcilable difficulty with the general direction that the church was heading. I understand what you are talking about when you say that it is difficult to find a good church which holds firmly to the whole counsel of God. We have found what I hold to be a very biblically-functioning church in the denomination we are members of now (see my profile if you are interested in knowing which one). One is not going to agree 100 percent with all of the practices/doctrines of any church, in my opinion, and even within denominations there are differences of opinion. In any case, God instructs us to be in communion with the body of Christ, so we have to discern what the most important doctrines and practices of a church are and then seek God's help in finding one that matches up. --Joe! |
||||||
239 | praying for the dead? | 2 Sam 12:23 | Reformer Joe | 45764 | ||
Why would there be any reason to pray for the dead? The dead are either with the Lord or awaiting judgment. Since one's destination for eternity is a result of one's decision in this life (Luke 16:24-26; Hebrews 9:27), one should not pray for the dead. For better or worse, their eternity is sealed. --Joe! |
||||||
240 | Is OT still applicable for NT believers | Matt 5:18 | Reformer Joe | 45734 | ||
You wrote: "What percentage of the Old Testament is applicable to New Testament Christians?" 64.232 percent. ;) All Scripture is applicable in some way (2 Timothy 3:16). The Christian is not bound to the aspects of the law (sacrificial and ceremonial) that Christ fulfilled and were distinctive to the people of Israel. While the Deuteronomy passage that you quoted was specifically given to the people of Israel, I think that there are principles regarding the character of God which definitely apply to the believer today. While God made the Mosaic Covenant with Israel, Christ also established a New Covenant with his shed blood. There are differences in the specifics of the covenants, but we have to remember that both groups (OT Israel and the visible church) are considered by God to contain His people. In addition, the Godhead is the senior party in both covenants, so we have to take into consideration the unchanging character of God in his dealings with his people. While we may not be bound to the Levitical priesthood system, God still has the same moral standard, and He still punishes those among His covenant people who show themselves to be covenant-breakers. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [25] >> |