Results 2361 - 2380 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2361 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81389 | ||
Then stop throwing the word "heresy" around unless you are willing to clarify what you think the term means, and how the Protestant Reformers qualify as heretics. --Joe! |
||||||
2362 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81392 | ||
"The point I was making was because I disagree with Calvinism I was labeled as Arminianist which I'm not. Now if you don't believe that read your last sentence, which also shows you have never listened to my point of view." I read my last sentence. I am still as surprised as I was the first time. Whether you reject the label or not, I was just curious as to where you deviate from the Arminian position. You have said, "I disagree with the Arminian position as much as I do the Calvin position." Having seen your clear opposition to the latter, I honestly would like to know what problems you have with the former. If you choose not to answer, no harm done. --Joe! |
||||||
2363 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81399 | ||
"Your surely not saying Calvinism is representative of the Protestant reformation." Sure I am. "Besides I said I would retract the word heresy." I appreciate it! "Now can we have peace?" I hope so. --Joe! |
||||||
2364 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81400 | ||
Okay. --Joe! |
||||||
2365 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81435 | ||
Radioman2: I believe it was my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that everyone should wear their theology on their user ID that got everyone in such a tizzy. You try and take credit for EVERYTHING! :) So what does the rest of the Forum think? Did Radioman2 provide the post which started the silliness or did I? Please back up your answer with Scripture... --Joe! (that's REFORMER Joe to you) |
||||||
2366 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81448 | ||
"Obviously, Joe, it was you who started the silliness." Thanks. It may seem like it comes naturally, but I have to work at it pretty religiously to make it appear so seamless. --Joe! |
||||||
2367 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81969 | ||
"A couple of thoughts. The early (1st century) church never intended to set up an organization (too bad, RCC) because they didn't think they would be here long enough to worry about it." Oh, I disagree. The admonition for church order in 1 Corinthians, the establishment of deacons in Acts, and the appointing of elders in the pastoral epistles all point to an organized movement rather than a free-for-all. The apostles were not establishing a corporation, to be sure, but they definitely were managing the large numbers of converts by incorporating them into an organized body. "Moreover, 'doctrines' weren't important because those who were valued were (quite logically) those who personally knew Jesus and could relate first-hand knowledge." Then why does the largest epistle in the New Testament (Romans) start off with eleven chapters of nothing but doctrine. In fact, every single one of the epistles in the New Testament contain healthy chunks of doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his doctrine, to guard his doctrine. Clearly doctrine was an important issue for the church in all ages. "For example, Augustine (and later Calvin) took substantial steps (for good or ill depending on your view) to harmonize the Gospel with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle." Please illustrate how Augustinian theology is neo-Platonist. "However, some immediately saw (and others over time) that some of the 'bad' side effects were a descent to 'legalism' and coldness of spirit. So, Mr. Wesley (and others) reacted back toward an experiential emphasis and an emphasis on the uiversal and impartial application of grace which set up the debate which this thread continues." The picture of the "frozen chosen" is a highly inaccurate one, which one can discern from the fact that the modern missionary movement was undertaken not by Wesley and company, but by those who loved and embraced Reformation theology. While Wesley was a committed evangelist, he was not the first. And lest we forget, the other key players in the First Great Awakening were Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, both adherents of Reformed doctrine. I would encourage all Christians to investigate church history. It is a highly valuable exercise and keeps one from making false generalizations at the same time that it provides a very real connection to one's spiritual heritage. --Joe! |
||||||
2368 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82545 | ||
Mormons and Muslims are not winning converts because of any lack of division in their ranks. Islam has many sects, such as Sunni, Shi'a, and Ismali. Both the LDS and the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized LDS) claim to be the true followers of the "prophet" Joseph Smith. Divisions much more radical than those between Baptists and Presbyterians have not prevented the success of proselytizing in the U.S. Why are the cults and false religions winning more converts? Number one: unregenerate sinners prefer lies about God. Number two: the evangelistic efforts of many of these groups are professional, polished, and persistent. I contend that evangelical Christianity is not keeping pace with the growth of Islam and the LDS simply because "evangelicals" are NOT evangelizing the way we have been called to do by our Lord. --Joe! |
||||||
2369 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82558 | ||
'I thought you worked with cults? You never heard “Christians can't make up their minds what to believe?” Almost every cult member I have talked to said that to me in one form or another.' Of course they do, and it is a red herring, because their own separatist existence is a declaration that, yes, "everyone else is wrong." Anyone who makes any claim to any belief is implicitly declaring that anything in opposition to that belief is in error. Muslims do it, Mormons do it, birds do it, bees do it... 'I hate to tell you but professionalism and polished doesn't win prisoners to Islam, it is the united front, Islam presents to them. By the way our prison system is being overrun by Islam. ' What does that have to do with the differences between Christian denominations? Convicts converting to Islam has very little to do with deep theological introspection. "Professionalism and polish isn't winning Mormons it is family values and a church united." Just like any other cult, the LDS is a false church that holds everyone else to be wrong. They lie about that fact frequently, of course, but the fact that they conceal their differences with evangelical Christianity doesn't make them any less exclusivistic about their own beliefs. "But I imagine every one of the thousand know the Baptist think Presbyterians are wrong and vice versa. " Of course they do, because it is a fact. The fact that I disagree with Baptists on certain issues (and that I agree with some Baptists who disagree with other Baptists on certain issues) does not mean that I do not consider both of us to be members of the same body. I disagree with Hank here and there (sometimes fervently), but I would say that we both agree on our bond of unity in Christ. The bottom line is that unsaved people merely use denominational differences as an excuse to continue in sinful rebellion against God. I have yet to meet anyone who has said, "I want to be a Christian, but I can't because of all the denominations." Nor have I heard many, if any, Christian evangelists proclaiming their denominational labels in place of Christ and Him crucified (which, incidentally, is precisely what Mormons do). "Of all the religions, all the denominations, all the churches that have tried to evangelize me, I have never been evangelized by a Presbyterian. Maybe they thought I wasn't elected. ;-)" I can't remember being evangelized by an AOG, myself. Maybe they thought speaking in tongues with a Texas accent would be annoying... :) --Joe! |
||||||
2370 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82590 | ||
"Rather than trading jabs with you, cause I’m sure if I said red you would say blue." Yellow, actually. :) "Can you honestly say you believe Christ is happy with the divided church?" No, but He is extremely well-pleased with doctrinal purity wherever it is found. The importance of embracing revealed truth outweighs fellowship for fellowship's sake. "If not do you think it is incumbent on us to ‘attempt’ to correct the problem or should we ignore the situation and go merrily on our way?" Well, if I could correct the problem, you would have embraced Reformed theology a long time ago. Since I cannot force people to change their minds or control how they respond to differences of opinion, I can only follow Scripture's command: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." --Romans 12:18 I respect the right of other believers to disagree with me on many issues. I can and do fellowship with many such individuals. We are members of the same body, with one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, despite the fact that we do not see eye-to-eye on everything. Christian unity despite certain doctrinal disagreements. It is not a question of ignoring the situation. We often reach an impasse with those who disagree with us. The question is whether that doctrinal impasse is significant enough to warrant a division. I agree with the many posters who have affirmed that not all separation is bad separation. For example, if a denomination gets to a point where significant numbers reject the authority of Scripture, is it right to continue to be associated with such a body? If my denomination were to begin ordaining homosexuals to the ministry, how far should I go to maintain an illusion of "unity" before the watching world? If my appeals to Scripture are completely ignored in such a situation, how long should I remain that denomination so that the watching world won't perceive the very real division that exists in that case? Attempting to correct the problem is quite noble, but one also must accept the fact that in our fallen age such resolution will frequently be impossible. --Joe! |
||||||
2371 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 82741 | ||
"Many reformers did not hold that view." Which ones didn't? "And your right I could never follow the teachings of Calvin. He created God in his own image and sadly many have been deceived by his tragic view of God. Calvinism is fatalistic removing all responsibility for man’s action from man and basing the final outcome to God’s responsibility. All love and desire to worship God is only present if God so wills it and without that desire man is a destined to eternal damnation." Ah, I see us coming to consensus already! :) You are illustrating perfectly why doctrinal unity will not be achieved in this age. The question is whether you can peacefully coexist with those brethren who disagree with you on this and other points. --Joe! |
||||||
2372 | LEAVING YOUR CHURCH | 2 Pet 3:18 | Reformer Joe | 71670 | ||
Before leaving, I would talk with the pastors and elders of your church to express your frustrations. I was in the same situation you are in, and although the meeting I had with the elders of my church eventually proved unfruitful (at least as far as my wife and I continuing to be members of that congregation), I think it was the right thing to do instead of just silently leaving out the back door. Just my two cents! God bless! --Joe! |
||||||
2373 | Can someone sin after salvation ? | 1 John | Reformer Joe | 35771 | ||
We all have and continue to do so. Complete moral perfection lies ahead, when we are with the Lord. In the meantime, He works in the hearts of his people to make them hate sin more and to commit sin less. "For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." --Romans 7:22-25 --Joe! |
||||||
2374 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Reformer Joe | 36038 | ||
Jesusman: You encouraged John to look into the history and culture of the Bible to examine whether the doctrine of particular redemption is a valid one. Yet you didn't offer any concrete historical-cultural basis for concluding that it is not a biblical doctrine. I was just curious why you mention such a technique without demonstrating at all how it allegedly proves your point. One other thing...you wrote: "Remember, the original authors of the Bible weren't writing to the future Church. They were writing to a specified group in a specified time in a specified culture." You are right here to a certain extent in saying that the primary recipients of the letters were the addressees in question. However, the divine Author of the New Testament was indeed writing to us, giving us truths that pertain to all human beings in all times and all cultures. So the future church is indeed addressed by the biblical texts, and not merely indirectly. --Joe! |
||||||
2375 | Say we that love God so much,Still fall | 1 John | Reformer Joe | 53035 | ||
You wrote: "Can a person that really loves God fall into great sins and yet love God so dear?" King David did. I do. Actually, I believe that our sin demonstrates that we do not love God as much as we ought (John 14:15). Our sin does not mean we are not saved, but rather that are in the midst of a war between the old self and the new that will last until we are with the Lord. "And after repenting is his sin gone?" If you are in Christ, your sins were paid for by Jesus Christ. Repentance is the acknowledgement and remorse of the guilt of our sin and a determination to fight it. Since you brought this issue up, I want to quote something for the forum that I found quite profound. It is from a book I have been reading called _The Pursuit of Holiness_ by Jerry Bridges. It comes highly recommended by me, and here is one of the things he has to share from God's word: "It is time for Christians to face up to our responsibility for holiness. Too often we say we are 'defeated' by this or that sin. No, we are not defeated; we are simply disobedient! It might be well if we stopped using the terms 'victory' and 'defeat' to describe our progress in holiness. Rather, we should use the terms 'obedience' and 'disobedience.' When I say I am defeated by my some sin, I am unconsciously slipping out from under my own responsibility. I am saying that something outside of me has defeated me. But when I say I am disobedient, that places the responsibility for sin squarely on me. We may, in fact, be defeated, but the reason we are defeated is because we have chosen to disobey. We have chosen to entertain lustful thoughts, or to harbor resentment, or to shade the truth a little." Another excellent book which addresses your question directly is _Righteous Sinners: The Believer's Struggle with Faith, Grace, and Works_ by Ron Julian. Both of these give a very biblical perspective on sin in the life of the child of God. Incidentally, Forum, I pretty much will be taking a virtual vacation this week, as AMF's summer missions week starts this afternoon. Please pray for me and the other leaders of this program; for the 85 or so teens that are participating, that they will proclaim God's truth accurately and authoritatively; and that children participating in the "backyard Bible clubs" led by the teens this week will be drawn to Christ or strengthened in their existing faith. Thanks, and may God bless you! --Joe! |
||||||
2376 | Say we that love God so much,Still fall | 1 John | Reformer Joe | 53095 | ||
Thanks for the link. The Web site is correct in pointing out that the Navigators, like Campus Crusade for Christ, has a blend of the good and the not-so-good. Bridges most definitely falls into the former category. He is a covenant theologian, but that is about the only thing in this review that is correct about him (and being one myself, I don;t consider that an attack). Oh, the process of sanctification does involve discipline on our part, but he got that kooky idea from this book called the Bible. It is interesting that the site, while claiming to be a review, doesn't mention one word about the contents of any of those books. If you want to be a Berean, like the Bereans of Paul's day, remember that they searched the SCRIPTURES to see if what he was saying it was true. With the wealth of Bible references, as well as an accompanying Bible study guide in some editions, I think that it is safe to say that Bridges is quite biblically sound. This book, like the others of Bridges, are completely God-centered and Bible-based. As for the Web site, it seems to be a mixture of good and complete misunderstanding. Beware of the term "moderate Calvinism." While it is a (wrong) viewpoint that genuine Christians can hold, it is not really Calvinism at all. My recommendation? Get Bridges book and pick up your Bible and study what he says for yourself. You will be richly rewarded. --Joe! |
||||||
2377 | what sould i do? | 1 John 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 81141 | ||
Hello, SHYCARR. If you do not mind me asking, why do you say you love God and Jesus, but don't show a love for God's people by worshiping with them? Biblically speaking, God has set things up so that in order to become more like Jesus Christ, we must be in communion with other believers. There is no biblical precedent for "solo sanctification." Take a look at these passages: Ephesians 4 Romans 12 1 Peter 2:9-10 1 Thessalonians 5:11 Hebrews 10:23-25 Simply put, the ritual of going to a church saves no one, but God has orchestrated things in such a way that the church is essential for Christian growth. It is where we hear the word preached, pray corporately, exercise the spiritual gifts God has given us for the benefit of God's people, bear one another's burdens, contribute to the needs of the saints and to the extension of God's Kingdom, confess our common faith, celebrate the Lord's Supper, confess our sins together, and corporately sing in praise of our God. Those are not solitary activities, and it is disobedience to God to neglect the communion of saints. You may have been saved as an individual, but the consistent testimony of Scripture is that every Christian is saved INTO the church. "I no my relationship with GOD is still intact" How do you know that without any frame of reference? "in fact i feel iv leard so much more about GOD not attending church" How have you learned more apart from church? "I love GOD and Jesus" If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. --John 14:15 "with thier help i keep myself sinless as posibale" The Holy Spirit works through His people (the church) in order to accomplish that in your life. Your neglecting the communion of saints itself is a sin. "often i find myself alone but effective on my wolk" How so? "i don't feel that everything that churchs do are right so I basicly dissconect myself from it." Of course everything they do isn't right; they are made up of people like you and me. That is no excuse for disobeying God by "disconnecting" oneself from church. One must wonder whether someone who seems to despise God's people so much is one of them herself. "What sould I do?" Find a good church where God's word is proclaimed, where baptism and the Lord's Supper are celebrated, and be the member of Christ's body that God saved you to be. There are tons of good churches in my denomination, so I will offer that as a starting point: http://www.pcanet.org May God's blessings through communal worship be yours. --Joe! |
||||||
2378 | Immaculate Conception, mary, how? | 1 John 1:8 | Reformer Joe | 67378 | ||
Yes. It is not taught in Scripture, is part of Roman Catholic tradition, and is not true. --Joe! |
||||||
2379 | Immaculate Conception, mary, how? | 1 John 1:8 | Reformer Joe | 67391 | ||
Fierce? :) Well, at least give me credit for knowing the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth! That's better than a good number of Protestants I know! --Joe! |
||||||
2380 | who is pure from sin | 1 John 1:9 | Reformer Joe | 38098 | ||
Norrie: Your post raises some really good issues. I think even today you and I both look at things in our lives that are offensive to God's perfect holiness and decide for ourselves that they are "no big deal." Even in our current state of being adopted children of God, we still are much worse in our behavior than even we think we are. I have recommended this book many times on this forum, and I will do so again now because I have found it to be the most helpful and biblically-sound book on this issue of grace, faith, sin, obedience, and salvation and how they all play together in the Christian life. It is called _Righteous Sinners_ by Ron Julian, and I am going to plug christianbook.com as well simply because the book can be picked up for a couple of bucks there. It is easily worth 10 times that amount for the wealth of biblical exegesis found there, and it is so immensely practical, rather than being abstract. As for homosexuality and the Bible, Paul is pretty clear in Romans 1 that it is the highest form of being given over to depravity. I am not saying that one cannot be saved from homosexuality, but to read Paul's extreme condemnation of the practice in no uncertain terms and to simply dismiss that makes me seriously doubt the spiritual condition of anyone who says that gay is okay. Imagine someone who is a murderer going around saying that all of the prohibitions against murder are all culturally-based and that David was a murderer (Uriah), so murder is really okay. It just doesn't wash, and they are exchanging the truth of God for a lie. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ] Next > Last [123] >> |