Results 2401 - 2420 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2401 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4892 | ||
Read the Old Testament and the New Testament. Study everything said about God, the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God). There you will find the Trinity revealed. The term Trinity is credited to Tertullian. You will not find the word in the Bible. That has no bearing on the fact that God is revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit; and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed as distinct from each other. The fact that the word "Trinity" is not in Scripture really is the weakest of arguments, by the way. A similar example would be this: Do you adhere to a particular theology? I hope not, because the word "theology" is nowhere to be found in the Bible. See how weak the argument is? Simply because we use terms not found in the Bible to describe what is revealed in the Bible does not make that revelation invalid. --Joe! |
||||||
2402 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4890 | ||
If exclamation and strong words do not become a disciple of Jesus, then I need to go tear 1 and 2 Corinthians out of my Bible! :) As far as my stance, I consider all human beings, including myself, unworthy of salvation. That is the beauty of God's grace! (That is an exclamation point of praise, by the way, not anger.) Nowhere in Scripture do we have a model of Old Testament judges, Christ, or the apostles going easy on heresy. While I bear no personal animosity toward any Oneness adherent, what they hold to is most definitely heresy. One of the greatest problems in our church today is that sound, life-changing theology has been discarded for the sake of "everybody getting along." While we should without a doubt glorify God through our actions, that also includes telling the truth about his word, and speaking out against its dilution or distortion. Thanks for your comments, in any case. Praise the Lord in word and in deed! --Joe! |
||||||
2403 | Not preached on?? | Matt 26:13 | Reformer Joe | 4870 | ||
The very fact that this account is included in Matthew's gospel fulfills what Jesus says. | ||||||
2404 | 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! |
||||||
2405 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4835 | ||
Who said that he was tempted in the garden of Gethsemane? We are talking about the Son of God knowing exactly what was going to happen to him, not only physically on the cross, but also facing the holy and infinite wrath of God the Father for the sake of all those who will trust in him. The fact that he obeyed God perfectly does not mean that it didn't cause him anguish to know that he would experience the punishment for our sins. After all, who better than God Himself to know exactly to what extent His holy wrath reaches, how horrible it must have been for someone completely holy to "become sin for us." We may be comfortable with our sin nature and quite accustomed to it, in fact. Christ didn't have the same "luxury"; it shouldn't be surprising in the the least that a perfectly obedient Christ would nonetheless feel excruciating anguish knowing all too well the cross he was going to bear for me. I think all believers should take this into account when reading the accounts of the night before the crucifixion, and remember soberly and thankfully that this was Jesus' understanding of price that was to be paid for our salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
2406 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4833 | ||
Mel: It is really not a question of where I "place Jesus." It is a matter of where the Bible says He is. Very God of very God. Far be it from me or anyone else to try and "redefine" God the Son in a way that would make Him more comfortable for my sinful nature to live with! We cannot reach God. In light of our total depravity and God's infinite holiness, we in our pre-Christian state don't even WANT to. God had to reach down to us. --Joe! |
||||||
2407 | ONE GOD | Gen 1:26 | Reformer Joe | 4822 | ||
Please don't use all caps. It is hard on the eyes and distracts from your message. The Bible makes it quite clear in the verses I cited that Jesus is clearly identified as an active agent in the creation of ALL things. I am not sure whether you are challenging the Bible or my understanding of the Bible. What is your interpretation of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16? Seems pretty straightforward; one has to do some serious mental gymnastics to get around the obvious. As far as Jesus praying to the Father, there has eternally been communion and communication and perfect cooperation between the three persons of the Trinity. Why would Jesus be praying to the Father seem so strange? In any case, Jesus laid aside his privileges as God when he became human, and lived life as a perfectly obedient human being (Philippians 2:7,8). He as a man yielded himself completely to the Father, living out a morally perfect human existence so that that righteousness could be imputed to us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9). God the Son voluntarily became a man to pay the penalty for our sins; and to be that perfect sacrifice, perfect obedience was required (Romans 3:25). One last thing: difference in roles of the three persons of the Trinity does not mean that they are unequal in nature. Speaking of Jesus' prayer in the garden, John 17 is quite the testimony to Jesus' equality with God the Father (vv. 4-5,10,19,21). So what is your view? Who do you say that Jesus Christ is? --Joe! |
||||||
2408 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4820 | ||
I contend that James' epistle is describing succumbing to temptation, not only being tempted by some external source. Remember that Jesus taught us to pray "Lead us not into temptation." It would make no sense that we should pray "Lead us not into being carried away by own own lusts," since God is not the encourager of sinful behavior, as James said in his letter. Therefore, James must have something different in mind, and the context seems to indicate that he is talking about giving into sinfulness which already exists within us, which Jesus did not have, of course. It is always important to remember that while Jesus took on the form of a servant (i.e. took on a human nature), he did not stop BEING God. While he was exposed to every external avenue to sin as we are (and more so, I would contend), it is impossible for God to sin. During his earthly ministry, although he looked like us, morally he was infinitely different from us. Remember that he said that even sinful thoughts carry the weight of actually committing the offense. Therefore, if there was even a shadow, a flicker of immorality even in his thinking, he did not reflect the unchangeable character of our perfect God. Since all Christians acknowledge that he indeed is God the Son, he was completely unable to be swayed even in the briefest of moments from complete obedience in thought, word, and deed to the Father. Thanks to that, we can receive a righteousness not our own -- His. Praise be to God! --Joe! |
||||||
2409 | What does "kingdom of God" mean? | Matt 6:33 | Reformer Joe | 4808 | ||
Now THIS is an excellent question, Hank! The Kingdom of God includes Heaven, for that is where God's will is done. However, it would seem from Scripture that there is more to it than just the eternal paradise waiting for those who are being saved. For example, it seems that the Jewish mindset of the day thought that the Kingdom of God would be a socio-political one, perhaps the monarchy to be re-established by the Messiah in Israel. For example, even the eleven asked Jesus if he was going to establish the kingdom at that time (Acts 1). In Luke 17, however, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the kingdom of God is already "in their midst." On the other hand, he tells his disciples to pray "Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:10). Dallas Willard, in his acclaimed book, _The Divine Conspiracy_ (a challenging read but a highly-recommended one), contends that this verse of the Lord's Prayer has a great deal to do with the idea of the kingdom of God. Willard says "...Gods' own 'kingdom' or 'rule' is the range of his effective will, where what he wants done is done." Obviously Willard considers the "kingdom of God " to have only one meaning, where it finds its truest expression in Heaven right now (and where it has always existed). However, the Kingdom also is likened to a mustard seed in Mark 4. It would seem that the Kindgom, from all the verses I reviewed in trying to address this fascinating question, is a kingdom with two aspects, one which eternally exists in glory, and one which is being established here in the church invisible, by those who are following Gods' will and being used as instruments for his glory. This question certainly does beg for much deeper examination than I have given it so far in this post; what do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
2410 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4745 | ||
Radioman: It is generally considered to be poor nettiquette to cross-post all over the place. In addition, this forum is for discussion, so debate on important theological issues is why we ARE here. Thirdly, people's opinions DO change (mine did, as a matter of fact), and Christians certainly should in love vigorously debate the Scriptures in order to come to a better understanding of God's nature and activity. Thanks, and I hope you are not a 2 Prov 1:7 kind of guy! :) --Joe! |
||||||
2411 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4744 | ||
So you are saying that Jesus (i.e. God the Son) was not "mature"? To say that "taking on a nature of material flesh means that he had evil to overcome in his own self" has a name. It is Gnosticism. Jesus was tempted EXTERNALLY (for example, Matthew 4). He did not have to combat urges in his own human nature, since he was not under Adam's curse. He was tempted externally for the purpose of demonstrating perfect obedience to the Father so that he would be an acceptable propitiation for OUR sins. --Joe! |
||||||
2412 | 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! |
||||||
2413 | JOE THROWS ONENESS INTO HERESY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4742 | ||
You know, it is not a big boost to credibility when you flood the forum with the identical post over and over again rather than meaningfully dialogue with a Trinitarian who will agree with MOST of what you have said above wholeheartedly. Please see my detailed, point-by-point response elsewhere, as I am going to have the courtesy not to beat everyone over the head with what I consider to be the truth. God's truth stands on its own and does not require my cross-posting to be convincing to those with ears to hear. --Joe! |
||||||
2414 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4740 | ||
RevC, I am notified by email every time someone responds to my post. You do not have to copy and paste an IDENTICAL list of misinformation to everyone who declares the trinity, especially when at least 35 of the above assertions are also held by Trinitarians. For those of you just joining us, I addressed all of these, point-by-point, when he inundated the forum with this same post just minutes ago. Rather than simply pasting the same email, why not actually dialogue with Trinitarians. This "one-size-fits-all" post didn't really answer mine at all. My exegesis of John 14 was not addressed at all. Just spitting up a laundry list of stuff in response is not a credibility-enhancing activity. Now how does Oneness explain that a plain reading of John 14 shows the three persons of the Trinity interacting with each other, communicating with each other, sending each other, if they are all really just Jesus? The Son talks to the Father; the Father sends the Son and the Spirit, etc., etc. While you are at it, look at the rest of John 14-17 and give us a Oneness take on an apparently Trinitarian chunk of Scripture. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
2415 | difference in trinity and oneness | 1 Tim 2:12 | Reformer Joe | 4715 | ||
To answer: 1. So what? It is irrelevant. 2. Sure it does, Not in a single verse, but doctrines built on single verses often are easily debunked. The Bible does teach the Trinity, and that all three persons are distinct but fully the one God. 3. Agreed. Not a point of contention between Trinitarians and modalists. 4. How do you get that from Matthew 28:19? Assumption on your part. In addition, I find that a God who defines himself in relation to humanity as not very sovereign. 5. 1 John 5:7 is a later addition, as any Greek NT scholar worth his salt will tell you. It simply doesn;t appear in the earliest manuscripts, which is why you will only find it in the KJV. 6. No argument. ONE God. 7. Certainly it can be apprehended. Trinitarians do it quite well. 8. Again, agreed. You DO know where Trinitarians agree with you, don't you? 9. I discussed this at length in another post in this thred. In the context of John 14-17, saying that Jesus is claiming to actually BE the Father or the Spirit is completely illogical. (see verses 4:14,16,23,24,26, and on and on...Jesus clearly points out that the Father, Spirit not only do different things -- another point where Oness and Trinitarians agree -- but that they COMMUNICATE and INTERACT with one another. Does Jesus have multiple personalities then?) 10. Sure it does. Se my answer to point 2. 11. Not a point of disagreement. All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily. The Godhead is also expressed fully in the Father and the Spirit. This is Trinitarian. 12. Irelevant to your case (the part about it being hidden -- so what?), but the Father is delivering everything to the Son. You contend that Jesus is delivering everything to Himself? 13. God is God, regardless of His relationship to humanity. How humanistic and heretical to say that Jesus redefines himself to human beings! 14. Again, not a point of disagreement for Trinitarians. Maybe I should use a code word to abbreviate this repetitive answer. 15. Now HERE is a valid point for more extended discussion. Why don't we separate these two verses into another post and discuss these in greater detail, as this is the first point that at first glance would seem to support Oneness... 16. Both of these verses testify to ONE God. No argument from Trinitarians. However, how does one fit John 1:1-3 into a modalistic viewpoint (particularly that nagging "the Word was with God" part)? 17. You already said that. I agree. 18. See #17. 19. See #18. 20. "Some" do it? Is that your argument? In any case, as you have said, the Bible doesn't number them. The numbers do not indicate any ontological difference among the three Persons. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. No argument. He is God. 21. See #20. 22. See #17. Not anti-Trinitarian. 23. Same reason he does in Revelation 20. Not anti-Trinitarian. Jesus is the God of the Old Testament incarnate. Just not the Father. 24. So? God should be worshiped instead of Satan. What is the point? 25. Neither do I. 26. See #17. 27. See #17. 28. See #17. 29. See #17. 30. See #17. 31. See #17. 32. Guess you concede point 32. ;) 33. See #17. 34. See #17. 35. See #17. 36. See #17. 37. See #17. 38. Ditto. 39. Very poor exegesis here. By the way, I know a few Jehovah's Witnesses who would be happy to agree with you on this verse but say that that name is NOT "Jesus." 40. Okay. 41. See #32. 42. Okay...this is REALLY getting old. If you are going to attack the clearly Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, PLEASE take the time to understand what you are railing against, because most of what you have done here is to attack the "Straw Man" version of it that the UPCI or whatever group you belong to has fed you. There is an excellent work out there called _Oneness Pentecostals and the TRinity_ by Gregory Boyd. I invite you to read it and refute it. Then I would find your much more persuasive than you have been with this non-attack. 44, 45...You know what I am going to say here. 46. See #2. Oh, and #17. And #43. Okay. Please understand one thing. Trinitarians do NOT believe in THREE GODS. We BELIEVE in one GOD, eternally existing in THREE PERSONS, not eternally existing in one person who switches from mode to mode in order to relate to humanity in different ways. Another great work is _The Forgotten Trinity_ by James R. White. When I speak out against Oneness, whether you disagree with me or not, at least I KNOW where we differ and will not spend an inordinate amount of time making assertions that will be fully accepted by both of us. PLEASE, PLEASE do not embarass yourself by arguing against things that I would also argue against as a Trinitarian! One point out of 46 (or 44 actually) which carries any weight worth debating! --Joe! |
||||||
2416 | 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! |
||||||
2417 | 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! |
||||||
2418 | 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! |
||||||
2419 | 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! |
||||||
2420 | 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! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ] Next > Last [123] >> |