Results 241 - 260 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42893 | ||
"This rumor that the pre-trib view started in the 19th century is not accurate. I have numerous books in my library that reference the doctrine of a generation of saints that are changed in a moment and rise and meet the Lord and then afterwards an ongoing time of judgement upon those that remain that date back to the middle ages. I have a book that is one of the best and most scholarly expositions on Revelation by a man named James A. Siess titled "The Apocalypse" that was written in the 18th century (late 1700s) and he even used the word rapture. Siess cites numerous rescources in his book of ancient writers that held similar views based on the same verses we use today to explain the rapture." Joseph Augustus Seiss (1823-1904) is the author of _The Apocalypse: Exposition of the Book of Revelation_. The book was first published in 1865. Look at the years of his life. This is most definitely a 19th-century, post-Darby work. --Joe! |
||||||
242 | Lord of the Sabbath is he not | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42968 | ||
As you say, Jesus broke TRADITION, but did he break the LAW of God by what he did on the Sabbath? There is a difference, in that tradition may or may not be consistent with the law of God. The biggest problem I have with "abolishing the Sabbath" mentality is that we are then saying that the Sabbath was not part of the changeless moral law of God. If the Ten Commandments are a summary of the moral will of God, why would he change his mind about one of them (and only one, for that matter)? Here are a few well-articulated, yet opposing views on the Fourth Commandment and the Christian: http://capo.org/sermons/Luke4.html http://web2.airmail.net/billtod/ch10.txt http://www.gty.org/Curiosity_Shop/sabbath.htm --Joe! |
||||||
243 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43006 | ||
Scribe: Please do get the book when you can and cite those sources. I have never heard of any theologians prior to Darby's Dispensationalist explosion that have embraced a pre-tribulational rapture. --Joe! |
||||||
244 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43099 | ||
You wrote: 'What if the understanding of the "glorification and rising of the saints" (see why we use 'rapture') was clearly laid out in the 19th century. Would that make it unbiblical?' Not necessarily, but I think it makes it suspect. Do you think that a sovereign God would make his revelation so obscure that the greatest teachers in the church, gifted by the Holy Spirit as they were, would completely overlook something like a pre-tribulational rapture for 1800 years? You wrote: "I mean do you think all things eschatological has been explained prior to recent time." Of course not. People have been debating about the timing and nature of the Milennium throughout all of church history, for example. However, if a novelty comes up like pre-tribulationalism, with no historical basis whatsoever (even from those who were themselves taught by the apostles), then we have to wonder if that interpretation of the Bible is truly reflective of the apostolic tradition that we see in Scripture. Another problem I have with it is that it is tied so heavily to Darby and his dispensationalism, which is fraught with all kinds of theological problems, so much so that one has to start playing the "what-part-of-the-Bible-is-for-us-and-what-part is-for-Israel" game. Darby just didn't teach the secret rapture; he denied the very understanding of Scripture the church has had since its earliest days. Can it really be that a sovereign God let ALL of His people get so far off track, from the word "go"? Nope. "So it stands to reason that there are many truths buried in the Scripture that were not dealt with by your favorite teachers. :)" Actually, most of my favorite teachers spoke at length about the end times. It was far from ignored in antiquity and in Reformation theology. They just didn't make up something completely new like Darby and Scofield and company. "but there are many truths in the Bible, especially the prophets of the OT that have been ignored by the ignorant masses of the church who are too busy to study the Bible." I agree with you there, Scribe. But to say that the masses have ignored them is not to say that they have been ignored completely by the church. You can go all throughout the history of the church and find commentary and exposition of the major and minor prophets. I would even argue that a big reason why those books are so neglected today is that so many people are taught that the OT is "not for us." You wrote: "Some of these truths are waiting to be rediscovered, not because they are new truths but becuase they have been ignored while men squabble over whether they have free will or not, or because they have been lost when once they were embraced prior to the age of the Catholicsim which lasted hundreds of years. We are still having to recover that fervency of spirit seen in the Book of Acts." First of all, men "squabbling," as you put it, is how we got definitions of every major doctrine that is considered orthodox today. They were called "church councils," and they go back as far as Acts 15 at least. See? The way you put this is one of the reasons I dislike the "end-times fever" we have seen in the last century and a half. Everything else but receiving Christ through faith alone has taken a back seat to the supposedly "important" doctrines of figuring out when and how Jesus is coming back to get His bride. Paul thought that a lot of issues such as the role of God in salvation were important enough to elaborate upon at length (read Romans and see how much eschatology you see there). But what is on the best seller list as Christian Bookstore, Inc.? Books which show how the President's coughing during a press conference fits into the Antichrist's plan to propel us into martial law. Of course, this book will contain detailed charts in full-color to show that the 70th week of Daniel will begin next Thursday at precisely 7:24 p.m. And you better not get left behind! That would be worse than...well, hell itself! Please excuse my hyperbole. I know that I am exagerrating, but only ever-so-slightly. But you are subscribing to the view that there was some view that everyone held, but then was lost. You have yet to show me where in the early church, before the "Catholic Age," whatever that means, began. Emmaus can attest to the fact that I am very much in opposition to a lot of Catholic theology, but it is simply a mistake of history to assume that the true church of Christ disappeared in the early fourth century, only to mystically be re-born centuries later. The errors of Rome came about very gradually (we are talking on the order of centuries here), and the people of God by and large were members of the church of Rome (and some still are), because in the West that WAS the visible church. --Joe! |
||||||
245 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43101 | ||
And regarding the book of Acts, we are constantly having to struggle with complacency, but that is not to say that the early church was the ideal. Take a look at the epistles and look at how much error was in the early church that needed to be corrected by the apostles! Heresy and false teaching and laziness and end-times craziness and sexual sin and abuse of authority and disorder in worship and legalism were all things that had to be attacked in the days of Acts. And that was when the apostles were alive! Yes, we do need to regain fervency based on TRUTH, but that was not limited to the first few decades after Pentecost. Fervency and zeal for the truth waxes and wanes. May it be that we are a people zealous for God, in keeping with his truth. Lastly, you wrote: "Many a protestant church still wears the grave cloths of tradition that was inherited from their fore fathers but not from the Word of God." This is the biggest problem of all. You are equating a lack of fervency with tradition. Jeus established a tradition, which the apostles not only wrote down, but also passed on verbally (how do you think the church received revelation before the completion of the writing of Scripture). The question isn't whether we should adhere to tradition or not, but rather WHICH tradition is to be adhered to. And lest we divorce fervency from tradition, you have to remember that the greatest revival in American history sprang from the preaching of a dyed-in-the-wool CALVINIST by the name of Jonathan Edwards. Apparently God doesn't hate all established traditions as much as do those who are making up new traditions of their own to compensate. In fact, God Himself is a tradition lover and a tradition establisher: "Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us. We will not conceal them from their children, But tell to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wondrous works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers That they should teach them to their children, That the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, That they may arise and tell them to their children, That they should put their confidence in God And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments, And not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not prepare its heart And whose spirit was not faithful to God." --Psalm 78:1-8 And that is why we should be striving to adhere to the traditions of the fathers, as faithfully and infallibly recorded in the Scriptures! --Joe! |
||||||
246 | Do ALL demons have names? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43610 | ||
What about Congress?? :) Would you PLEASE inform the forum as to where you get your theology? Because it sure ain't the Bible! --Joe! |
||||||
247 | a new heaven and new earth. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43739 | ||
Then you are doomed. Romans 3:10-18. --Joe! |
||||||
248 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43920 | ||
Genesis 4. Cain was the son of Adam and Eve. Another messed-up post from Judith! --Joe! |
||||||
249 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43922 | ||
You wrote: " Now as to Lucifer I have heard 3 differant points of view on who he was 1st Satan, 2nd Adam ,3rd the Antichrist. I think the scriptures rule out Satan because we no that by man sin entered into the world.So I think it to be the 2nd or 3rd option." Satan is the serpent. Satan is Lucifer. Sin entered the world by ONE man, Adam (Romans 5:12), when he allowed himself to be tempted into rebellion against God. --Joe! |
||||||
250 | What do you base this on? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44191 | ||
Scott: You wrote: "The first 2 i'll just touch on as I myself lean towards the antichrist. The 3 opinion will be in more detail.Lets start by looking at who Lucifer is , he is called the king of Babylon Is.14:4 and he is said to be a man verse 16. Now if Lucifer is Satan how come he is called a man? nowhere in the bible that I know of does it call Satan a man. So this rules out Satan being Lucifer." Only verses 12-14 are addressed toward Lucifer, as the being standing behind what is going on in Babylon. Again, Lucifer is no more the actual human king of Babylon in Isaiah's time than he is the human king of Tyre in Ezekiel's day. Lucifer is Satan, the one who has fallen from heaven (verse 12). In Ezekiel, Lucifer is described as a cherub -- an ANGEL. Lucifer is Satan. Your analysis is flawed. You discount that Lucifer is Satan because part of the prophecy is directed toward a MAN, and then you accept the "antichrist" theory and say he is only LIKE a cherub, rather than an actual cherub like the prophecy directly states when referring to Lucifer. Go with what historically has been held by the church. Lucifer is Satan. --Joe! |
||||||
251 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44541 | ||
Talk about me behind my back, will you?!? :) --Joe! |
||||||
252 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44542 | ||
Hank: The brackets save us time from quoting the entire Old and New Testaments! :) --Joe! |
||||||
253 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44544 | ||
Hey, Congregationalist! It is good to know that there are still a few self-proclaimed Congregationalists that hold to the Jonathan Edwards line of thinking rather than succumbing to liberal theology. Why don't you take a few minutes to create a personal profile so we all know a little more about you. --Joe! |
||||||
254 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44687 | ||
I think you misunderstood his question. He is asking that how does God decreeing that the fall would occur mean that we would be the author of sin. Make the connection between those ideas, becuase it was you who who said that you can't have one without the other. --Joe! |
||||||
255 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44690 | ||
Oops...I mean how would that make Him (God) the author of sin? :) --Joe! |
||||||
256 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44758 | ||
New Creature: Calvinists do not disagree with what you say about Adam and Eve, since they were not born "fallen." The Bible is very clear that we are unable to please God on our own -- to OBEY Him -- having become a sinful race of human beings (Romans 8:7). We are completely incapable of honoring God. Those who are not in Christ are doing nothing -- NOTHING -- which brings glory to God, and are therefore storing up wrath for themselves (Romans 2:5; Ephesians 2:3). Surely you are not saying that they CAN choose to obey God when the Bible clearly says that they are incapable of doing so as unregenerate beings! By the way, God's fore-ordaining of events does not mean that he CAUSES everything Himself. What is does mean is that He either causes it Himself or ALLOWS it to happen. Both are aspects of His decree. He did not make Adam sin, but it obviously did not take Him by surprise that He did. Christ was never "plan B" after Adam messed everything up. Christ was "plan A" from eternity past. Therefore, Adam's sin must be part of God's eternal decree, simply because it happened. You wrote: "I still hold that your ideas on this would mean that God is the author of sin." And repeating this statement does not equal EXPLAINING it. That was Congregationalist's question. --Joe! |
||||||
257 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44821 | ||
You wrote: "(1) If God is all-powerful, then He could save all persons." Yes, COULD. "(2) If God is all-loving, then He would save all persons." What do you mean by "all-loving"? What Scripture are you using to support that God is "all-loving"? If God is "all-loving" in the way that you seem to be defining it, why didn't he give EVERYONE a chance to build an ark? Why didn't he choose the whole world instead of on particular people group out of all the nations in the world to be the recipients of His covenant and His favor? Why did God tell the Israelites to completely blot out everyone who lived in Canaan rather than to evangelize them? Why did God raise up nations to judge rebellious Israel, only for those nations to be utterly destroyed? Why does God allow for heathens to be born, live, and die without EVER hearing the gospel or even the name of Jesus Christ? In short, where do you get the idea that "God loves everyone equally"? --Joe! |
||||||
258 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44902 | ||
You wrote: "Are you saying God is not all loving? That God shows partiality?" Of course that it is what I am saying. God shows partiality all through Scripture. God chose Abraham over every other person alive at the time. God chose Jacob and not Esau. God chose Moses (to the exclusion of everyone else) to lead His chosen people (all other nations being excluded) to the land which He had chosen for them (and they were to obliterate all of those people currently occupying the land of His chosen people). He chose judges. He chose Samuel. He chose David. He chose his prophets. He chose Mary. God the Son chose His disciples. God chose Paul. God most definitely shows partiality and bestows favor unequally on His creation. In other words, God doesn't have to limit himself to the principles of democracy, sine he is the King. It is only wrong to say that He chose all of those people because they deserved to be chosen. You wrote: "God was longsuffering and patient with the ungodly in the days of Noah. Noah was a preacher of righteousness. The peoples hearts became hardened. But God gave them 120 years to repent under the preaching of Noah to repent, and they did not. God is not at fault here for the failure of men." Where do you see that God was being patient toward the world in the days of Noah? It is very clear from Genesis 3 that He purposed to destroy every single human being besides the eight he saved. If you are referring to God's patience in 1 Peter 3:20, that patience in unleashing His wrath was for the sake of Noah, who was building the ark, NOT for those He was planning on destroying. Go read the verse again. As for 1 Peter 3:9, the Calvinist understanding of that verse within the context of the entire epistle has been posted here ad nauseam. Do a search for it. "Why didn't he choose the whole world instead of on particular people group out of all the nations in the world to be the recipients of His covenant and His favor? My Answer: The recipients of God's favor are those who by grace through faith receive the gift of salvation which is freely offered. The OT saints received and embraced Christ through faith the same as NT saints. God's way of salvation has not changed over the years. Abraham was saved by faith, and we too are saved by exercising faith in Christ." I don't disagree with how OT saints were saved, but that doesn't address my point at all. Salvation before Pentecost was limited almost exclusively to the nation of Israel. It was Israel who received the Law of Moses, it was Israel who was God's covenant people, it was the system of sacrifices and ceremonies given to the Israelites which prefigured the Messiah. Nowhere do we see in the Old Testament where the Israelites were commanded to spread the "good news of Yahweh" to convert the pagan nations. The oracles of God were given to Israel alone (Romans 3:1-2), and Jesus Himself said that salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22). It is quite obvious that God established His testimony with Jacob (Psalm 78:5) and that Israel was God's chosen people above all others until the ministry of the apostles began. You wrote: "Why did God tell the Israelites to completely blot out everyone who lived in Canaan rather than to evangelize them? Answer: The various reasons for this is probably because God in His foreknowledge, and omniscience knew that the heathen people would not be receptive to the gospel." Where is your Scripture to support this? You are begging the question by saying that your view is supported by your view. --Joe! |
||||||
259 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 44903 | ||
New Creature: You wrote: 'Why did God raise up nations to judge rebellious Israel, only for those nations to be utterly destroyed? My Answer: God raised up nations, kingdoms, and kings as means of discipline against as you yourself state "rebellious Israel" or disobedient Israel, which ever wording you choose. It is because God loves His people and a loving Father disciplines His children with love.' I am in complete agreement with what you say here, but again you miss my point. My point was those nations which God used were not His children, and God's purpose was not that these pagan nations become part of God's covenant people, but rather that they serve their purpose and then be destroyed. Lastly, you wrote: "Why does God allow for heathens to be born, live, and die without EVER hearing the gospel or even the name of Jesus Christ? Answer: Since the fall in the garden, everyone born since, is born heathen, including you and I. We were not born saved. As to to the second part of this question I don't agree with that statement." Whether we are born saved or not has nothing to do with this discussion. As to the second part of the question, Romans 1 does not address the GOSPEL at all. Romans 1:20 says that the attributes of God the Father have been clearly revealed in creation, leaving human beings without excuse. Secondly, Romans 2 tells us that God gave everyone a moral sense, a conscience. Both the "light of creation" and the "light of conscience" serve to render deal with God's existence and God's law, and leaves all men with their mouth's closed before God's righteous judgment (Romans 3:19). However, none of that has to do with the only provision for escaping God's judgment. The gospel is not revealed in creation; the law of God is. The gospel is not revealed to all men in their consciences; the condemnation from the law is. The gospel falls under the category of special revelation, not general revelation, and Paul attests to this himself in Romans 10:14. The fact is that ever minute dozens of people die in their sins never having heard the gospel of Christ, and they are still without excuse because God's standard of righteousness has been revealed to them. Therefore, God does not provide the gospel to all human beings. So, God does treat some individuals differently than others, based on nothing else but His own counsel (Ephesians 1:11). Scripture clearly shows that. I did not do anything to earn God's saving grace, and nothing in myself merits it; I deserve precisely the opposite. Nonetheless, God has extended it to me and not others. God chose me like He has always chosen His people. --Joe! |
||||||
260 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 45007 | ||
New Creature: You wrote: "But thank you for helping me try to think through this. I would like to hear more of what you say on this topic as well." Are you sure about that? ;) The only thing I would like to add is that when Peter said that God shows no impartiality in Acts 10:34, he was speaking directly in reference to the Cornelius situation. Cornelius was a Gentile who became a Christian, and that was the "train wreck" to his previous understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. So, when Peter says this, he means that God is going to be calling people to Himself not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles. That is the impartiality of God spoken of here. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [123] >> |