Results 2421 - 2440 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2421 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4627 | ||
Of course, you didn't answer the question, Elijah. To sum it up in three steps: 1. Do you hold that the Bible is the guide for truth? (It seems that you claim to do so) 2. Do you hold that Jesus is God? (Apparently you don't) 3. How do you account for all of the passages of Scripture which say, directly or indirectly, that Jesus is either God Himself or divine in nature? Start with John 1:3 as cited above. Were all things made by Jesus or not? The verse says that "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." If Jesus "came into being" (i.e. if he was created), then he created himself, which would be a completely illogical statement. Please explain to me how he could be the creator of EVERYTHING that was created and be created himself? --Joe! |
||||||
2422 | difference in trinity and oneness | 1 Tim 2:12 | Reformer Joe | 4624 | ||
Trinitarians and "Oneness" adherents both believe in one God. They also both believe that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are clearly identified as God in Scripture. Where Trinitarians and modalists part ways is here: Trinitarians assert that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while each being fully God, are three distinct "persons." That is, the Father exists simultaneously with the Son and the Holy Spirit, meaning the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. Onesness folks deny this, saying that the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit (usually claiming that Jesus is all three), and that God just acts in different roles or "modes" at different times. It is not an insignificant controversy, as some on this forum seem to have suggested. We are talking about the very nature of who God is, and one's entire theology stems from his/her understanding of the nature of God. So, Oneness states "One God, three roles." Trinitarianism declares "One God, three persons each of whom is fully God, and distinct roles for each person of the Trinity (even though there is cooperation among them all in creation and salvation)." I have yet to have any "oneness" follower satisfactorily explain away Jesus' references to the Father as distinct from himself, simultaneous manifestations of all three, God the Father's references to Jesus as distinct from himself, Jesus' references to the Spirit as being distinct from himself, the fact that the Son is the mediator between the Father and Christians, the fact that "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us" (1 Corinthians 5:21), etc., etc. The fact is that the early church councils who codified the term "Trinity" were not inventing some heresy, but articulating what God reveals about himself in the whole of Scripture. The Bible teaches the Trinity, and any deviation from this doctrine leads to heresy and cultism. --Joe! |
||||||
2423 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4622 | ||
Gregory Boyd is also a former Oneness Pentecostal himself who has written an excellent work on the subject entitled _Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity._ In addition to James R. White's "must-read" book _The Forgotten Trinity_, I also recommend Boyd's book wholeheartedly. --Joe! |
||||||
2424 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4621 | ||
The Trinitarian Doctrine does not assert three Gods. One more time: 1. ONE God 2. THREE persons: Father, Son, Spirit 3. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God 4. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. I agree with every passage you put forth which illustrates the deity of Christ. No Trinitarian argues this. It is our understanding of point 2 on which we disagree. In addition, oneness/"Jesus only"/modalism denies point 4. You cited John 1:1. How can the Word (Jesus) simultaneously be "with God" and BE "God" in a non-Trinitarian understanding? John 14:9: Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" Taken out of its context above, the verse could support a oneness theology. However, Jesus says throughout the chapter that he and the Father are distinct. They should believe in God and "also in him." (v. 1). Is he being redundant? He refers to the Father in the third person (v. 2). Is he suffering from multiple personalities? In verse 10 he very specifically says that he is not talking about himself, but rather the Father. In verse 16, he will communicate with the Father (talking to himself?) and the Father will send ANOTHER comforter (not him!). In verse 26 the Father will send the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Father is not the Spirit).. In short, this whole chapter has the roles clearly defined of the different persons of the Trinity. Jesus makes it very clear that there is communication and interaction between the three Persons, and that he is not the Father Himself, but rather that the Father is in Him and that He is in the Father (v. 11), much as the Spirit will indwell believers (v. 17) without us BEING the Holy Spirit. If you are looking for a section of Scripture to support modalism, John 14-17 is definitely NOT the place to start! Jesus is God, without a doubt; but he is NOT the Father, and he is NOT the Holy Spirit. --Joe! |
||||||
2425 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4617 | ||
And? --Joe! |
||||||
2426 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4616 | ||
I didn't say that God didn't become a man. God the Son did just that. God the Father did not. The Trinitarian formula is one God eternally existing in three distinct persons co-equal in nature (Father, Son, Spirit). This statement does not address my assertion that "oneness" is heresy. --Joe! |
||||||
2427 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Reformer Joe | 4572 | ||
I don't know about "often," but Scripture tells us taht he does it. In Matthew 4, the Holy Spirit even leads Jesus out to be tempted by Satan. Just as God is not the author of our sin but fits it into the grand scheme that ends up with God and the church victorious, he also uses Satan's hatred of God to his purposes as well. One only needs to read through the rest of the book of Job to see how God uses even his enemies to his glory. --Joe! |
||||||
2428 | WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4571 | ||
1. Christ commanded it (Matthew 28:19). 2. It is our purpose as "new creations" to glorify God, which includes evangelism. The fact that some will not be regenerated is not an excuse. We will worship and praise God for all eternity in Heaven, and everyone there will already be in complete agreement with us. Therefore, proclaiming Christ and His gospel is not only for the purpose of "winning the lost," but for proclaiming the excellencies of Him who CALLED us out of darkness into His marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9,10; see also 2 Cor. 5:17-21 and Ephesians 2:8-10). 3. While God in his sovereignty certainly doesn't NEED his creation to call the elect to himself, we are clearly the ordained means of doing so. It is the Holy Spirit who regenerates the elect, but He usually works in tandem with the Gospel proclaimed verbally by believers. Therefore, we are God's primary ordained MEANS of the message coming to the currently-unbelieving elect, whom God the Holy Spirit will supernaturally re-create to believe the message. The important thing to remember is that saving faith involves an object (Christ's sinless life, substitutionary death, and resurrection). Gad causes believers to believe, but the "information" also has to be present for the elect to place his faith in. Therefore, while God has chosen, he has allowed us the privilege of being a part of his redemptive work! While my neighbor's salvation due to God's grace and mercy (or her just condemnation) does not DEPEND on my evangelism to her, I am disobedient to our holy God when I do not proclaim the Gospel, and I also do not share in the blessing of being God's instrument if I keep silent. One last corollary to all the above: while the elect is known to God, He has not revealed it to us. Therefore, we should not assume that someone not saved right now will not be called to faith in Christ at some future point. Those who use the doctrine of unconditional election to refrain from proclaiming Christ crucified and raised either misunderstand the message or are merely using it as an excuse. --Joe! |
||||||
2429 | Jesus name baptism fulflls matt 28 | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4569 | ||
A sound, Biblical theology hinges on the Trinity. That is the foundation of correctly understanding the whole of Scripture. It is first base. Biblical Christianity is Trinitarian; and modalism/oneness is heresy, not a mere "point of respectful disagreement." --Joe! |
||||||
2430 | Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit? | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4568 | ||
How does Acts 2:38 "fulfill" Matthew 28's command? Unless one pre-supposes a modalistic, anti-trinitarian view that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I do not see how this verse in any way fulfills the command. In addition, Christ commands his disciples to do the baptizing with this formula. He doesn't say that he is going to do it himself at Pentecost. It would seem unreasonable to me that Christ (a) commands the eleven to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and then (b) somehow fulfills this himself in Acts 2. Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. There are just two many passages in Scripture that would either make Jesus either schizophrenic or deceptive if it were so. --Joe! |
||||||
2431 | Selfish or Self-interest? | Phil 1:23 | Reformer Joe | 4550 | ||
I'd like to bite a piece off this discussion, if I may. I would like to take the last verse first. The "loving ourselves" is not the command. It is human nature to love ourselves. What is not automatic is loving others in the same way. This is altruistic in nature, and reflects much the same message as Philippians 2, where we are told to not look out merely for our own interests, but also the interests of others. Again, it is not a command to look after our own interests (that goes without saying); the command is to humble ourselves and serve others. John 3:16 makes a declarative statement about who will have eternal life. From my Calvinist perspective, this is not an enticement to follow Christ, since we are morally incapable of choosing that route without the Holy Spirit's regeneration. Therefore, this is merely a commentary on the eternal destiny of those who believe. Matthew 11:28 is right in the middle of a discourse which supports the Reformed position of divine election. In any case, this verse has to do with personal peace in knowing Him ("rest for your souls") and not a comfortable lifestyle, as Jesus makes it very clear throughout the Gospels that following him will bring hardship, suffering, and often death. In Matthew 19, Jesus is not making an offer to humanity, but rather declaring God's plan for those whom He has called. While there is without a doubt eternal reward for following Christ, eternal life hinges on what God has done for us. All of the verses you cited describe the final outsome of the elect, but Romans 3:10-18 makes it pretty clear that it is not a path we would ever choose on our own. Therefore, self-interest is the pattern that the unregenerate follow wholeheartedly, not those who are being saved. In Philippians, Paul desires to be with Christ. He longs for his eternal home, which for him is far better. Any Christian who would not rather be in Heaven than on earth really doesn't have a very good grasp of what Heaven will be like. However, as you say, Paul sees that God has more in store for him here on earth, and that his continued presence will be beneficial to the church in Philippi. Paul understands that to be with Christ is to be like Christ (i.e. glorified, with one's sin nature utterly destroyed forever) and to worship the Lord joyfully for all eternity. I long for that day as well, but I also realize that as long as the Lord leaves me on this planet, I have a part in God's redemptive purpose (2 Cor. 5:20, 1 Peter 2:9,10, Ephesians 2:10), which I also joyfully undertake, knowing that my sovereign God's plan is best and that the glory belongs to him. One more thing regarding Philippians. Take note that Paul was by no means in a state of misery. For him it wasn't a choice between Heaven or "Hell on earth." Despite the fact that he was in prison, he is joyful because of the ministry of the church, the preaching of the Gospel, and the opportunity to serve and be served by his brothers and sisters in Christ, all of which glorify God. Does this seem rambling to you? It was somewhat hard to be both brief (if indeed one could consider this brief!) and also cover most of the bases you brought up in your questions. Perhaps looking at just one or two aspects of the question at a time would be more beneficial. Anyhow, thanks for your patience in reading my reflections! --Joe! |
||||||
2432 | Who is God referring to? | Gen 1:26 | Reformer Joe | 3917 | ||
Himself (i.e. the Father), the Son (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17), and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2). In other words, the verse is Trinitarian. --Joe! |
||||||
2433 | God speaking of Himself as "US" | Gen 1:26 | Reformer Joe | 4525 | ||
To add to Hank's Trinitarian answer, we see in other parts of Scripture where the other two persons of the Trinity were present and/or actively involved in the creation as well. Genesis 1:2 shows the Spirit present hovering above the waters. John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-17 clearly indicate Christ's active role in creating the universe. As Hank correctly put it, the "Us" refers to those involved in creation, the persons of the Trinity. --Joe! |
||||||
2434 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4524 | ||
I hold that the reason for his temptation was to outwardly demosntrate what was inwardly true, i.e. the complete obedience and moral perfection of Jesus Christ. Christ could not successfully be tempted to sin because he is eternal God. However, if he was kept from any opportunity to sin, how could he have truly demonstrated perfect obedience to God and thereby be an acceptable sacrifice for OUR sins? A good point of comparison would be Adam. Adam began in moral perfection, and God's only command to him was not to eat of that tree over there. Now if God had a 20-foot high, barbed-wire fence erected around the tree, how could Adam have demonstrated his obedience? For complete and total obedience to God, the avenue to disobedience must be available in some form. Now, while Adam chose to sin, being morally corruptible, Jesus would not and could not. The Father and the Spirit knew this, of course, but obedience without the opportunity to sin is not really obedience, just existence. In this way, Christ demonstrated both inward and outward obedience at every moment, and it is this obedience which was lived out in order that it could be credited to us once we are regenerated as believers. I would love to hear any feedback on this one! --Joe! |
||||||
2435 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4523 | ||
Sinlessness and perfection are the same thing, in terms of morality. Jesus was tempted, exposed to the opportunities to sin. However, in every way he chose not to do so. Jesus did not stop being God during the incarnation, which means that he did not "become imperfect" in any moral sense of the term. To say that Jesus became imperfect is blasphemy. --Joe! |
||||||
2436 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4521 | ||
Temptation, despite our modern usage of the term, does not necessarily originate from our own sinfulness. We see that Jesus, for example, was tempted in the wilderness by Satan, as we see in Matthew 4:1. Who was the tempter? Satan. Was Jesus tempted? The rest of chapter 4 is pretty clear on that. Did Jesus sin? By no means! Therefore, the temptation of Matthew 4 has absolutely nothing to do with any moral imperfection that lay within Jesus during the incarnation. Now in James 1, the apostle is obviously referring to those who are not only tempted, but those who SUCCUMB to temptation (as we see in v. 14). For possessors of a sin nature such as we are, we can be tempted by our lusts, as well as by external tempters, or a combination of the two. What James DOES write is that God cannot be tempted (i.e. convinced/coerced into sin), and God is not the one who will tempt (i.e. convince/coerce others to sin). Now he may ALLOW us to be tempted, but but he is not the author of temptation to sin. We see this understanding of temptation also in the Lord's Prayer (or "model prayer," if you prefer). Jesus instructs that we should pray to not be led into temptation, in Matthew 6:13. Now it would be nonsense for someone to pray to the Father not to lead them into actual sin. Therefore, "temptation" here must mean something else. The Spirit (i.e. God) led Jesus into his temptation in the wilderness, but The Spirit did not lead him into sin. Therefore, the author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus our High Priest has been tempted, it refers to his exposure to avenues in which humans could sin in word, thought, or deed. However, as the rest of the verse says, he was "without sin" totally and completely in the face of such enticements. Make sense? --Joe! |
||||||
2437 | Does this explain Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4456 | ||
I did re-read it, and the question I asked was NOT address in what you said. According to Hebrews 1:8, who is God calling "God"? And according to Hebrews 1:10, what did the Lord Jesus do? Speaking of Christ, John writes "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." NOTHING came into being apart from Christ. If Christ is a part of creation, then this verse testifies that Christ created himself, which is illogical nonsense. So, who is the creator, God (Genesis 1:1) or Christ as we see in the verses above? The answer is Trinitarian. Colossians 1:16 does indeed say that Christ is "the image of the invisible God," which loses a lot of its theological punch if that just means that he reveals attributes of his creator. After all, you yourself said that we were made in the image of God. Why would Paul need to make the point if what he was intending to say is that Christ is just like us in this respect. By the way, this understanding of Christ's representing God's nature simply does not jibe with the context of Paul's extended treatment of Christ's nature in Colossians 1. The idea that "Jesus being in the image of God and having the authority of God is allowed to be God in only a sense" contradicts every monotheistic passage in the Bible as well. How many God's are there is God the Father "lets" Jesus (an entirely separate being in your view) have the attributes of deity? In addition, the term translated "firstborn" in many translations does not necessarily mean the first one out of the womb. If can also mean "heir," or the one possessing the birthright. We see this in the Old Testament where Isaac was the heir of God's promise to Abraham, even though he was not the oldest; and how Jacob received the blessing, not Esau; and how Solomon became David's successor even though HE was not the oldest. In the same way, taken in context with the rest of Scripture (such as John 1:3 above and the two verses following Colossians 1:15 -- CONTEXT), Jesus is the uncreated heir of all things. I AM being open-minded, Elijah, and I think that you should be open-minded enough to question why in 2000 years that the unique view of Christ presented in your post has hardly ever been articulated, if indeed it ever has. Also, I would suggest you being open-minded enough to check out the book I recommended in my previous post, since the ironclad arguments for the Trinity are much too numerous to present in a bulletin-board format. If you have responses to White's thorough analysis of the Trinity which takes into account the entire body of Scripture, I will be more than happy to look at them with an open-mind! --Joe! |
||||||
2438 | Is prayer of Jabez special? | 1 Chr 4:10 | Reformer Joe | 4455 | ||
Well, apart from the fact that I hold the whole "Bible Code" thing as completely bogus, I personally think that there is much more benefit to actually READING and STUDYING Scripture the way the Holy Spirit inspired it instead of looking for secret codes by skipping around different letters. Now, my problems with the "Left Behind" series, or rather the public's overwhelming fascination with the books (since I, like you, find what I have read of the story somewhat entertaining), has to do with the following: 1. Even if one holds to a pre-tribulational view of the end times (and many don't), the book still is largely speculation of how it will go down, but many people not well-versed in Scripture often see LaHaye's and Jenkins' tale as almost inspired in its accuracy. If we start making a list of every book in the last 60 years that interpreted the book of Revelation as imminent in light of their own cultural and technological surroundings, I would imagine that we could fill a small library. 2. Rather than studying the Scriptures to verify the accuracy of events in the books, I would imagine that for a great many individuals these books actually TAKE THE PLACE of serious study of God's Word. Instead of reading Exodus, Luke, and Romans, many opt to read _Tribulation Force_ and _The Mark._ That is a SERIOUS problem for the body of Christ, choosing entertaining reading over the life-changing message of the sovereign God. 3. I also have major reservations about any and all Gospel presentations which try and sell the message of salvation as a way to "escape the Tribulation" rather than clearly defining our depravity and sinfulness and how it will lead to an eternity of just and horrible suffering in Hell. That is much more devastating than living through what is depicted in _Left Behind_, and it will never ever ever end for those who die in their sins. And the fact is that is what we ALL deserve. I just don't see the idea depicted in _Left Behind_ that we are enemies of God; Hell is what we deserve for being enemies of God; God's only provision is Christ because of his sinless life and death in our place and resurrection; and that salvation is a merciful gift of God that comes through faith alone in Christ alone. I am not saying that the books contradict the Bible; only that the novels as far as I have seen articulate a very incomplete message when it comes to the essentials of the Gospel. Take out any of the books and see if what I am saying is true or not. Accepting Christ is not "Tribulation insurance," and one seriously has to question whether those trusting in a poorly-articulated Gospel truly are saved. This is not to say that people haven't genuinely come to Christ as a result of these books, but God uses a multitude of things (both good and bad) to reveal Himself to those whom he supernaturally calls. 4. My final problem has to do with this general over-fascination with eschatology in the first place. While God clearly reveals the future in Scripture, it is by far not a centerpiece of a balanced theology of the whole of Scripture. While we should be ready, as Christ admonished us, that is no excuse for the rampant "looking up in the sky" for Christ at the expense of glorifying God on earth (2 Corinthians 5:20; 1 Peter 2:9,10; Ephesians 2:10). Our job is not to do the modern-day equivalent of putting on a sandwich board and shouting, "The end is nigh." Our purpose is to glorify him who called us and regenerated us. How's that for a rant? No doubt someone is going to ba angered at my words, but the question isn't whether my words are offensive. The question is whether my words have the ring of truth. Longing to give all glory to God, Joe! |
||||||
2439 | Are we there, yet? | Matt 16:18 | Reformer Joe | 4443 | ||
Well, the church has obviously been established (Acts 2), but Christ has not returned yet. Therefore, the church is still being built, as we are the living stones (1 Peter 2:5). The true church is firmly rooted in Christ, but will be a work in progress until Christ's return. Incidentally, if you have never taken the time to study church history, it is a fascinating read of how God has kept the gates of Hades from overpowering her. It gives you a real sense of continuity and helps see yourself in the whole context of "our people." I would recommend as a starting point _Church History in Plain Language_ by Bruce Shelley. --Joe! |
||||||
2440 | Is prayer of Jabez special? | 1 Chr 4:10 | Reformer Joe | 4441 | ||
Hank, I think it is special only as far as every sincere prayer to our holy God is special. Not having read Wilkinson's book, I do not feel terribly qualified to comment on it. However, its enormous popularity among our lukewarm Christian book-buying populace makes me reluctant to go out and buy a copy. I have just seen too many people go hog wild (a Texas saying that you Razorbacks are familiar with, I am sure!) over the latest thing, whether it be the "Gulf War equals prelude to Armageddon," the Y2K thing, the so-called "Bible Code," or even the "Left Behind" series (oops, now I KNOW that there will be backlash on that one!). In my never-humble-enough opinion, my brothers and sisters in Christ should stop following the latest fads/trends, get back into some serious study of the Word, ground themselves in good, Biblical theology, and obey the Holy Spirit in being ambassadors for Christ, which is what we were re-made to do (2 Corinthians 5:17-20). As you undoubtedly know, Hank, there are many examples of prayers in the Bible. My personal favorite is John 17. Of course, the one praying had the art down pretty good... Always a pleasure, Hank! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ] Next > Last [123] >> |