Results 321 - 340 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 79315 | ||
Greetings, Darcy! You wrote: "1. God the Father thinks it. 2. Jesus the Son speaks it. 3. The Holy Spirit does it. " This isn't quite accurate, as we see the Father speaking things and doing this, and Jesus thinking things and doing things, and the Holy Spirit thinking things and saying things. The best way to explain the Trinity is to look at what Scripture teaches; 1. The Father is God. 2. Jesus the Son is God. 3. The Holy Spirit is God. 4. The Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit. 5. The Son is neither the Father nor the Sprit. 6. The Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Blessings to you! --Joe! |
||||||
322 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Reformer Joe | 79307 | ||
Hi, Taleb. You wrote: 'Had Paul meant “the Christian church at large”, why didn’t he say so?' We need to be careful when using this argument. None of Paul's epistles were written directly to us, but they are all applicable to us or they would not be Scripture. Paul was not necessarily "writing with 2000 years later on his mind," but the Holy Spirit was. --Joe! |
||||||
323 | Still studying Mattew 24 | Matt 24:3 | Reformer Joe | 78725 | ||
Greetings, Taleb. I like titles, because titles can be useful for summarizing beliefs. In any case, my main question had to do with whether you believe that ALL of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled. What about 1 Corinthians 15? Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
324 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78720 | ||
"I think your tag name should be 'slippery when wet.' :) No where did I say that Abraham had faith in Jesus Christ!" And I never said that you did. "Romans 1 says that men ought to know there is a God." Right. And that is not faith. "This knowledge ought to lead them to hunger and thirst for righteousness." "Ought to." Check. Again, an "ought to" is not faith. 'If you are Abraham and God says to you, "Abraham, Leave the land of your fathers!" You go. That's the faith that saves.' No, that is the obedience resulting from the faith that saves. No matter how many times you repeat your statement to the contrary, faith leads to obedience, but faith is not obedience. The faith was there before Abraham acted, and it was the faith that was credited as righteousness. '"Awareness of truth is not faith in the truth." There you go again. I didn't say it. ' That is precisely what you implied in your last post: "Romans 1 says they do. On the basis of what God has revealed to all men they may be judged by God. They are without excuse. Faith that has not obeyed is a dead faith. We know that Abraham was not justified until his belief was obedient. " You said in reference to the human beings Paul mentioned in Romans 1 that a faith that is not obeyed is a dead faith. Either this sentence adds nothing to your argument, or your implication was that the people in Romans 1 have a faith that is not obeyed. You wrote: 'Romans 4:5 says, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due."' No it does not. That is Romans 4:4. Please explain the following verses in light of your "faith is obedience" theology: "But to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his FAITH is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness APART FROM WORKS" --Romans 4:5-6 (emphasis mine, so the point will not be missed again) And again, please tell me if Abraham was counted righteous before or after he obeyed by circumcizing himself and his household. A simple "before" or "after" will suffice. This will only be the third time I have asked this simple question. "It is you who can't seem to harmonize Paul and James. I have no trouble dealing with Romans 4:5." Then please deal with it. The REAL Romans 4:5. --Joe! |
||||||
325 | Still studying Mattew 24 | Matt 24:3 | Reformer Joe | 78691 | ||
Taleb: "Which one do you believe?" I tend to find myself in agreement with you regarding the understanding of "generation." It is the plain meaning of the word, and it is backed up by history. Do you consider yourself to be a complete preterist (i.e. no future return of Christ at all)? --Joe! |
||||||
326 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78690 | ||
Does Romans 1 say that all men have faith in Jesus Christ? "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." --Romans 1:18-21 Romans 1 tells us that God has made the truth evident to all human beings. Romans 1 does not state that human beings trust in the truth which God has revealed. In fact, it says the exact opposite: they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So, although the truth is right before their eyes, there is no faith in that truth. And, as I said before, they possess no trust at all in the Jesus of the Bible. Awareness of the truth is not faith in the truth. What the sinner does is exchange the truth of God for a lie. "We know that Abraham was not justified until his belief was obedient. " I am still waiting to hear how you fit Romans 4:5 into what "we" know. As well as God justifying Abraham before his obedience in circumcision. If you are correct, you have to incorporate Paul's argument into your thinking. --Joe! |
||||||
327 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78630 | ||
Greetings. You wrote: "His incomplete faith led to his obedience. We've discussed on this forum the faith that all men have, ought to have, because of the evidence in creation. Each man is without excuse should he leave this earth without being reconciled to God." Amen. But they key term you brought up is that men ought to have that faith. Those who will be in hell do not possess a "faith without obedience" or a "faith that is about to obey." They possess no trust at all in the Jesus of the Bible. "Abraham had this faith and he acted upon it." That he did. And all true faith in Christ does lead to obedience. The question is whether it is the trust in Christ or the obedience (or some combination of the two) that receives the imputed righteousness of Christ. Again, Romans 4 shuts the door on obedience being that conduit. What do you have to say about Romans 4:5? You wrote: "But as I have said, faith that 'is about to obey' isn't what God credits as righteousness." Are you sure? Paul wrote: 'Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them," --Romans 4:9-11 The order of events, according to Paul, is: a) Abraham believed God b) God considers him righteous c) Abraham obeys God by circumcision There is no other way to render the passage but to conclude that Abraham's obedience to God's command to be circumcised was a result and an evidence of his saving faith, so his "faith that was about to obey" was precisely the instrument of his justification before God. And, yes, faith without works is dead, and cannot save. A dead faith is not true faith at all. --Joe! |
||||||
328 | Still studying Mattew 24 | Matt 24:3 | Reformer Joe | 78628 | ||
Not to mention that it solves the "this generation will not pass away until these things happen" problem... --Joe! |
||||||
329 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78627 | ||
Well, we on the other side have to remember that we are not justified by election, that our justification is conditioned upon our faith. And I think that all believers (especially myself) need to remember that at no point in our Christian lives do we need to look at our obedience (or lack thereof) as the basis of our right standing with God. It is so easy to fall into the trap of looking at our sin and despair, thinking that somehow God is now looking at our performance as what will get us into heaven, rather than the obedience of His Son on our behalf. I do see my baptism as a sign and seal of God's promise to me. How gracious of God to give our weak selves visible signs in water and bread and cup to point to His grace. --Joe! |
||||||
330 | Still studying Mattew 24 | Matt 24:3 | Reformer Joe | 78597 | ||
You asked: "OK, so if Matthew 24 has already occured why hasn't Jesus returned? Is Matthew 24 split into two different time periods? " That is exactly what some believe, actually. Proponents of what is commonly called "partial preterism" look at Matthew 24 as Jesus' two-part answer to what they consider to be a two-part question in verse 3: "[a] Tell us, when will these things happen, and [b] what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" You asked: "What about the sun and moon being darkend, and stars falling from the sky, when does that occure? A group of small meteors striking the earth could easly account for that." Often prophecy uses cosmic and environmental symbolism to describe total destruction. Those who hold that part of Matthew 24 took place in A.D. 70 suggest that this is the case in this situation. --Joe! |
||||||
331 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78589 | ||
You wrote: "Before Abraham obeyed God, his faith was not perfect (James 2)!" We can examine what James could have meant by that, but in the meantime, even James 2 indicates that faith is united with works, demonstrating that the faith was present for the works to be added to them. Hence, the faith through which people are justified precedes obedience. Secondly, whatever James means by writing that faith is perfected by obedience, Romans 4:1-11 still tells us that Abraham was saved by his faith prior to and apart from obedience. "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" --Romans 4:5 You wrote: "You ought not put on that superior tone when you know NOTHING of his faith prior to his obedience." No superior tone here, but I humbly do know something of his faith prior to his obedience, because the Bible tells me about his faith prior to it. Hebrews 11:8-10. You wrote: " I think the Hebrew writer has as much sense as you, and he could only speak of what Abraham DID to describe faith." I think the writer of Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so his words are God's words, and therefore could comment on things beyond what he perceived with his own five senses. And what did he say? "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." --Hebrews 11:6 So did Abraham obey God, possessing faith, or not? --Joe! |
||||||
332 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78587 | ||
Exactly. And you know as well as I that it takes careful study of Scripture not to jump to false conclusions. Faith in Jesus Christ and works are inseparably united, but to consider them the same thing is error. One group tends to go to one extreme, saying that works are faith, while another rejects any theology which even mentions works at all. Same with baptism. Some see it as what justifies individuals. Others see it as a nice "extra" or an empty symbol or picture. It is none of these things. --Joe! |
||||||
333 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78525 | ||
You do not know if Abraham had faith before he obeyed God? You think it is possible Abraham's obedience was faithless? "By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God." --Hebrews 10:8-10 So I ask again, did his faith cause his obedience or not? --Joe! |
||||||
334 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78451 | ||
Hello, sniper. You wrote: 'I am not familiar with the term "household baptisms".' In the entire New Testament, only nine individuals (other than Jesus himself) are mentioned by name as having been baptized. The Ethiopian eunuch and Saul/Paul were probably single. Simon Magus and Gaius are not identified as either heading a household or not heading one. The households of the other five (Lydia, Crispus, the jailer, Stephanas, and Cornelius) were baptized upon profession of faith by the head of household. In most of the cases, the belief of the other members of the household is not mentioned at all. You wrote: "The Bible teaches that a person must believe and repent." In order to be justified, yes. I do not argue that baptized infants are automatically declared righteous before God. "If the whole household believed and repented, then they all participated in a valid baptism. Acts 16 tells us that the household was baptized so according to the Bible they all must have believed." The accounts make no mention of their belief. You are imposing your assumption that faith and repentance must precede baptism. "I am not aware of a doctrine which teaches household baptism, whereby the household leader believes and his belief is transferred to the others because of his position." We can clearly see, beginning from Genesis on, how God works not only with individuals, but also with whole families. Entire families and tribes are included among God's covenant people, even when many of them show themselves individually not to be true children of God. Again, note that I am not saying that someone is born again by being sprinkled as an infant, nor does the parent's faith serve as the instrument for the child's justification. --Joe! |
||||||
335 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78449 | ||
"You seem to have some inside information on these households. Do you know something about the makeup of those households that isn't recorded in the Bible? Because if you do, I think you should share that with all of us." Why, yes, Disciplerami...I have uncovered first-century census data verifying that Lydia, the jailer, Stephanus, Cornelius, and Crispus each had eleven infants in their household! :) Seriously, do you have any data which would indicate that these five first-century Mediterranean households were so exceptional for their time and place as to have absolutely no small children in them? "I understand though that infant baptism is based upon such assumptions." Actually, infant baptism is not based solely on such assumptions (which are contrary to the assumptions you yourself hold), but rather on a covenantal understanding of how God works with His people. Mine is supported in both Testaments. Please show me where the individualism you hold to is demonstrated in Scripture. Note: I am not saying that infants who are baptized are regenerate. You have one other problem to solve if you dismiss both infant baptism and baptism by any other mode than immersion: where was the church between the age of the apostles (assuming they only baptized professing believers by immersion themselves) and the rise of the Anabaptists in the mid-16th century? --Joe! |
||||||
336 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78421 | ||
"May I intrude? Thank you." No problem! You weren't intruding at all; every thread is fair game. :) "Are you referring to Acts 16?" Among other places, yes. --Joe! |
||||||
337 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78411 | ||
You wrote: "Is infant baptism effectual when the child has no faith?" Are "household baptisms" effectual when only the head of household has professed faith? --Joe! |
||||||
338 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Reformer Joe | 78408 | ||
''"Did Abraham's faith exist before he offered Isaac up?" Obviously it did, he left his homeland when God told him to.' Good. We are in agreement there. Now, did Abraham's faith exist before or after he left his homeland at God's command? In other words, did Abraham believe God before he actually did ANYTHING God told him to do? --Joe! |
||||||
339 | Is Jezebel part of the church? | Rev 2:20 | Reformer Joe | 78189 | ||
Not really, sorry. We have the queen in the Old Testament and a false prophetess that goes by the same name in the church at Thyatira. Both of these were human beings who had those names. Scripture says nothing more, and that's where we should close our mouths. Did the carpenter who raised Jesus have a "Joseph spirit" that Jacob's son also had? Seeing that my name is also Joseph, do I have that same spirit? --Joe! --Joe! |
||||||
340 | Does God hear the prayers of nonbeliever | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 78188 | ||
"Yes there is. Cornelius believed and wouldn't be saved until Peter preached to him (Acts 11:14). " So you are suggesting that if Cornelius believed in all that God had previously revealed to him but had died between the Resurrection and Peter's visit, that he would be in hell now? Nothing in Acts shows that Cornelius was not already regenerate. What it does show is that he received both the Holy Spirit (which no regenerate believer had in that sense prior to Pentecost) and that he received the complete gospel gladly. One has to remember that, once Jesus rose from the dead, no one posted the information on the Internet. There were undoubtedly meny people who were looking in faith for the Messiah, as the Scriptures spoke of Him, who died not knowing that he had come and died and risen from the dead. "And John 3:16 says that the person who believe SHOULD not perish; it does not say SHALL not perish (there is a difference). John 3:36 qualifies (as does Heb 3:18,19) the statement to show that an obedient belief is required." The King James reads, "should." Other translations read "shall" or "will." What is the Greek verb? What is its tense and mood, disciplerami? In English, "should" is not always a synonym for "ought to." True belief manifests itself in obedience. No argument there. "John 12:42 shows that many believed but were unwilling to confess for fear of being put out of the synogogue. These people believe but are not saved." The Greek verb for "believe" also means "to be persuaded." It does not necessarily mean the entrusting of oneself to Christ for the forgiveness of sins that can be characterized as biblical faith. "What is ridiculous is that plain Bible is ignored." You mean like when Paul wrote that "having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"? Or when he wrote that we are saved by grace through faith? Or when he contrasts faith and works in Romans 4, showing that our works will never be the basis of us being declared righteous before God? Speaking of the plain Bible, you wrote: "Does God hear the prayers of unsaved people? If their heart is seeking the truth, the answer is 'yes.' " Plain Bible coming up: "as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." --Romans 3:10-12 --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [123] >> |