Results 41 - 60 of 500
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Why can God kill when he tells us not to | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 36037 | ||
First of all, the command is best translated from the Hebrew to mean: "You shall not murder." Since Exodus 21 gives us a large list of capital offenses, it would be illogical to assume that God tells us not to kill at all and then goes on to tell us to take the life of another in certain circumstances. Secondly, the best answer is that the taking of human life is the prerogative of God. In other words, God has sovereign control over life and death, and to murder another human being in cold blood is to usurp God's authority over the lives and deaths of his creatures. Therefore, we must always keep the Creator-creature distinction in mind. God has all authority over all things and circumstances, and He has not bestowed all authority on people to act as they see fit in the life-and-death department. --Joe! |
||||||
42 | How do I deal with Hatred toward God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 36400 | ||
Interesting that he claims not to believe, and yet he hates a God in whom he does not believe? Of course your acquaintance hates God. That is what all non-Christians do. You may want to point out to him that he is even mentioned in the Bible (Romans 1:30) as someone who is storing up the wrath of God that will be poured out on him should he not repent. He will be left with no excuse, Read the whole section starting with verse 20, and think and pray about how you can communicate this truth to him. And lest you despair, let me share something else with you: all of us were enemies of God before He regenerated us (Romans 5:10). We were all children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). So your friend is not in any position that you yourself were not in at one point. Also, Martin Luther, the great reformer of the church in the 16th century, wrote that before his conversion that he once made the comment: "Love God? Sometimes I hate him!" And if God can change a man like that into his instrument, He can do the same or greater with your acquaintance. Pray for him, have confidence in the power of God to change his heart, and do not hold back telling him the whole truth of Scripture in Christian love. --Joe! |
||||||
43 | How can the Bible be "objective" truth | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 38313 | ||
wak: "Objective" truth is something that reflects reality. It does not depend on the opnion of an individual to make it true or false. A non-Biblical example would be Chicago. What state is Chicago in? That is an example of objective truth. If I were to insist until my dying breath that Chicago is the capital of Iowa, that doesn't change the objectivity of the truth; it just means I am in error about that truth. Going back to the Bible now, you are absolutely correct that people disagree on what the Bible teaches. First of all, godly, prayerful people can be wrong, despite all of their prayers and their godliness and their study. Who knows? I might even be wrong on one or two things, myself! ;) However, the fact that some misinterpret the Bible, for whatever reason (and a big reason for many is not careful study, but a desire to make it say what one wants it to say), does not mean that the Bible isn't objectively true. If there is disagreement among people, then at least one of those people is in error, but the Bible's contents themselves remain as objectively true as the location of Chicago. --Joe! |
||||||
44 | Crusifiction of Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 40968 | ||
Here is a site in support of the Cross and opposes the Jehovah's Witness notion of a torture stake: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm --Joe! |
||||||
45 | Show in the Bible once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 41371 | ||
Here's some: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" --Romans 3:21-24 (notice that last phrase, what form does justification take and how was it accomplished?) "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," --Romans 5:1 (again, justification by faith, thanks to what Christ has done, and PEACE between us and God) "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." --Romans 8:1-4 (God accomplished salvation though sending His Son...an act that will not be "undone") "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." --John 5:24 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." --John 6:37-40 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." --1 Peter 1:3-5 (we are protected by God's power for salvation) ...plus many more! --Joe! |
||||||
46 | Raven, do you want ALL the Law? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 45612 | ||
You wrote: " The bottom line is the Law is the Law, whether for salvation, redemption, sanctification, justification, daily living, etc. If you are going to be under the Law for ANY purposes, then you must be under ALL of it." While I agree that by the law no flesh shall be justified (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16), what is your Scriptural support that the believer in Jesus Christ has NO use of the Law? In addition, how do you explain passages like this, which refer to the application of God's law to a Christian? " Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH." --Ephesians 6:1-3 Paul quotes the fifth commandment verbatim and tells the Christian to follow it. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." --Ephesians 6:4 This is basically a reiteration of Deuteronomy 6: God's law again. James refers to God's moral law as "the law of liberty" in James 1:22-25; 2:8-12. The law is the mirror into which Christians must look to see where how their sanctification is progressing. God still uses His perfect standard to convict us of our sin, to show us what Christ-like living looks like, and it drives us constantly to the Cross when we are reminded over and over that we are saved by Christ's righteousness and not our own. --Joe! |
||||||
47 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48023 | ||
Jawz: I don't think that Hank was disparaging church tradition. He said: "When the authority of Scripture plays second fiddle to man's tradition in the orchestra of the church, translational accuracy becomes rather a moot issue anyway." He was criticizing the elevation of extra-biblical tradition above the revelation of Scripture. For a clear understanding of the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (and it is not a rejection of all tradition and the church in favor of "just me and my Bible"), I would recommend that you read _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ by Keith Mathison. It presents a very clear historical and biblical analysis of the doctrine, as well as commentary on the Roman and Orthodox views and the "solo Scriptura" view of far-too many contemporary evangelicals. Personally, I enjoy the traditions in my church. I attend a very liturgical church, but also one that holds that only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), that it is our only source of God's revelation since the apostolic age, and it is the sole INFALLIBLE authority for our faith and practice. That is not to discard the role of the church, but to place it subordinate to God's written revelation, as the early church recognized it to be. --Joe! |
||||||
48 | Not God in 3 persons blessed trinty! | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49373 | ||
Well, aren't you a treasure! You are about as charming as all of the other Oneness folks that I have had the pleasure of dialoguing with. And just as open-minded to discussing Biblical truth I might add. At least you didn't refer to me as "trinity filth" as one of your brethren did once. :) Okay, as Makarios pointed out, there is quite enough Trinitarian dialogue on the Forum if you care to browse through it. However, to recap briefly, the Trinity is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn when you put the following Biblical teachings together: 1. There is one God. 2. The Father is God. 3. The Son is God. 4. The Holy Spirit is God. 5. There is a subject-object distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, one Person refers to a different person as "another." The Father and the Son dialogue. The Father sent the Son. The Father and the Son send the Spirit. The Son prays to the Father (and this is not the human nature of Jesus communicating with the divine nature of Jesus, although we could examine those passages if you wish). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit demonstrate that each exists simultaneously with the others at the baptism of Jesus. In short, we agree on points one through four above (with a variation on point three, if you are like most Oneness people), and disagree on point five. I have yet to have a Oneness person adequately explain away the obvious interaction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so I remain a Trinitarian. If you can point out where all three are Jesus Christ, addressing all those verses where they seem to be acting upon one another, I am all ears. You wrote: "The book of Rev. state John only saw one on the throne.I think the word proves your Catholic teachings wrong" Not Roman Catholic, in case you couldn't tell by the name. But let's look at Revelation: 'And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they *sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."' --Revelation 5:6-10 Who is the One on the throne? Who is the Lamb who was slain to purchase people from every tribe, tongue, and nation for God? And considering the Lamb before the throne is taking the book from the hand of the One on the throne, we have a hard time saying that the Lamb (Jesus) is the One on the throne (the Father). Whose teachings are shown to be wrong in Revelation? "why does the Roman catholic allow the Trinty Baptism and Deney the very name the say they belieave in?" Well, I will let Roman Catholics speak for themselves. We Protestants allow the Trinity baptism, using the same formula that Jesus gave to his disciples in Matthew 28:19,20. Protestants do not deny the name of Jesus, and I am quite sure that the Catholics on this forum do not, either. And yes, I know Acts 2:38. --Joe! |
||||||
49 | Law or grace or both? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 49852 | ||
Living UNDER the Law and Grace? No, but those who are by God's grace being sanctified will naturally submit themselves to God's moral law. As a Gentile, I was never part of the Mosaic Covenant. I was never under the Law of Moses, but as a human being I am held accountable for following God's revealed moral will, which is reflected in the Ten Commandments. Christ fulfilled the moral will of God perfectly for me, but it still serves as a standard for righteousness and I can gauge the level of God's sanctifying work in me by how well I am following his commandments. Read Romans 8:1-9 for the relationship between God's law and the Christian walk. Psalm 19 and Psalm 119 also reveal the usefulness of the law for the one saved by God's grace. --Joe! |
||||||
50 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 50199 | ||
I will try to help you get a Bible, and I praise God for your new life in Christ! I noticed that you live outside the United States, the home of most of our "regulars" here. What country are you from? Does RSA stand for "Republic of South Africa"? In the meantime, you can access the Bible online at http://bible.gospelcom.net It has a variety of translations and languages, and most contain both the Old and New Testaments. --Joe! |
||||||
51 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51038 | ||
You wrote: "Would you teach what the bible says in Mark 16:16?" I would teach what the whole Bible says, placing Mark 16:16, a disputed verse, in the context with the clear and undisputed passages such as Romans 4:1-5, Romans 5:1-8, Titus 3:4-5, John 3:16, John 5:24, etc. etc. "The answer to your Galatians question is ch.3:26-27." Let's see: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise." --Galatians 3:24-29 Hmmm...nothing there that contradicts NO additional conditions to the Abrahamic Covenant by which we are saved. What does it say, however? 1. We are justified through FAITH. 2. We are sons of God through FAITH in Christ Jesus. Adoption hinges on faith. That is the instrument. 3. All who have been baptized in Christ Jesus into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Where does this say that baptism is a condition of justification or adoption? Nowhere. All of those whom Paul is addressing were baptized. Also, all of those whom Paul is addressing have professed faith in Christ Jesus. This passage does not say that baptism precedes justification, however, and to do so would contradict what he said ten verses earlier! 4. We are sons and heirs according to the PROMISE God made to Abraham. Abraham was declared righteous for believing God. The Israelites were declared righteous not by following the Law of Moses, but by believing God. No other conditions were added to the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore, the elect of Israel "got into Christ" by faith in God's redemption, and the Law was not another condition. Christians "get into Christ" by faith, NOT works, and baptism and the Lord's Supper are not conditions or means do becoming part of the Abrahamic Covenant. It says 3 times in this passage alone that faith is the instrument God uses for our justification and adoption. Show me one single passage that uses the word "justification" and "baptism" in the same verse, and I will recant of my "error." It is simply not there. But let's assume that I am wrong. Please tell me what Galatians 3:15-17 IS saying, then! --Joe! |
||||||
52 | Has anyone found any good web sites that | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51230 | ||
I second the www.oneplace.com recommendation. Most of th eteachers I listen to (including my own pastor) have programs that last from a few minutes to an hour. One of my favorites is Alistair Begg's program Truth For Life. I would also recommend Crace to You and the Bible Study Hour, Transforming Presence, the Moody Bible Hour, Stand to Reason, and the White Horse Inn for some in-depth Bible Study. I enjoy the teaching and discussion on all of them. --Joe! |
||||||
53 | Saved with Baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51301 | ||
Just to clear things up in this discussion a litte, not all who baptize the infants of believers believe that the baptism "saves" or regenerates the child. What Reformed folks who believe in infant baptism teach is that infant baptism marks the infants of believers as members of God's covenant community, like circumcision was to male children in the nation of Israel. They cite Colossians 2:11-12 as support of the connection between the OT ordinance and the NT one. All classical Protestants believe that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Therefore, no one is justified by baptism, infant or otherwise. --Joe! |
||||||
54 | Do we as men dictate the terms of Salv? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51550 | ||
"The book of Galatians, ;1,2Cor.;Eph;Col;Phil;Romans;etc. were written to baptized believers or unbaptized believers?" They were written to churches, made up mostly of baptized believers (with some baptized unbelievers mixed in, to be sure). There was no concept of an unbaptized believer in the New Testament, just like there should not be a concept of an unbaptized believer today. You wrote: "You put what Jesus tells us to do to be saved, (to be baptized) in the same category as the Law of Moses!" I don't put baptism in the category of what Jesus tells us to do in order to be saved. I know: Mark 16:16. Please cite for me ANY other verse where Jesus links baptism and salvation. As has been clearly pointed out, that section of Mark may not be the divinely-inspired writing of Mark. You believing it was definitely in the autographs is a an article of faith on your part and not an extablished fact. You wrote: "1 John 2:4 "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a lair, and the truth is not in him". You are absolutely right. My obedience in baptism is evidence that I do indeed know Him, but it is not the means by which I came to know Him. 'Jesus told Ananias to tell Saul to "arise and be baptized and wash away his sins" Acts 22:16.' He certainly did. He also told a crowd of people, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Do you take this to mean that we should be cannibals? Jesus said of the bread: "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." Do you hold it to be the literal body of Christ? Are we really eating Him? The sacramental elements point to spiritual realities; they do not create them. The water in baptism is a sign of washing away sins, just like the bread and the cup are the sign of Christ's body being offered for His people. The sign of baptism accompanies the reality of regeneration, but it is not the same thing as regeneration. You wrote: "We need to have faith in what God tells us to do, and do it without questions!" Like I told mouse2, that statement makes no sense. We can have faith in God and his character. We can have faith in what Christ accomplished. How does one have faith in a command? When you were a child, and your mother told you to clean your room, did you have faith in that commandment? There is nothing to have faith in! One can have faith in declaratives (the earth is round; God is one; Jesus's death paid the penalty for my sins). One either obeys or disobeys imperatives (honor your father and mother; eat your peas; don't play in traffic; be baptized). One is faith; the other is obedience. One results from the other, but they are not the same thing. --Joe! |
||||||
55 | Rom 7:9 What's it mean? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51564 | ||
Hello, Rob. Actually, Romans 7:9 affirms the doctrine of original sin rather than denies it. He previously made this statement: "For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death." --Romans 7:5 He writes that our sinful passions were AROUSED by the Law. The actual presence of the Law caused sin to find an outlet. The Westminster Catechism teaches that sin is "any want [lack] of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God." In other words, sin only makes sense in the context of God's commandments. What Paul is saying here is that when those in the flesh (non-Christians) hear God's commandments, their natural inclination is to want to break it or not comply with it. Therefore, our sinful nature rebels against the law of God to produce actual sins. The verse you asked about is in response to a hypothetical objection that could be raised, since Paul has just said that the law causes more sins: 'What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.' --Romans 7:7-8 So is the Law sin if it produces sin in us? Paul answers emphatically that the law is not sin. But, we know sin (i.e. become intimately familiar with it) therough the Law. Hearing the commandment not to covet makes the sinful person say "Aha! Coveting is against God's moral code; therefore, I shall covet!" Notice that Paul says that sin "takes the opportunity"; our indwelling sin sees an outlet through which the sinful person can rebel against a holy God. The result? Coveting of every kind! How rebellious and hateful toward God we were before in His grace He condescended to rescuing us! We then get to Romans 7:9, which describes in more detail the effect of God's holy Law on sin. The commandment came, making sin alive (stirring it up in us) and as a result, death (Romans 6:23). He goes on in the following verse to say that the commandment, through keeping of which we would live, produces death when our sinful nature becomes aware of it. The law is not sin; but it is a catalyst for our sinful natures to do acts of unrighteousness. God does this to make us aware of our sinfulness, so that sin will be made "utterly sinful." This is why proclaiming God's law is so important in evangelism; if the person does not see his utter hopelessness in sin, he is not going to realize his need for a Savior. Your post does raise an interesting question, however. Do we have to actually hear the commandments of God in order to be sinners? I think the answer is "no," based on Romans 1:18 ff. which talks about the rebellion of man against the general revelation of God (the "light of creation"), and Romans 2:12-16 which talks about the moral sense God has given all human beings. While there may be an age of accountability for those who are not able to apprehend the world around them yet or recognize their "conscience," the doctrine of original sin is a very well-developed one in Scripture. --Joe! |
||||||
56 | is there gender in the spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 52599 | ||
Are you asking if the Holy Spirit is revealed as a "He" or if there is a distinction between human males and females who are believers ("in the Spirit")? --Joe! |
||||||
57 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 53009 | ||
Keep the price tag on and take it back! Well, that's what I think. Dake was so out in left field that he couldn't see home plate with a telescope. --Joe! |
||||||
58 | LEFT BEHIND? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 60034 | ||
I believe the latest makes number 10. One has to pay too much for one, although I am not aware of the exact amount. --Joe! |
||||||
59 | complete return to biblical Christianity | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 62361 | ||
I am inclined to disagree strongly. The Reformation sought to correct the errors of late medieval Roman Catholicism, not to completely scrap everything that the RCC believes. Like it or not, for milennia, the RCC was THE CHURCH in the West. Even with its errors, it is the vehicle God used to promote His gospel. The only other alternative is to conclude that the church disappeared off the face of the earth and re-appeared sometime after the Renaissance. The Reformation was just that: a reformation, returning the church to biblical Christianity. --Joe! |
||||||
60 | limited protestant? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 63908 | ||
Johnny: You wrote: "Why some doctrine and traditions of catholic accepted by the protestant?" Because not everything in Roman Catholicism is wrong, from the classical Protestant point-of-view. The Reformers saw themselves as not re-establishing the church, but in correcting the wrong turns she had made during the Middles Ages (hence the Term "Reformation" rather than "Restoration"). You wrote: 'Is there any apostle in the bible that celebrate the said events, is there any doctrine that give by the apostle that there is Christmas "the mass of Christ" and christian has to celebrate it or is this a truly invention of man' Christmas isn't mandated, but I wouldn't say that there is any serious reason for forbidding it, either. Not every invention of man is an affront to God. For example, do you sing only Psalms at your church, or do you sing hymns that are not included in Scripture? If you sing hymns, you are engaging in something created by men. Now these hymns may be God-honoring, theologically accurate, and very traditional, but John Newton wrote "Amazing Grace," and not the Holy Spirit. I always find it interesting that those who want to throw every tradition out solely because it is not apostolic want to keep other things that came along much later than Christmas. Ecclesiastes 7:29 is not talking about liturgical traditions, but rather the wicked schemes that men devise despite the fact that "God made mankind upright." That having been said, I do think that there are a lot of "new traditions" out there which do dishonor Christ and run counter to Scripture, out of harmony completely with the traditions of the apostles. However, I am not convinced that Christmas is one of them. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [25] >> |