Results 41 - 60 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100007 | ||
"Your right sermons are not Biblical they are Biblically based and hopefully are founded on Biblical principals and rooted in truth. However I have heard many that were Biblically based but not founded on Biblical principals and therefore rooted in false doctrine." All of us have. "Let us not elevate a doctrine of man to level it does not deserve. It may quote scripture, it may contain Biblical truths but it is not scripture it is nothing more that a Biblically bases opinion/statement constructed by man." Yes, I agree again. Now, which of us is committing that error? If I had a dime for every time my wife heard "that's MAN's doctrine" or "that's MAN's teaching" or "that's MAN's interpretation" while growing up in churches of your denomination, I could retire today. It seems that every time certain people want to put their point of view above critique, they play the "MAN's doctrine" card, thereby implying that they are promoting "GOD's truth." "Why do you want to shut down the forum. It seems that since Lockman has made an effort to relieve the forum of the burden of redundant endless arguing certain groups have launched a campaign to harm the forum rather than abide by it’s rules and terms." Are you really that incapable of detecting satire? You must have a hard time with 2 Corinthians. I have "launched a campaign" now? Come on, man! :) "Anytime you modify a word of scripture to suit your understanding of scripture then I think it is fair to say your applying man's interpretation to scripture. However when you apply a literal interpretation then you doing nothing more than repeating scripture." I disagree. It is more than repeating Scripture. If that were so, then there would be no need to do anything from the pulpit than just open the Bible and start reading. EVERYONE interprets. The question is, "Who is interpreting correctly?" --Joe! |
||||||
42 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100006 | ||
'While you're thinking consider all the bad thoughts you still entertain then think about your own "purity" and ask a few questions of yourself. The first one maybe should be, "How come if Jesus saved me"?' Romans 7 answers that one. --Joe! |
||||||
43 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 100005 | ||
"How so? WCF is an 'interpretation' of that which is Biblical and therefore is open to challenge." Oh, so now we CAN challenge things that we consider to be contrary to Scripture? (The previous statement is directed toward the entire Forum). I was under the impression that critique of other points-of-view within Christian orthodoxy were forbidden now, because a DENOMINATION ("gasp!") might happen to teach it... Listen: I have no problem with my views being challenged. In fact, I welcome it. And I wish others on this Forum had less of a problem with their own views being challenged. "Make sense?" Makes perfect sense to me. You're preaching to the choir. :) --Joe! |
||||||
44 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99981 | ||
"The spirit of the rules are to keep tensions down so this is a desirable Forum to contribute in." I agree. I am in no way intolerant of opposing views, and I never would have appealed to the new moderator of this Forum to have our new headline established, no matter how much I disagree with those Christians who hold a view opposite to mine. "The letter of the rules and inforcing every dot and stroke will only add to the argument you are having, which is not the intention of the rules." Of course it's not. My responses are intended to facetiously reveal the ridiculousness of trying to say ANYTHING theological without stating something along the way that another Christian will disagree with. "Think about it, who is getting the glory by whats being said." Scripture is rife with satire and sarcasm. Glorifying God and ridiculing the silly behavior of our brothers in Christ are not always mutually exclusive propositions. "Are we reflecting Jesus to others now?" I think Jesus would be a lot more critical of what we are seeing here than I am. He certainly wasn't Pollyana when confronting hypocrisy. --Joe! |
||||||
45 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99930 | ||
"It is based on man's interpretation not what the Bible says therefore calling it not biblical is not reflecting a denominational bias. " Then the sermons at your church are not biblical either, and neither are your posts. ALL interpretations of Scripture are given by men. Therefore, let's shut the Forum down because all we have since the apostles wrote down the NT is "man's interpretation." --Joe! |
||||||
46 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99923 | ||
'There is a difference between innocence and purity. A baby is innocent. Purity is from nuturing and not a given but must be learned in innocence. Jesus saves to make innocence by virtue of the new birth. Purity happens when we abide and are nutured into "son-ship".' What Scriptures inform this perspective? --Joe! |
||||||
47 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99922 | ||
"I disagree Ken Hepting stated fact, the Westminster Confession is not Biblical nor scripture." I agree that it is not Scripture. However, the statement that the WCF is not biblical (i..e. that its contents are contrary to the Bible) is a reflection of denominational bias. Please refrain from it. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
48 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99875 | ||
'Didn't say that. I made reference to the children of "unregenerate", "unelect" parents. Since Jesus made no distinctions, why should we?' Who said we should, with regard to evangelism? And how do you know that the parents were unregenerate? They were bringing their children to Jesus, after all. Lastly, Jesus said: "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" The kingdom belongs to SUCH as these, not specifically to them (necessarily). By the way, this is one of the passages that some use to support the baptism of infants, since the kingdom of God belongs not only to those old enough to profess their faith yet. --Joe! |
||||||
49 | Abrahamic covenant fulfillment ?...ect.. | Bible general Archive 2 | Reformer Joe | 99851 | ||
"The church has not replaced God's plan for Israel" Even covenant theologians do not, by and large, hold to a "replacement theology." Most see that God's plan all along was redemption for all humanity. God tells Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed. Conversion of the Gentiles was never "Plan B," and God worked temporarily through the nation of Israel in almost an exclusive sense until the Messiah came. It was through the rejection of their Messiah that the Jews became "branches broken off so we could be grafted in," (Romans 11) but that doesn't take away from the fact that that chapter also predicts a return of Israel from the apostasy they have been in for the last 2000 years. Nor does it suggest that there are two separate covenants with two ways of salvation, one for Israel and one for the rest of humanity. Reading Romans 9-11 answers the question, "What about Israel." Also, Ephesians 2 shows how there are not "two tracks," as Christ made one new people out of two peoples, breaking down the dividing wall of hostility. ""Abrahamic covenant (not yet fulfilled)" The Abrahamisc Covenant is fulfilled in Christ. That is one of the main arguments in the book of Galatians, particularly chapters 3 and 4. --Joe! |
||||||
50 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99849 | ||
"But that is Calvinism through and through and not Biblical at all. [see forum rules]" Yes, please see forum rules. A disposition against Calvinism is a denominational bias. Please refrain from it. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
51 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99848 | ||
"Salvation, for anyone, wasn't even made availabble for anyone at this point in time." So no one before the resurrection was saved?!? --Joe! |
||||||
52 | 2 Samuel sin prophesied by Nathan | 2 Samuel | Reformer Joe | 99590 | ||
You are understanding it correctly. Sin has consequences that often reach far beyond our own lives. --Joe! |
||||||
53 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99569 | ||
Gee, I don't recall any battle going on between us. "Our salvation depends on our individual repentance and faith and not on the doctrine of the group to which we pay allegience." That itself is a doctrine of the group to which I pay allegiance (speaking of both my denomination and "the one holy catholic church"). Your statement that I quoted above IS doctrine. Lastly, although justification is an individual experience, the Bible speaks abundantly of community life in the church. I don't think it unbiblical to assert that in many respects, personal sanctification is a group effort. --Joe! |
||||||
54 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99527 | ||
"Does a Reformed person have personal assurance of salvation, and do they not care to be asked about it?" Yes, we have assurance of salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
55 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99526 | ||
"It was good to hear from you. When I logged in today and saw the notice, I was afraid we might have lost you." Naw, I am a veteran. Guess I can just say that Jesus died and rose again. Anything more would be promoting "denominational bias"! ;) "It do not feel the need to need to study it in depth any more than I feel the need to study Mormonism or Confucianism or any of the hundreds of other isms out there in depth." Of course, the difference is that Mormonism and Confucianism fall outside of Christian orthodoxy. "Again, I was really not aware that Luther and Bunyon and Spurgeon were Calvinists. Now I find out that the list is even longer. But it really does not matter. I would only note that I do not see Peter or Paul or James or John on that list." Well, I would put them on there, but that would just "cause a stink," as my dearly departed grandmother would say. I merely made a list of the indisputable cases. "I am surprised that Harold Camping is not on the list and I think he would be surprised as well." Well, I could call myself a fire engine, but that wouldn't make me one... :) "On the other hand I think John McArthur would be surprised to find himself on it." No, he wouldn't. He speaks at Sproul's conferences every year and is a frequent contributor to _Tabletalk_ Magazine. He and Phil Johnson at Grace to You are big fans of the Puritans. "My hope is that we would be followers, not of men or isms, but of Christ." As is my hope. So I should reject both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? :) --Joe! |
||||||
56 | Are Reformed people lost souls? | 2 Pet 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 99497 | ||
Whoa. Harold Camping is a nut, a cultist, and not representative in the slightest of classical Reformed theology. If that is what you understand Reformed theology to be, no wonder it is so distasteful. Spurgeon and William Carey and Jhn Bunyan were Reformed. So were many of the writes of the hymns you sing every Sunday (Augustus Toplady, Isaac Watts, John Newton, etc.). Modern-day examples of Reformed teachers would include R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Alistair Begg, Sinclair Ferguson, John Armstrong, John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler (the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and James R. White. Reformed theology also does not minimize the value of introspection regarding one's salvation. The Puritans (who were Reformed) were champions of "self-examination." Whether or not you ultimately agree with a particular perspective is one thing. I think it is in one's best interest to at least understand the different perspectives within the wide range of Christian orthodoxy. --Joe! |
||||||
57 | Is the Potter free to do as He pleases? | Eph 2:3 | Reformer Joe | 99320 | ||
Post #99232 | ||||||
58 | Can I serve as elder if have no children | 1 Tim 3:4 | Reformer Joe | 99315 | ||
I would say that one is qualified without children, even though the presence of godly children does indicate that one is faithful in leading a household and therefore more qualified to lead the household of faith. --Joe! |
||||||
59 | "objects of wrath" revisted | Eph 2:3 | Reformer Joe | 99232 | ||
Actually, Paul uses the term "children of wrath" in Ephesians 2:3, and includes everyone in that category as being formerly in that category or still in that category ("We all"). He is also referring to our natures, not referring to God's purpose in election. Even if I was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world and my sins were atoned for by Christ centuries before my birth, in my nature I was (i.e. before conversion) just like those who will be in hell. Therefore, I can say that I was formerly a child of wrath and never a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. --Joe! |
||||||
60 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 99027 | ||
In any case, Mormon hell is pretty empty. Not the way Jesus described it at all. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [123] >> |