Results 81 - 100 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | What do you object to? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18550 | ||
Ummm...Steve? I think she was talking about the errors of Word-Faith teachers, not hyper-Calvinists... --Joe! |
||||||
82 | Dispensation of Time? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18759 | ||
The chart is definitely detailed, but good? What a mess! For a critique of this chart, feel free to visit http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm --Joe! |
||||||
83 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20249 | ||
Tim: Actually, although Lionstrong seems to have pointed it out to you in his own cuddly way, Calvinists also believe that in most cases men will not receive Christ unless someone preaches Him to them. We simply say that God in His sovereignty WILL bring someone bearing the gospel to that individual. We hold that the Spirit of God works through the proclamation of His word (we call it a "means of grace"). I think that the difference in evangelism is in the presentation. For example, I am commanded by God to glorify Him and proclaim His truth to other human beings. Some of them are of the elect and some are not. While I certainly don't have a photocopy of the Book of Life, I also hold that everyone I share the message of Christianity with will continue in their stubborn unbelief unless God changes the disposition of his/her heart. Therefore, I strongly avoid the high-pressure, touchy-feely approaches to evangelism. Since it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates, any sugar-coating or soft-peddling the truth of God's holiness, man's depravity, and our utter helplessness before Him could lead to spurious conversions. That is, I do not want to be responsible for giving someone an emotional, warm feeling of being saved if the true possession of faith is not there. Of course, I can never be 100 percent sure, since it is not I who judges the heart, but woe is me if I give someone a false sense of assurance of salvation based on a misunderstanding of what true saving faith is. While I do not think that most Arminians present a false view of justification by faith alone, I do see a tendency to place a high value on packaging the presentation just right, to rely on technique a little too much. People can definitely be boorish when it comes to presenting the gospel, but the GOD LOVES YOU AND PLANS FOR YOU TO BE IN HEAVEN WITH HIM...(psst: sin)...JESUS DIED AND ROSE AGAIN BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU! approach just doesn't seem to be the most biblical way of going about it. I guess that in the Calvinist view, with such a extremely God-centered perspective of the ultimate end of salvation, our presentation of the Gospel is much less on "what God can do for you" than "Here is what God has done for His glory." It is kind of hard to put into specific terminology, but there certainly is a less human-centered approach to evangelism in the Calvinist vein. --Joe! |
||||||
84 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20250 | ||
Thes are indeed good questions. Let me take a couple in the brief time I have right this second. 1. My personal relationship to God? He is my adopted Father, and also my Lord. This is solely on the basis of His mercy toward me, and in no way based on any clever decision on my part to "accept Him." He changed my wicked disposition, despite the fact that I didn't deserve it in the slightest, and he is the one who preserves my reconciled state with Him. In other words, Christ is the Author and Perfecter of my faith. In addition, there is the core idea that I was chosen by God for a purpose beyond my own going to Heaven. 2. Accepted? I don't see much difference here between C and A here. We are both accepted solely on the basis of Christ's subsitutionary death and resurrection. More later... |
||||||
85 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20267 | ||
Okay...more. 3. Prayer life: less me-focused; more God-focused in praise and thanksgiving; acknowledging my place in the pecking order as part of the creation, to be yielded in submission to Him. You should see the blessing that our public confession has in our worship service (not individuals confessing individual sins, but corporately acknlowledging our unworthiness and continuing need for His grace). Supplication is always subordinated to God's sovereignty. 4. Bible study: this is probably the most significant way in which the two camps differ. Calvinists such as myself see the decretive will of God in all things (Romans 8:28) and all of the Biblical narrative as HIS story, how he will glorify HIMSELF throuygh redeeming the elect. In my pre-Calvinist days, I had to struggle with passages which clearly talk about predestination and election and us being caused to be born again. The Calvinist truly sees all things in the Bible working for the chief end of glorifying God above all. 5. Worship of God: Complete and total reverance and fear of the Lord are the centerpieces of Reformed worship. STRONG emphasis on God's absolute holiness and his grace in not just leaving us to perish in our sins. 6. Evangelism: Much less concern about technique, much more emphasis on content and speaking the truth proclamationally, whether the individual accepts it or not. No temptation to soften the truth or overlook parts the individual would rather not hear for the sake of "winning him." --Joe! |
||||||
86 | Who dose not belive in the TERM Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20728 | ||
Yeah, please do that, Radioman. I am sure that this is the first person you have encountered who makes the erroneous claim that the Trinity began with the Council of Nicaea.. :) --Joe! P.S. -- Anti-Trinitarians deny the truth of what Scripture reveals |
||||||
87 | On Harry Potter? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 21373 | ||
Of course, Narnia and Lord of the Rings were written by Christians with an overarching Christian worldview/theme. One thing that has disturbed me is not only the books, but "Little Sorcerer's Kits" marketed by the publishing company as well. One does have to discern where to draw the line, and I am pretty confident that Tim's kids, being supervised by a concerned Christian parent, will not fall into the occult. However, I also agree with Ed that the author of this series also has an agenda beyond just telling a good story. What we as Christians must make sure that we can do is counter this, just like any other false worldview, with the true gospel of Christ Jesus. Educate yourselves on the worldview of Harry Potter, grow in your understanding of God's holy Word, and be able to articulate the truth in the face of lies. It is a God-given opportunity to present the truth of Christianity whenever things of a supernatural/spiritual nature are brought up. --Joe! |
||||||
88 | On Harry Potter? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 21387 | ||
Prayon: A "worldview" is a way of looking at the world, not necessarily the world's way of looking at things. There exists a biblical worldview, the only accurate one there is. Thanks for the info on Harry Potter. As I said, it is the Christian's duty to respond to the contrary claims of the supernatural/spiritual from a Biblically-informed point of view. "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" --2 Corinthians 10:5 --Joe! |
||||||
89 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25929 | ||
Ed: You bring up some very interesting points for discussion here. I have refrained from contributing to this thread thus far because I don't believe a simple answer can be given to "when and where Roman Catholicism went wrong." Furthermore, the Lord had preserved His invisible church largely within Roman Catholicism until the Protestant Reformation. By this, I do not mean that the Church of Rome was equivalent to the invisible church, but rather that God had brought people to repentance and faith alone in Christ's sacrifice in spite of the official doctrine that developed over time. And, of course, there exist in Catholic churches today those who fall into the biblically-defined category of what makes a person a Christian. Again, they must ignore lots of official church teaching to do so, but it is a reality that some of the regenerate inhabit the visible Church of Rome. Most of these people of days gone by died in obscurity, it is very clear that both the bad and the good have existed in the visible church since Pentecost. We have the sound teaching of the apostles, but we also have the heresies that cropped up almost immediately, prompting the writing of most of the New Testament epistles as defenses against these heresies. We have Origen, and early church father who taught a brand of universalism (i.e. that everyone will eventually be saved). We have Augustine, who was referred to as an authority countless times by both Rome and Luther (by Rome for his doctrine of the church and by Luther for his clearly rock-solid, biblical understanding of justification). During the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, we have all sorts of "proto-Reformers" such as the Waldenses, the Lollards, John Wickliffe, Jan Hus, and a whole host of others. A search on any of these groups and individuals will give you a very clear picture of how God preserved his truth in the midst of error. Luther saw the main errors of Rome to lie in the areas of authority and justification. The problems that he saw (and that we see) in the Church of Rome basically resulted from a gradual elevation of Chruch tradition and authority to the level of Scriptural authority. Of course, when the two contradicted, it was the Church tradition that won out. That is why we see that Luther's main points were "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone as our authority rather than Scripture plus the Church's official pronouncements, especially when the two were not in harmony); "sola gratia" (grace alone, rather than grace plus our intrinsic merit); and "sola fide" (faith alone is the means by which we are justified, rather than by faith supplemented by our good works). The purest expression of the Lutheranism of Luther can be found in the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod (www.lcms.org). They hold to the old Lutheran confessions, and you can get a clear view of the theological distinctives of that branch of the Reformation. To the three "solas" above the Calvinists added "solus Christus" (Christ alone) and "soli Deo gloria" (to the glory of God alone). These five characteristics of classical Protestantism are known as the Doctrines of Grace. Note that Luther did not oppose either of these two points of doctrine, but rather the Calvinists expanded upon what Luther had brought to light. Coming back to the three answers given by non-church attenders, the last one touches on a misconception that exists regarding denominationalism. Yes, there are countless denominations within Protestantism, and a lot of them have formed over the most ridiculous differences in doctrine. However, I would consider any church where the Doctrines of Grace are a standard to be a Christian congregation. Yes, I differ with folks on issues of baptism, communion, when the milennium is, dispensationalism vs. covenantal theology, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, tribulations and raptures and you-name-it. I know that most of you have been subjected to large diatribes by me on some of these very issues. And while I hold those who disagree with me to be wrong (and you are, by the way!), nothing prevents me from considering those who nevertheless hold to the Doctrines of Grace to be my co-heirs in Christ. Therefore, I would argue that while there are physical divisions based on race, socioeconomic status, age, geography, cultural background, preference of worship style, and even points of doctrine, there really does exist a great deal of unity among those who can be truly called "evangelical." As far as the other two objections, the first is just plain wrong, and the second does carry some merit, since my wife and I have faced that exact same type of situation ourselves. Let that be an admonishment to us to welcome visitors to our church PERSONALLY, taking the time to build the unity that spiritually exists among all believers and make that a tangible reality. NEVER compromise on the central truths of the faith to build a false unity! --Joe! |
||||||
90 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25930 | ||
I wonder how many of those churches with less than 75 members are rural churches. In Texas and Oklahoma (and I would assume Arkansas, too) I have seen good churches in the middle of nowhere with twelve people on the membership rolls. Also, I would like to see more data on these closing churches. Churches do not always close for bad reasons. Sometimes two small congregations will merge. Sometimes the community changes in such a way as to cause the membership to dwindle. Demographics changes can also lead to church membership decline as well. So can persecution (e.g Jerusalem A.D. 70) It is interesting to read the first few chapters of Revelation and know that those churches do not exist anymore. And yet the invisible church triumphant that the saints of God belong to does and has always existed since God first established it, and God will preserve it until the return of His Son. The manifestation of the church in the world is a fluid thing, non-static in its geography and intensity. I am glad your church is so worthy of the praise you give it Hank. I too am blessed to be in a congregation where the supremacy of the Triune God and Scripture can be found in every nook and cranny of that building, its teaching and worship. We certainly have our traditions, but we pay careful heed to the words of Christ to the Pharisees: "And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" --Matthew 15:3 (see also Mark 7) --Joe! |
||||||
91 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25975 | ||
This is true enough what you say about those who major on those issues which are not central to the Christian faith. However, those who consider others excluded from the people of God on the basis of those secondary issues are really preaching a false gospel, in any case. Some of the issues you brought up are serious errors in churches, but I would suggest that they stem from rejection of Scripture rather than embracing it. For example, I would not recommend that any non-Christian investigate churches that knowlingly ordain homosexuals. That's why it all comes back down to the Bible. Churches that teach everyone must speak in tongues are not teaching biblical truth. And, of course, the perspective that I come from (the Reformed one, that is) holds to a very high view of the sovereignty of God in salvation, so I hold that one's rejection of biblical Christianity has little to do with the churches to which one is exposed. God will save whom He will in His timing and in His way. The erroneous and legalistic and apostate churches cannot mess God up in bringing His elect to Himself. And, our part is to consistently and constatntly proclaim the truth clearly and watch the Holy Spirit work theough the faithful proclamation of His word. Theological error has been in our midst from almost the beginning, and it hasn't stopped God yet! :) --Joe! |
||||||
92 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25976 | ||
Wow, Paul. These are pretty powerful words. And pretty un-historical ones. The Reformers, just like those who came before, did not seek to overthrow the Church of Rome, but to bring it back to the basics as seen in Scripture. Hence the name "REFORM." Originally there was never any intent to form new branches of Christendom, but to fix what was wrong in the existing ones. Please provide some historical examples from the Dark Ages of groups that held true to the biblical faith AND split off from the institution of Roman Catholicism. Please also demonstrate how the verse you cited refers to Rome: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." --Matthew 24:24 Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
93 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26170 | ||
Ed: Ninety-five percent? That's a staggering figure! Where did you get that number from? One thing that's very interesting is that we are attending a church whose membership numbers in the thousands, but it defies every other definition of a mega-church. It does have a wide variety of programs, but every single one of them is centered around edification of believers in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and extending the reach of the Kingdom into the world. It is very hard to be a pew-sitter in this church with such a focus on glorifying God with our entire existence. In fact, our pastor today (as he often does) declared without hesitation that being a pew-sitter is not an option for the follower of Christ. The fascinating thing about it is that I certainly didn't go there because of its size, but it seems that the growth of the church is not due to a contemporary "worship" (which it certainly does not have) or a "feel-good" sermon addressing felt needs (think solid, unapologizing Reformation doctrine), but rather due to the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of a community to bring them together to truly honor Him. I usually have been adverse to larger churches beacuse of the mega-church syndrome, but a "shopping-mall church" this ain't! --Joe! |
||||||
94 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26175 | ||
Ed; I would argue that the church's authority has diminished in direct proportion to the level it has discounted the Word of God to be an infallible authority of faith and practice. That did not start with the Reformation but rather much later, starting from the so-called "Age of Reason" of the 1700s. This period of rationalism profoundly influenced the thinking of many ministers, who in turn began to deny the truth of the Scriptures. If we say that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead but we can all be good Christians anyway, everything starts to unravel. There are a great number of books tracing the history of the church's decline of influence in the world at large. Some excellent books on the subject are _The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind_ by Mark Noll and _No Place for Truth_ by David Wells. Both trace the lack of influence that the church has to a gradual conformity to the world and the rising influence of pietism, which divorces faith from our God-given minds. In short, we have few thinking Christians in the world today. One only has to look through the posts on here to see that there is not only a non-intellectualism in Christianity today, but also a pervasive ANTI-intellectualism, as if thinking too hard about the things of God is "quenching the Spirit," somehow. I am also in the middle of an excellent book entitled _Evangelicalism Divided_ by Iain Murray, which paints a very bleak picture of how the evangelical church in the last half-century has sold its soul in order to gain more respectability in the world. It is very well-documented and points out how in Britain and in the United States a great number of denoninations, groups, and ministries traditionally aligned with evangelicalism have basically taken an attitude of "please, world, we really want you to like us, so we will do whatever it takes for you to not hate us so much." Of course, this ignores the words of our Lord completely: "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you." --John 15:18-19 If we are following Christ, the world will hate us. That is because everyone who has not been called out of the world by Christ hates Him and His church. That is why those who make petty excuses about Bible translations (other than cult mis-translations they all say pretty much the same thing) and other "side issues" rather than confronting the issue of their sinfulness. As someone who has worked on and off in countercult evangelism for more than a decade, what the cults that you mentioned offer is structure, so much so that no one needs to be a thinker; others will be happy to do it for them. They offer an avenue for people to pridefully work for their own justification, letting them be misguided in their pursuit of righteousness through works. The other side of the coin, of course, has been a near-complete abdication on the part of evangelical churches to train their members in theology for their sanctification, in addition to casting aside their biblical duty to be discerning and disciplining. A healthy church is one where the whole counsel of God is preached faithfully and consistently (that is BOTH Testaments in the context of redemptive history, centered on God and Christ, not man), where baptism and the Lord's supper are celebrated, and where biblical church discipline is present. The unhealthy churches we have in our midst are those that fall short of these trhee charateristics consistently, and people abandon unhealthy churches for cults all the time. You have no idea how many Mormon missionaries I have talked to that grew up Southern Baptists. We simply HAVE to return to teaching and training our fellow believers in the truths of God, giving them meat, and engaging them in having Christ's attitude toward ministry: "Jesus *said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.'" --John 4:34 --Joe! |
||||||
95 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26247 | ||
It is a horrible idea for Christian churches to give an audience to Muslim speakers, for the same reason it would be to give a Satanic priest an audience. Islam is a false religion that denies every single tenet of the Christian faith that leads a person to salvation. The pulpit is for the proclamation of truth, not the propagation of damnable lies. There are plenty of people who are Christians who know Islam in and out and would be perfect people to educate the congregation on Islam's tenets vs. Biblical truth. There are also many former Muslims (now Christians) who could fill that place much more effectively than any false teacher. --Joe! |
||||||
96 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26252 | ||
Norrie: Actually, these are very commonly-held views in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Augsburg Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession (all of which are followed by evangelical denominations today) state that baptism is for believers and their children. For those holding to these confessions, the baptism does not save, but it is a mark of grace which sets a child apart as a member of God's covenant community, and they state that the normal operation of God is to bring the children of believers to faith in Christ. Here is how the Heidelberg Catechism puts it: "74. Q. Should infants, too, be baptized? A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant." The Scripture passages used to support this understanding are Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14; Ps. 22:11; Is. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38, 39; Acts 16:31; Acts 10:47; I Cor. 7:14; Gen. 17:9-14; Col. 2: 11-13 Now, of course, there are congregations that hold to the Reformation doctrines with the exception of their views of baptism and the Lord's supper. Many Baptist churches, for example, are Reformed in their outlook but practice believer's baptism. --Joe! |
||||||
97 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26311 | ||
Thanks for this story. It reminded me of the Parliament of Religions that was held in Chicago in 1893 and the pluralism it led to in the 20th century. If you have never heard of that, do a web search on it. It is not that commonly-known, but it did have a dramatic pluralistic impact on the 20th century. --Joe! |
||||||
98 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26312 | ||
We don't need interfaith dilogue in churches, but instruction from the Bible on loving our enemies and blessing those who persecute us, as well as thological training showing the weaknesses and errors of Islam and proven evangelistic stragegies for speaking the truth in love. --Joe! |
||||||
99 | Islam believe christ except for what? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26351 | ||
Proclamation of the truth is what we need. Interfaith dialogue is usually ecumenical in its nature, suggesting something along the lines of "our diversity of religions makes us stronger." That is not how God saw it, and it is what led to the complete destruction of the nation of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of Judah. "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst --for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-- otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice, and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods." --Exodus 34:13-16 Granted, we are not a theocratic form of government like the nation of Israel, but our God is still named Jealous, and He does not want His people flirting with false belief systems, which ultimately are of Satan. Therefore, proclamation and debate, yes. Dialogue for the purpose of seeing the alleged "wealth" to be found in all world religions? No. --Joe! |
||||||
100 | what is baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26621 | ||
Whether you adhere to baptismal regeneration or not, it is incorrect to say that this doctrine did surfaced 200 years ago. Rather, it is the Church of Christ's teaching which is the newer doctrine. From Chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." From the Heidelberg Catechism (late 1500's): "73. Q. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the washing of regeneration and the washing away of sins? A. God speaks in this way for a good reason. He wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ remove our sins just as water takes away dirt from the body. But, even more important, He wants to assure us by this divine pledge and sign that we are as truly cleansed from our sins spiritually as we are bodily washed with water." Therefore, the concept was clearly a part of the thought of the Reformation. Speaking of church history, another problem surfaces when we insist that believers must be immersed in order to gain regeneration. That problem is the historical tradition of infant baptism. Whether or not one agrees that infant baptism is a biblical practice, one cannot deny that the sprinkling or pouring upon infants was almost exclusively the mode and timing of baptism until the Anabaptists came on the scene in the middle of the 16th century. Therefore, what happened to the church is EVERYONE was baptised as an infant for century upon century. Are you prepared to say that God's church completely dies out until believer's baptism came (back) into the picture? No one was saved for at least 1200 years? Some sovereign God we have there, if that is the case! The baptismal regeneration of believers only is most definitely a product of the restorationist tendencies of modern America. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [97] >> |