Results 261 - 280 of 283
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | Why was Abraham called the friend of God | James 2:23 | kalos | 1877 | ||
Why was Abraham called the friend of God? | ||||||
262 | Scripture please? | James 2:23 | kalos | 1898 | ||
Dear Ric: Your answer looks good and sound to me. But is there no clear verse(s) of Scripture that directly answers the question? | ||||||
263 | Define "Pope." | 1 Pet 2:9 | kalos | 1493 | ||
Thank you for the challenge of a question that is harder to answer, more controversial and emotional. Before I can answer your question, I will ask you one. Define "Pope." (I'll act like some of the members of this forum and pretend I never heard of a dictionary and let you do the work yourself, not having the ambition to look it up for myself.) | ||||||
264 | Dwell with your wife with understanding? | 1 Pet 3:7 | kalos | 659 | ||
What does it mean to dwell with your wife with understanding? (Note this question is not about election or works or divorce or Peter's mother-in-law. In your answer(s), please stick to the question as it is stated. Thank you.) | ||||||
265 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57676 | ||
If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, it will be plain to you that there is more to it than is evident on the surface.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by both these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone. It's either/or. The assumption here is that using intellectual arguments and rational persuasion on the one hand and using Scripture only while passively relying on God on the other hand are two mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever your reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. |
||||||
266 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | kalos | 57722 | ||
If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone. It's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever your reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). |
||||||
267 | Is baptism needed for salvation? (One.) | 1 Pet 3:21 | kalos | 2607 | ||
Part II. . . . In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26). . . . Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687. . . . Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. . . . I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6. . . . In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. . . . Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. . . . (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) © 2000 Grace to You |
||||||
268 | Is baptism needed for salvation? Part 0 | 1 Pet 3:21 | kalos | 2608 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? First Part (Part Zero) . . . Follow-up to the question: "Do you have to be baptized to be saved?" Also, a reply to the note: "But what about those places that it is p...?" Excuse me, but it is not my practice to pick and choose what I like and leave out the rest. . . . Is baptism necessary for salvation? By John MacArthur . . . No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: . . . First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). . . . If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? . . . Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. . . . Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. . . . The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). . . . One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation. . . . (To be continued) |
||||||
269 | Law keeping brings Spirit baptism? | 1 Pet 3:21 | kalos | 3697 | ||
Dear bubblejaws: Will keeping God's commandments bring the baptism of the Holy Spirit?You write: "keeping god's commandments will bring the baptism of the holy spirit". Really? For starters, if you could keep the commandments without the baptism, then what do you need the Holy Spirit for? Consider Gal 3:1-2,5 NASB: "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?...So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" |
||||||
270 | Why will God judge the church? | 1 Pet 4:17 | kalos | 20077 | ||
Will God judge the church? And if so, why? Aren't we promised to be spared God's wrath in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9? Aren't we told in Romans 8:1 that those who are in Christ Jesus are not subject to condemnation? What does the apostle Peter mean in 1 Peter 4:17? |
||||||
271 | Fulfilled prophecy proof of inspiration | 2 Pet 1:19 | kalos | 15501 | ||
Week by week I read assertions here that are more and more outrageous. Just when I think the assertions have become as outlandish (conspicuously unconventional, bizarre, strikingly unfamiliar) as possible, I read a new one that tops all previous posts. A case in point is as follows: Sir Pent writes: "I would question whether there is any evidence that the original manuscripts were inspired by God either." 2 Peter 1: 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. "That is, made more sure by fulfilment in part. Fulfilled prophecy is a proof of inspiration because the Scripture predictions of future events were uttered so long before the events transpired that no merely human sagacity or foresight could have anticipated them, and these predictions are so detailed, minute, and specific, as to exclude the possibility that they were mere fortunate guesses. "Hundreds of predictions concerning Israel, the land of Canaan, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and numerous personages--so ancient, so singular, so seemingly improbable, as well as so detailed and definite that no mortal could have anticipated them--have been fulfilled by the elements, and by men who were ignorant of them, or who utterly disbelieved them, or who struggled with frantic desperation to avoid their fulfilment. "It is certain, therefore, that the Scriptures which contain them are inspired. "Prophecy came not in olden time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" 2 Peter 1:21." (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/) |
||||||
272 | Will there be a one-world religion? | 2 John 1:7 | kalos | 174217 | ||
What's all the fuss I keep hearing about a one-world religion led by the antichrist? My question is this: Is there a CLEAR verse of Scripture to support the notion that in the end times the Antichrist will set up a one-world religion? |
||||||
273 | Believer's authority and the devil. | Jude 1:9 | kalos | 7446 | ||
Does the authority of the believer entitle Christians to bring an abusive condemnation against the devil? Please include scripture reference(s) with your answer. | ||||||
274 | Accuracy not a requirement...? | Revelation | kalos | 1453 | ||
If accuracy is not a requirement for the best commentary on Revelation, then wouldn't the list of possibilities be that much longer? Also, if accuracy is not a requirement, then Van Impe is still in the running. (By the way, it is not "Revaltion" or "Revelations". The word is "Revelation".) |
||||||
275 | The sensational or the reliable? | Revelation | kalos | 1504 | ||
Has everyone read EdB's reply, quoted below? Thank you, EdB, for one of the best comments I've ever read in this forum. I agree: Stick with known, reliable authors, ones you can trust. The following names several of them. "Get away from the sensational look at books by Dr Stanley Horton pub. Gospel Publishing House, Dr. David Jeremiah pub. World publishers, Dr. John MacArthur pub Moody or Nelson. Another book you might want to look at is Revelation Four Views edited by Steve Gregg pub. Nelson. I agree with the one name given J. Vernon McGee, you can trust him." (Posted to this forum by EdB, 03-20-2001, 1:19PM.) (Note to EdB:I hope you don't mind me quoting you here. I felt that your reply deserved the widest audience possible. --JVH0212) |
||||||
276 | Best commentary on Revelation? | Revelation | kalos | 1511 | ||
Best commentary on revelation? . . . This is another non-answer to a question originally posted on 03-13-2001, 8:56PM. I hope that some of the members of this forum find the following to be informative and of interest. . . . I fully concur with EdB's (see Answer on Revelation by EdB, 03-20-2001, 1:19PM) short list of authors recommended for their reliability and trustworthiness. Following is a list of authors who, in my opinion, are doctrinally sound, reliable, and trustworthy in their teachings and writings. They are rooted firmly in the Bible and in the mainstream of the historic Christian faith. They are: . . . 1) The Christian Research Institute; 2)David Jeremiah; 3) D. James Kennedy; 4) John MacArthur; 5) Josh McDowell; 6) Charles Caldwell Ryrie; 7) Adrian Rogers; 8) R.C. Sproul; 9) Charles Stanley; 10) Chuck Swindoll. . . . (Disclaimer: Infallibility is claimed neither for or by any man on this list. No man is infallible. No translation of the Bible is infallible. Only the Bible itself IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS is both without error and incapable of error. Also, I do not claim this to be an exhaustive list of every reliable author in the history of the church. These names are merely among today's best known and most trusted teachers and writers. If I left out your favorite, I apologize. I am only speaking for myself, and no one else.) |
||||||
277 | Plural form of the Gr. word ekklesia? | Revelation | kalos | 167052 | ||
What is the plural form of the Greek word ekklesia (Strong's #1577)? I.e., what is the English transliteration of the Greek word for 'churches' (pl.)? I want to say the Greek word for churches, which probably isn't ekklesias, is it? Also, when you give the plural form, please indicate how that word is pronounced. Kalos |
||||||
278 | When was the book of Revelation written? | Rev 1:9 | kalos | 134957 | ||
When was the book of Revelation written? About A.D.95, before A.D.70, other? Please provide your evidence (scriptural, historical) when you reply. "I was always taught..." or "I believe..." doesn't prove anything. |
||||||
279 | When was the book of Revelation written? | Rev 1:9 | kalos | 134963 | ||
When was the book of Revelation written? About A.D.95, before A.D.70, other? Please include supporting evidence (scriptural, historical) when you reply. "I was always taught..." or "I believe..." doesn't prove anything. :-) |
||||||
280 | Where does Bible say Jesus is Michael? | Rev 12:7 | kalos | 55691 | ||
Where does it teach in the Bible that Jesus is Michael the archangel? Why isn't Jesus called Michael right now since he is in heaven? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [15] >> |