Results 521 - 540 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
521 | An interesting discussion/question | Romans | BradK | 205024 | ||
Colt, Thank you for the clarification. As an FYI, it was not I would labled anyone a "cult". My only reason for being "puzzled" was, without a definition of what truth is, the statement could have applied to anything said by anyone:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
522 | An interesting discussion/question | Romans | BradK | 205020 | ||
Hello Colt..., Your statement, "Truth is truth no matter who speaks it", puzzles me. Are you then saying that if Joseph Smith (or Jim Jones) says something it is truth in the same sense that Jesus Christ does? Two opposing ideas cannot, at the same time be truth! Possibly you can clarify what you mean? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
523 | An interesting discussion/question | Romans | BradK | 205018 | ||
Jamison, First of all the Mormons do not "believe the exact same thing" about Jesus. They have another Jesus than the one proclaimed by the Bible. This is not opinion, but fact! Secondly, I think it would be fair to come clean as to exactly what church you are affiited with! Additionally, I don't for a moment buy into your being free from all biases argument! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
524 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 204188 | ||
Hello jamison, Possibly you'd be willing to elaborate and provide some specifics on how "we Christians tend to trivialize the beliefs of others, even other Christians"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
525 | Baptized into his death | Rom 6:3 | BradK | 204124 | ||
Hello lookin..., Thank you for the clarification, my friend. Nowhere did I state (or imply) that I "have a problem with what Peter has written", or that scripture contradicts itself! What I said was that 1 Peter 3:21 is one of the more difficult NT verses to understand- which it is! It is misused often by proponents of baptismal regeneration to support their view:-) With no disrespect, I was not seeking clarification on this matter. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
526 | Baptized into his death | Rom 6:3 | BradK | 204070 | ||
Hello lookin..., Allow me to address a couple of your points. If I'm correct, you are implying that one is saved through water baptism? 1. You state, "When we are baptised,we are putting on Christ". According to Rom. 13:14, we are simply commanded, "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts" (NASB) There is no mention of water baptism in this context!; 2. 1 Pet.3:21 is undoubtably one of the more difficult verses in the NT. I for one would not use it in support of water baptism- aside from the lack of contextual support. Peter would appear to be contradicting what he had stated elsewhere: 1 Pet.1:3- "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," (NASB) Acts 2:38- "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (NASB) If water baptism is necessary to be salvific, then Christ's death was not wholly sufficient! Surely that cannot be the case. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
527 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 203819 | ||
Hello jamison, Welcome to the Forum. Let me add that I too, would like to see the scriptural support for "soul sleep". While I am familiar with some of the arguments for this, we don't learn about the real thing by studying the counterfeit! Quite the opposite is true. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
528 | Does it Really matter? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 203442 | ||
Hi Cheri, The only thing I can say is "Christ is all and in all". I've never been so blessed as to understand who I am "in Christ" (en Christo). In Him, BradK |
||||||
529 | Does it Really matter? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 203429 | ||
Hi Cheri, I do understand what you're saying. However- and it's a big however- again, the Church is not Israel! My actual question related to the "extra blessing" from keeping the 'Sabbath"! I simply don't see it:-) If there is some additional blessing, what is it? I also understand His immutabilty, but by following your logic we should still be offering sacrificies too, should we not? Additionally, though Paul wrote the majority of the NT he doesn't address the (any) importance of 'the Body of Christ' keeping the Sabbath. If it were still applicable to us, he would seem remiss to have not mentioned it! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
530 | Does it Really matter? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 203424 | ||
Hi Cheri, Without trying to be disagreeable, the Church is not Israel! The Sabbath was given to Israel and we now seek to take their blessing(s) and appropriate it? God the Father has blessed us "with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3 NASB) What more blessing can there be? It is not the Sabbath I seek, but Christ Himself! Does not Col. 2:16- 17 speak to this?: "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (NASB) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
531 | Is it a person or a thing that restrains | 2 Thess 2:6 | BradK | 203367 | ||
Hello Spared, I know that 'katechon' (Gr.) is neuter in vs. 6 and masculine in verse 7. Beyond that time will not allow a further look for now! In Him, BradK |
||||||
532 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | BradK | 203329 | ||
Hello william, With all due respect, it appears that there is being made, "much ado about nothing"! I don't really think anybody is trying to avoid anything here! As much as I'm afraid to ask, exactly how does "the Bible makes clear references to the sons of God in a fallen state of rebellion procreating with mankind and breding the giants men of renown."? I can think of Gen. 6:4. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
533 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | BradK | 203315 | ||
Hello Quvmoh, Thanks my friend. For what it's worth, there are divergent, yet orthodox views on this subject. For instance, in answer to 'who the sons of God' refers in Gen. 6:1-4, Dr. Walter Kaiser in "Hard Sayings of the Bible" notes, "Few texts in the history of interpretation have aroused more curiosity and divergence of opinion than Genesis 6:1–4. It is at once tantalizing and deeply puzzling. What is most difficult is the identification of the main participants in this short narrative—the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men” and the “Nephilim” (or “giants”). An impressive array of scholars has lined up for each of the three major positions taken on the identification of these three groups of participants. The three positions may be labeled: 1. “the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans), 2. “the religiously mixed races view” (godly Sethites and worldly Cainites) and, 3. “the sociologically mixed races view” (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners)." Dr. Kaiser further elaborates, "By all odds, the view that may perhaps claim the greatest antiquity is the cosmologically mixed races, or the angel theory, view. The famous Jewish historian Josephus (born 37 b.c.) also appears to follow this angel theory. He wrote, “Many angels accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust” (Antiquities 1.3.1). Likewise, the Greek translation of the Bible of the third century b.c. reads “angels of God” for the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2" However, he states, "In spite of the antiquity of the cosmologically mixed races view, there are such overwhelming problems with it that it is not recommended as the solution to this problem. While it is true, of course, that the term “sons of God” does occur in Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7 with the meaning “angels” (and that the phrase “sons of the mighty” appears in Ps 29:1 and 89:7 with the meaning “angels”), it does not fit well here for several reasons." By contrast, Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary says, "Although each of the three views has its problems, those of the “angel” view can be most satisfactorily resolved. The expression “sons of God” is used exclusively in the Old Testament of angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). According to this view, the Nephilim (from a Hebrew word meaning “to fall”) were the monstrous offspring of these unnatural unions. (For more on the Nephilim, cf. Num. 13:33.) Although they were big, they were not stronger than God, who blotted them out (Gen. 6:7; 7:23) in the flood, along with the rest of the world." [Robert B. Hughes and J. Carl Laney, Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
534 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | BradK | 203306 | ||
Hello Quvmoh, Allow me to interject here. I don't believe Tim stated anywhere that, "sons of God" phrases used in the Bible to being in reference to Angels"! It may benefit to re-read what he said, and keep in mind to "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph. 4:3) In my time on this Forum, Tim is simply not one to take things out of context. He has a very good grasp on the language of scripture! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
535 | What mother was commended by Paul? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 203093 | ||
Hello DLD, The sheer number and type of questions led me- and others- to honestly question your reason "why"! It is entirely appropriate to ask questions. Yet, with so many it would also lead one such as myself to wonder if you have read and/or studied the Bible! It may be more effective to ask 1 or 2 questions and then wait for the answers:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
536 | what if i can't pay all of my tithes? | Mal 3:10 | BradK | 202993 | ||
Hello BroDLC, Welcome to the Forum! You're responding to a post that is some 2 years old, with the user not having been active, so it's doubtful that they will reply:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
537 | ? laws prior to Exodus/Moses | 1 Pet 1:10 | BradK | 202958 | ||
Hello PDAL, I don't really think there is much I can add to help you better understand the error you proclaim! I cannot enlighten you, but would pray that the Holy Spirit, through the Word would do so. (2 Tim. 2:15) While I can certainly appreciate your attempt at an analogy, it fails on 2 counts: 1. It's not rooted and founded in proper exegesis of scripture, as Gen.17 has nothing whatsoever to do with the "dual nature" of the the believer; 2. The analogy is also flawed in that I fail to see how "Abraham can be looked at as the church giving birth to the nature of the son"? Allow me to provide the following quote (in part) from C.H. Spurgeon and his sermon on Rom. 7:24-25 titled, "THE FAINTING WARRIOR": "Thus, you see, the Christian becomes a double man — two men in one. Some have imagined that the old nature is turned out of the Christian: not so, for the Word of God and experience teach the contrary, the old nature is in the: Christian unchanged, unaltered, just the same, as bad as ever it was; while the new nature in him is holy, pure and heavenly; and hence, as we shall have to notice in me next place — hence there arises a conflict between the two. Again, observe, that the old nature of man, which remains in the Christian is evil, and it cannot ever be anything else but evil, for we are told in this chapter that “in me,” — that is, in my flesh — “there dwelleth no good thing.” (present tense) The old Adam-nature cannot be improved; it cannot be made better; it is hopeless to attempt it. You may do what you please with it, you may educate it, you may instruct it, and thus you may give it more instruments for rebellion, but you cannot make the rebel into the friend, you cannot turn the darkness into light; it is an enemy to God, and an enemy to God it ever must be. On the contrary, the new life which God has given us cannot sin. That is the meaning of a passage in John, where it is said, “The child of God sinneth not; he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” The old nature is evil only evil, and that continually, the new nature is wholly good; it knows nothing of sin, except to hate it. Its contact with sin brings it pain and misery, and it cries out, “Woe is me that I dwell in Meshech, that I tabernacle in the tents of Kedar.” I have thus given you some little picture of the two natures. Let me again remind you that these two natures are essentially unchangeable. You cannot make the new nature which God has given you less divine; the old nature you cannot make less impure and earthly." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
538 | ? laws prior to Exodus/Moses | 1 Pet 1:10 | BradK | 202829 | ||
Hello PDAL, You state, "Name change in scripture denotes change in nature." Where exactly does scripture say this? Let's deal specifically with the verses from Romans 7, which formed the basis of my initial response. The entire portion of Rom. 7:14-25 is in the PRESENT tense. This means he (Paul) is speaking about something that is currently the case! You state that, "Romans 7;5,20,23says sin was in our bodily members". That is not entirely true, and is not what those verses actually say! 1. Rom. 7:5 is in the Imperfect Tense, where it says, "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." (NASB) However, note the reference is to "sinful passions". It says nothing about 'sin nature'! Weust's Translation reads: "For when we were in the sphere of the flesh, the impulses of sins which were through the law, were operative in our members, resulting in the production of fruit with respect to death." His comment is thus: "That is, in the case where the person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that person is not in the control of the evil nature. That individual is a saved person. Consequently, the one who is in the flesh is an unsaved person, the flesh here referring to the fallen nature." 2.Rom. 7:20, reads, "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." (NASB) Weust's Translation reads: "In view of the fact then that what I do not desire, this I do, I am in agreement with the law that it is good. And since the case stands thus, no longer is it I who do it, but the sin (sinful nature) which indwells me; for I know positively that there does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, good; for the being desirous is constantly with me; but the doing of the good, not; for that which I desire, good, I do not; but that which I do not desire, evil, this I practice. But in view of the fact that that which I do not desire, this I do, no longer is it I who do it, but the sin which indwells me." Notice it does not say anywhere here that "sin was...". It is in the present tense, so 'sin is...'. He writes, "It is safe for a Christian like Paul—it is not safe for everybody—to explain his failings by the watchword, Not I, but indwelling sin.… A true saint may say it in a moment of passion, but a sinner had better not make it a principle.” Sin, of course, here, is the evil nature indwelling a believer." 3. Rom. 7:23 is also in the present tense, where it reads, "but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members" (NASB). Wuest notes, "The law in his members warring against the law of his mind is, of course, the evil nature. Paul finds a condition that when he desires to do good, this evil nature always asserts itself against the doing of that good. He brings out the same truth in Galatians 5:17 where he says, “The flesh (evil nature) has a passionate desire to suppress the Spirit, and the Spirit has a passionate desire to suppress the flesh. And these are set in opposition to each other so that you may not do the things which you desire to do." Again, nothing in this verse says that "sin was...", but rather, that 'sin is...'. Nothing in these verses would indicate that the sin nature no longer resides in the believer, but rather the opposite is true:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
539 | ? laws prior to Exodus/Moses | 1 Pet 1:10 | BradK | 202722 | ||
Hello PDAL, I'll let Doc speak for himself, but let me say this: What has changed is our relation to sin, cf Rom. 6:11-17ff. Particularly note Rom 7:14-25 where Paul is speaking in the Pesent tense as opposed to the Past tense in 7-13. He says in 7:20, "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." (NASB) I would also reference Gal. 5:16-17, "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please." (NASB) I'm not aware of anything stating in scripture that our sin nature has left us! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
540 | why do ones in heaven wear clothing | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 202704 | ||
Hello hopalong, Possibly you meant that the focus of the Book of Revelation is apochryphal. I'm sure you're not saying that the events in will not occur! I would say that, literally, all in it will be fulfilled. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ] Next > Last [97] >> |