Results 761 - 780 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
761 | Receive Holy Spirit and NOT speak tongue | Acts 2:38 | BradK | 185152 | ||
Dear godsaves, You'd also need to reconcile Acts 2:4 - which is a narrative- with the rest of the NT. Of the passage, ask yourself, "Is it, prescriptive or descriptive?" Consider 1 Cor. 12:30: "All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?" 1 Cor. 12:13: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." Speaking the Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
762 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | BradK | 185012 | ||
Doc, Good points! Without trying to belabor the point, John F. Walvood provides a good framework contrasting both views on this matter. From his, "The Impeccability of Christ": "A question has been raised, however, by orthodox theologians whether the sinlessness of Christ was the same as that of Adam before the fall or whether it possessed a peculiar character because of the presence of the divine nature. In a word, could the Son of God be tempted as Adam was tempted and could He have sinned as Adam sinned? While most orthodox theologians agree that Christ could be tempted because of the presence of a human nature, a division occurs on the question as to whether being tempted He could sin. Definition of Impeccability The point of view that Christ could sin is designated by the term peccability, and the doctrine that Christ could not sin is referred to as the impeccability of Christ. Adherents of both views agree that Christ did not sin, but those who affirm peccability hold that He could have sinned, whereas those who declare the impeccability of Christ believe that He could not sin due to the presence of the divine nature. The doctrine of impeccability has been questioned especially on the point of whether an impeccable person can be tempted in any proper sense. If Christ had a human nature which was subject to temptation, was this not in itself evidence that He could have sinned? The point of view of those who believe that Christ could have sinned is expressed by Charles Hodge who has summarized this teaching in these words: “This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.” The problem that Hodge raises is very real, and, judging by our own experience, temptation is always associated with peccability. Hodge, however, assumes certain points in his argument which are subject to question. In order to solve the problem as to whether Christ is peccable, it is necessary, first of all, to examine the character of temptation itself to ascertain whether peccability is inevitably involved in any real temptation and, second, to determine the unique factor in Christ, i.e., that He had two natures, one a divine nature and the other a sinless human nature. Can an Impeccable Person Be Tempted? It is generally agreed by those who hold that Christ did not commit sin that He had no sin nature. Whatever temptation could come to Him, then, would be from without and not from within. Whatever may have been the natural impulses of a sinless nature which might have led to sin if not held in control, there was no sin nature to suggest sin from within and form a favorable basis for temptation. It must be admitted by Hodge, who denies impeccability, that in any case the temptation of Christ is different than that of sinful men. Not only is there agreement on the fact that Christ had no sin nature, but it is also agreed on the other hand, that as to His person He was tempted. This is plainly stated in Hebrews: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). It is also clear that this temptation came to Christ in virtue of the fact that He possessed a human nature, as James states: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man” (Jas. 1:13). On the one hand, Christ was tempted in all points except through that of a sin nature, and on the other hand His divine nature could not be tempted because God cannot be tempted. While His human nature is temptable, His divine nature is not temptable. On these points all can agree. The question is, then, can such a person as Christ is, possessing both human and divine natures, be tempted if He is impeccable? The answer must be in the affirmative. The question is simply, is it possible to attempt the impossible?" [Bibliotheca Sacra : A Quarterly Published by Dallas Theological Seminary., 202 (Dallas TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996, c1955-1995).] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
763 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | BradK | 185011 | ||
May I add some perspective from C.H. Spurgeon, taken from his sermon on Heb. 4:15- "I am happy to come to my last point, through divine aid. OUR LORD HAS A TENDER PERFECTNESS. As I read the verse — “In all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” I thought I heard you say, “But that is just the pinch of the matter. He cannot sympathize with me in sin, and that is my great trouble.” Brother, do you wish that your Lord had become a sinner like yourself? Abhor the idea! It would be blasphemy if understood and indulged. You see at once that you could not wish anything of the kind. But listen to me; do not imagine that if the Lord Jesus had sinned he would have been any more tender toward you; for sin is always of a hardening nature. If the Christ of God could have sinned, he would have lost the perfection of his sympathetic nature. It needs perfectness of heart to lay self all aside, and to be touched with a feeling of the infirmities of others." BradK |
||||||
764 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | BradK | 184958 | ||
Hello stjohn, Not exactly, my friend. We have to be careful here about terms and assumptions! Again, what scripture would show that Christ had a sin nature? Can you demonstrate this absolutely? Put it this way, He had every opportunity TO sin, but He did not! We know He was tempted from accounts such as Matt. 4:1-4 and Heb. 4:15. To say or imply he had a sin nature is to say something entirely foreign to the Word. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
765 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | BradK | 184942 | ||
Hello stjohn, Welcome from another Northwest native:-) I think the defining verse is Heb. 4:15, which states, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" Nowhere does scripture teach or even imply that Jesus had a sin nature. Being tempted is not the same as possessing a sin nature. The Immaculate conception bypassed -so-to speak- the imputation of sin. Had He been merely "born of a woman", without the "Holy Spirit coming upon her" ,He could not have fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. Remember, for Jesus to be our Mediator, He had to fulfill 3 qualifications: 1. He must be a man (Heb. 2:14-16); 2. The Mediator between God and man must be sinless; 3. He had to be Divine As to His sinlessness, A.A. Hodge remarks: "Under the law the victim offered on the altar must be without blemish. Christ, who was to offer Himself unto God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be Himself free from sin. The High Priest, therefore, who becomes us, He whom our necessities demand, must be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. (Hebrews vii. 26.) He was, therefore, "without sin." (Hebrews iv. 15; 1 Peter ii. 22.) A sinful Saviour from sin is an impossibility. He could not have access to God. He could not be a sacrifice for sins; and He could not be the source of holiness and eternal life to his people. This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people." [Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
766 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | BradK | 184857 | ||
Hi Coper, Your obssession should not be with eschatology, but with the Savior. Col. 1:18, "He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything." I too am doubting not only your intent, but the sincerity with which you are supposedly seeking "redirection". For one only recently exposed to Preterism, you seem very versed in it's defense. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
767 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | BradK | 184835 | ||
Hello Coper, Your claims are not without some merit, but I don't entirely buy into the early date or lack of internal evidence argument. What does stand out and pique my interest is your statement that, "John didn't miss the return of Christ at all!" Without trying to be condescending, I say, "Really?!" When did He return and was it invisible? This is much akin to the JW's claim that Christ returned (invisibly) in 1914! This strains all credibility given Acts 1:11 and Rev. 1:7- "They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." "BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen." Who saw Him? Did every eye see Him? The Second Coming will not go unnoticed! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
768 | Please go Resources and Update User info | Bible general Archive 3 | BradK | 184833 | ||
Hi Shelly, I think you missed the entire point of CDBJ's request:-) It is voluntary. He's not attempting to "change the rules of the Forum." As I read it, He's merely asking those who do register to add a Profile. Having contributed to this Forum for almost 5 years, I can say this truly does help in the communication process and goes a long way toward fulfilling Rom. 12:10- "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
769 | Concept of Heaven and Hell in OT | 1 Cor 10:20 | BradK | 184718 | ||
Hello Lon, I can appreciate where you're coming from, and in no way want to come across as uncaring. However, unless I'm missing something, your posts appear to have nothing at all to do with the study of God's Word? Might I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the "About Forum". If we can be in prayer on your behalf, gladly let us know. This Forum is not equipped to deal with matters related to counselling or other types of personal issues. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
770 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | BradK | 184602 | ||
Hello jonP, I too agree with what WOS has stated, and the manner in which he has done so! Your peers are sincerely trying to get you to see some things, namely Forum rules and guidelines. For a second time, please, brevity, brevity, brevity. You are far too verbose and it is confusing- even to those of us who are reasonably intelligent:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
771 | Clearing up philosophical confusion | 1 Cor 10:20 | BradK | 184580 | ||
Hi Lon, I can appreciate your perspective on this matter. Philosophy is one thing, but the knowledge of Christ quite another (Phil 3:10). From reading your response, it appears that the question has digressed far off-track from the study of scripture. Did you have a Biblically related question in mind regarding this topic? Additionally, might I encourage you to add a User Profile. This is a way we can get to know each other better and it aids in understanding where someone is coming from:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
772 | Clearing up philosophical confusion | 1 Cor 10:20 | BradK | 184579 | ||
Hi Lon, I can appreciate your perspective on this matter. Philosophy is one thing, but the knowledge of Christ quite another (Phil 3:10). From reading your response, it appears that the question has digressed far off-track from the study of scripture. Did you have a Biblically related question in mind regarding this topic? Additionally, might I encourage you to add a User Profile. This is a way we can get to know each other better and it aids in understanding where someone is coming from:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
773 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | BradK | 184479 | ||
Hello jonp, That's one long sentence, my friend. And, hard to follow. Without no intent on being disrespectful, might I suggest that you be a bit more concise in your posts? I also don't buy your conclusion on the millenium:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
774 | Baptize in name of Jesus or Trinitarian | Eph 4:23 | BradK | 184432 | ||
Hello Ace..., While agree to a point, what about the spiritual reality? 1 Cor. 12:13?...: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." While I mean no slight, the point I'm making is this: we tend to focus upon an act- a work if you will- to the neglect of the Spiritual reality of what has been done on our behalf. Let us make sure that our salvation is based upon Christ- and Him alone- not a mere symbolism (Gal. 2:16-17)! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
775 | what is the mark of Christ | Gal 6:17 | BradK | 184430 | ||
Dear acm, How so? Could you explain- giving scripture reference -as to why 777 fits the context? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
776 | Hello,what is righteousness? | Rom 4:5 | BradK | 183981 | ||
Hello Friendangel, The answer you responded to was given over 9 months ago! I'm glad it is of some help to you:-) As one of my mentors, Dr. John A Sproule has called it, "Romans is the theology of the NT"! I think that rightly and wisely stated. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
777 | Need help understanding Genesis | Genesis | BradK | 183978 | ||
Hello aroberson, Welcome to the Forum. In Gen. 3:15 we have what is generally referred to as the PROTEVANGELIUM. " The word means first (protos) gospel (evangelion). Theologians have used the word in reference to the message of redemption God spoke after the fall of man. Speaking to Satan (embodied in a serpent), God said, “From now on, you and the woman will be enemies, and your offspring and her offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gn 3:15, nlt). In the protevangelium we have the protorevelation of the humanity (her offspring) and the divinity (crushing the head of serpent) of the great Deliverer. In this proclamation, God promises a Deliverer who will destroy Satan in an ordeal in which he himself will suffer. This refers to Jesus’ death on the cross. In suffering that death, Jesus defeated him who had the power of death, the devil (Heb 2:14)." [Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary]. Warren Wiersbe says this: "This is the first Gospel declared in the Bible: the good news that the woman’s seed (Christ) would ultimately defeat Satan and his seed (Gal. 4:4–5). It is from this point on that the stream divides: Satan and his family (seed) oppose God and His family. God Himself put the enmity (hostility) between them, and God will climax the war when Satan is cast into hell (Rev. 20:10). Review the Parable of the Tares in Matt. 13, and note that Satan has children just as God does. In Gen. 4, Cain kills Abel, and 1 John 3:12 informs us that Cain was “of that wicked one”—a child of the devil. The OT is the record of the two seeds in conflict; the NT is the record of the birth of Christ and His victory over Satan through the cross." [Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the Old Testament] I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
778 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 183916 | ||
Dear stjames, It seems we have a different view of exegesis and more specifically context! Proof-texting can validate just about any position. Jesus also commanded His disciples to do and perfom many things in Matthew 10. Are you in compliance with all these? If not, why? Ultimately, if you are comfortable with your relationship with the Lord, so be it:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
779 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 183904 | ||
Dear stjames, If you don't mind me asking, I'm confused by your statements. So, salvation is wholly of you? You save yourself through baptism, and are kept by your works? Where is Christ in this picture? If YOU are the one responsible for your salvation and the keeping of it, I would concur that you could teeter back and forth. Which works are good enough to save you and which are bad enough to condemn you? Your view presents a god who frankly does not save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25), and who is not really very sovereign. I thank God that I am truly saved by grace through faith, not of myself, lest I boast! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
780 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | BradK | 183672 | ||
Hello Coper, Some questions arise from your reply to Tim: 1.Why do you think, "It seems that you may have read more into the Acts 1:11 passage than is written? How so?; 2. If we are talking about Acts 1:9, what makes you conclude "cloud coming" is metaphorical? I don't see this:-) Again, to continue, Dr. Mal Couch writes, "While the entire verse of Acts 1:11 describes a literal taking up of the Lord into heaven, how He comes again is the focus that is most important. Notice how the disciples saw ("blepo") visually His bodily ascension, in like manner He will return—visually and literally. Concerning that return the Greek text reads, Likewise, He shall come (Fut.) in the exact manner you saw Him "going" into the heaven. Likewise is houtos in Greek and means "in this way."[i] "In this manner."[ii] Or, "in the way it was done."[iii] And, "just like."[iv] Thus, "in the very same way" He shall come. This idea is fortified with the expression, in the exact manner ("hon tropon"). According to the great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, Luke the author of Acts, reinforces the idea of "how" Jesus will return by using this expression, and by using hon tropon. He writes, "(houtos … hon tropon) This points to the same idea twice. "So in like manner." Luke points to the fact of his second coming and the manner of it also …" (Word Pictures) Along with houtos, hon tropon rebuts loud and clear the main thesis of the preterist position, and that is, that Christ will return in some figurative or spiritualized form and not bodily, literally, and visibly, as the Scriptures say. In the Exact Manner (hon tropon) Scholars who are not premillennial and/or futurists agree on the meaning of this expression. The little word hon is an accusative, singular, masculine form of the relative pronoun hos generally translated which, that which. Joined to tropon, the expression is going to be: in exactly the same way. In other words, "as Jesus went into the heaven in an absolute physical and visible way, He will in just the same manner, physically and visibly, return!" Hon tropon leaves no possibility for the preterist interpretation of simply a spiritual return of Christ and not a visible coming back to earth." 3. Lastly, why must the meaning of scripture only be confined to what was relevant to the original audience? Where is the support for this? The logical extreme is, then, scripture has no real meaning for any of us! Certainly this is not what you're postulating? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ] Next > Last [97] >> |