Results 1741 - 1760 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1741 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | BradK | 220027 | ||
Hello dodoy, So then, you appear to be postulating a "works based salvation" that's not really eternal in that one can never truly know he's saved? At what point does one merit eternal life, and conversely, a what point does one's actions cause them to be blotted out of the Book of Life? Understanding a bit of your background (SDA), I can see why you hold to the position you do. However, in this there is absolutely no assurance, and is ultimately based on the sum total of our good works! A works-based race to the end...essentially. Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." (NASB) Have a Happy Hew Year BradK |
||||||
1742 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | BradK | 220048 | ||
Hello dodoy, Here's a few brief observations: 1. I understand Phil. 2:12-13. These verses constitute one complete sentence in the Greek. The emphasis in the last half of this sentence is entirely on what God does! God is the one working(energon) in you. It literally means, "working in", "producing in", "accomplishing in" you. The present participle means God is the One continuosly energizing in you! 2. Rev. 3:5 does not say, "Only those who positively respond will NOT be blotted out by Christ Himself from the Book of Life." It is dealing with yet future events- and addressed specifically to the Church in Sardis. Where does the rest of Scripture teach that a believer can have his name blotted out of the Book of Life? If one can effectively loose his salvation, i.e. have his name blotted out, then salvation is not wholly dependent upon God, but on what WE ultimately do! I think both an understanding of Faith and justification are being left out of this equation! 3. Rom. 11:22-23 is not dealing with or addressing loss of salvation! In these verses Paul is referring to the Jews, the natural branches, who have been broken off. Severity is upon those who have fallen, i.e., upon the jews who have been cut off, left in their unbelief, and who reject the Person of Jesus Christ! I would see the unregenerate (unbeliever) under the severity of God, and those who are genuine believers under the kindness of God. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1743 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | BradK | 220052 | ||
OK | ||||||
1744 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | BradK | 218713 | ||
Dear Edd, ??? Unless, I'm missing something your post comes across heavy on sarcasm? Pardon me if I'm mistaken. I don't see it as particularly edifying. It would be more helpful/instructive to provide comment on why you disagree! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1745 | Can a man die more than once. | Heb 9:27 | BradK | 176935 | ||
tyj, Say what??? I'm not following you, my friend. BradK |
||||||
1746 | Church membership scriptural? | Heb 10:25 | BradK | 169292 | ||
Dear Messia'schild, Sorry about your friend. It sounds a little more like the doctrines of man than what the Word teaches. Churches differ widely on their membership "requirements". Some, like ours simply have the person or family step foreward at invitation time and acknowledge their desire to join. Others, have an almost Corporate HR approach whereby you go through an interview(s) process and are formally accepted (or rejected) by their Board. The only Biblical requirement to be a member of the Body of Christ is to be a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1747 | Hebrews10:26-31 | Heb 10:26 | BradK | 212304 | ||
Crystal, No, it is never too late. God has done more for you than you can ever do to Him! He sent His Son to the cross in your place as payment for sin. God has forgiven you (Eph. 1:7). You're are accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6). You are saved to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). You are a new creature, in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). This just some of the good news of what God has done for you in Christ! Here is something else He has done: "...Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." Remember Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," God's grace instructs you to: 1. deny ungodliness; 2. worldly lusts; 3. (to) live soberly and righteously and godly This by His grace, not fear of judgement! You cannot out sin the grace of God- "but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more," (Rom. 5:20b). Keep seeking Him and allowing His grace to be sufficient for you! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1748 | Are unbelievers in any way "saved"? | Heb 11:1 | BradK | 118409 | ||
Rowdy, With all due respect, where exactly did my response lack balance? I only just answered a fairly simple question:-) This is the second time you've cried for the "need for balance", and I'm seriously missing a "why". As to your contention that, "But there's no way anyone can possibly defend a position that God would actually condemn someone based on a standard of judgment that the person had never heard", I ask "what saith the scripture"? Unless I'm negligent on this, Romans 1:19-20, and 2:1 answer this- and quite convincingly! In fact, the first 3 chapters of Romans make the case for man's sinfulness! I either seriously misunderstand you, or you're unequivocably mistaken to say "All human beings do have the image of God with which we're all created and that's the standard which will be used by God to determine whether they go to heaven or not." No. God's standard is BELIEF in His Son Jesus as John 14:6, and 17:3 state! There is simply no other standard, my friend, and to believe so is folly. Speaking the truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1749 | Are unbelievers in any way "saved"? | Heb 11:1 | BradK | 118447 | ||
Rowdy, Thanks for your response. No need to defend yourself, my friend:-) My only concern is that based on your initial reply, it would appear that a couple of statements are not in accord with scripture. If I've misunderstood you, please forgive me- if not, some clarification would help. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1750 | Are unbelievers in any way "saved"? | Heb 11:1 | BradK | 118861 | ||
Rowdy, I followed you about half-way through your answer, and then I lost the connection. I simply was unable to follow your logic. What is unclear about "my Position"? It is not mine- per say- but that which is in line with the teaching of scripture. I don't think I'd be too far out of line to say that the vast majority of Evangelical Scholars would support this view. Again, it is in line with Biblical theology. To answer you, yes I have studied this passage and the rest of Romans in it's entirety! My conclusion is not merely a haphazard guess:-) Rowdy, the problem is not mine- and I don't say this lightly or arrogantly- so don't missunderstand me:-) If men are not judged with what they know about God as He has revealed it to them, how else are they judged? Are you saying that God has,therefore ,2 standards for men? There are the "those who've heard" and the "those who have not". Romans 1:18 ff is dealing with unbelief and it's consequences. The judgement and consequences are clearly portrayed in Romans 1-3. I cannot answer you but, "Their condemnation is just.What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" ( Rom. 3:8b, 9) Lastly, I don't make the connection between being "created in God's image" and how that somehow saves us? When you say "It's that same innate quality that God will hold up to our lives IF we live and die without knowing anything about His Word or His Son and His dying for the lost souls of the world. Surely, we can agree on this topic, can we not?" No, we can not as it is Foreign to scripture! Perhaps if you could clarify what you're saying and couch it in Biblical-based theology, I could arrive at a better understanding. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1751 | Are unbelievers in any way "saved"? | Heb 11:1 | BradK | 118863 | ||
Rowdy, Your words are "I'm saying that the Book of Romans, indeed the whole Bible is written to those who know of its existance and once hearing of its existance, yes they're bound by God to the best of their ability to check it out and see if it's true. Their conscience should tell them they'd better check it just in case they might be held accountable to it." I not only don't fathom what you're saying but it appears to be completely contrary to scripture, my friend! Where does the Bible tells us that it's only written to those who know of it's existence? It doesn't. And, further this does in no way excuse anyone. That is the argument of Romans 1! My point is this: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God! Mankind is without excuse before God- whether they know of the Bible and it's truth or not! That IS the teaching of Romans 1, Rowdy. Now, if we're stumbling over semantics (which I doubt), then I apologize! However, if what you're maintaining is that some men are WITH excuse because they haven't heard of or read the Bible- then you are sadly bereft in your understanding of Biblical Theology. Now, with that said, which is it that you maintain: 1. All have sinned and are without excuse; 2. All have sinned but have an excuse I'm hoping that I've sucinctly stated the question. We are definitely experiencing a "problem" in our communication.Communication only occures when both parties understand each other. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1752 | Are unbelievers in any way "saved"? | Heb 11:1 | BradK | 118872 | ||
Rowdy, Question answered! I do not wish to repeat myself- with all due respect. Maybe someone else would care to step in here. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1753 | Faith and Satification meaning??? | Heb 11:1 | BradK | 178084 | ||
Hello wisdom..., You said that, "Faith is : Word of God, Jesus, His Word, The Law..". Yet, Gal. 3:12 states: "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1754 | God speak to us?,if so,then why faith | Heb 11:1 | BradK | 222026 | ||
Hello nextman, I think your observation is somewhat confused? Again, Rom. 10:17 says, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ". Heb. 11:1, reads, "...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Scripture does not say "experience is the foundation of our faith"! As an example, in Rom. 4:3, we are told, "For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." (NASB) It says, "Abraham believed God". He didn't believe "in God" or "experience God, he simply believed what he had been told by God! Similarly, our faith is founded upon what God has promised us in His Word! His promises are true as God is Omnipotent,Faithful, Holy, Righteous, cannot lie, so our foundation is firm. Experience is no foundation for faith due to it's highly subjective nature! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1755 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232514 | ||
Hi EdB, You asked, "What does all mean? All used here is understood to mean all the previously mentioned people." Not necesarily... I believe the apparent contradiction can be cleared up by noting the sentence structure and grammar of the original:-) In the passage speaking of Enoch, the sentence starts in verse 4 and ends in verse 7. The next portion- to which you refer and contains vs 13- starts in verse 8 and end in verse 16. As Robertson notes in his Word Pictures, These all [houtoi pantes]. Those in verses 9–12 (Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob). I would argue that the grammar gives answer your objection! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1756 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232527 | ||
Hello Ed, Let me try again to explain. In doing so, I will honestly say I've never encountered the apparent contradictions you see with reconciling Enoch, Elijah, John 3:13, Hebrews 9:27 and 11:13. You said, "if accept that understanding we must then handle the apparent contradiction now created with John 3." I honestly see no contradiction if we take a closer look at the grammar of the text. I previously posted a reply to you in which I noted, "The word "translated" [metathemi] in Heb 11:5, differs in both meaning and sense from that of "ascended", [anabaino] in John 3:13. Again, effect(ing) a change of location in space, with the implication that the two locations are significantly different does no violation to what is stated in John 3:13. Metathemi simply describes the action that, "By faith he was taken up so that he would not see death". Significantly, the verb here is also in the passive mood, which shows (indicates) the action was performed on him (Enoch) by an outside force. He didn't do this himself! However, "ascended" [anabaino] in John 3:13 is a completely different action. Here it conveys the meaning 'to move up—‘to come up, to go up, to ascend.’ The upward movement may be of almost any gradient, for example, in going up a road to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17) or in going up into a tree (Lk 19:4) or in ascending into heaven (Acts 2:34).' The verb is in the active sense, denoting action performed by the individual himself. So, Enoch, though definitely "translated", did not "ascend" to heaven. A significant, but important distinction I believe." Now Heb. 9:27. Here are 2 things I will note that IMO, clear up any alledged contradiction. 1. The Book of Hebrews was written in the 1st Century to contemporary (Jewish) Christians. Enoch and Elijah had already been 'translated' some 1500 years before! They are not in view of the intent and focus of this passage! 2. The author's use of the verb 'appointed' [apokemai] is in the present tense, so I would understand this to mean that he is speaking to those presently facing ultimate death, not referencing (including) OT saints such as Enoch or Elijah. So, I would still respectfully maintain that scripture teaches that only Enoch and Elijah did not see death but were glorified and transcended this mortal life to be with God. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1757 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232578 | ||
Hi Ed, Yes, I did read the article you referenced- in fact twice before I posted. This is what lead me to respond initially. I’ve now gone back and carefully re-read it for a third time. Here’s my assessment of it: Their entire argument seems to hinge upon a rather rigid view of John 3:13. There are also many (incorrect) assumptions made. I’ve already replied to much of this in my previous posts (232479, 232514, 232527) My first issue is with their attempted comparison of the Hebrew phrase “he was not” as given in Gen. 5:24. They refer to Ps. 37:36 and Ps 39:13, etc in support. They quote, “the phrase means the person “passed away” or “would eventually die”. I beg to differ. Nowhere in the definition of ‘ayin’ do I find this meaning. It ranges from ‘neither’, ‘never’, nowhere’, ‘to nought’, etc. In fact the TWOT says , “it’s basically a negative substantive. The word therefore has no single meaning and the exact translation must be determined in each context.” Next, what of Heb. 11:5? Do we now deny it’s plain meaning? I really see Hebrews 11 as a Divinely inspired commentary on Genesis 5:24 here in this instance particularly. The grammar ‘me ho eidon thanatos’ (did not see death), expands upon “he was not” from the Genesis passage. It tells us what happened to him. The fact that the verb here is not in the present tense has no bearing upon the meaning at hand! Rather (as it should be), it’s a verb, aorist, active and this takes us back to what happen to Enoch. They say, “we must conclude Enoch died the first death”? OK, but why? Because that’s your conclusion? They’re begging the question here. Further to say most people “carelessly assume without proof” seems overly dismissive to other valid views. That may be their opinion, but it’s not an established fact. I don’t think it’s careless to take Heb. 11:5 for what it says. (This is what they’re doing with John 3:13) I think there’s unnecessary confusion being created over “translate”. Of course it doesn’t mean to make ‘immortal’, but in the context of 11:5 it tells us he was “transported to another place”, where he did not see death! Death is negated here. My initial detraction is one of lack of credibility. Who are they and what makes them authoritative? I also think their lack of understanding the original languages shows and it poorly reflects upon the argument. The argument is certainly interesting, but it doesn’t persuade me to change my view- particularly in light of historical interpretation of this passage. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1758 | Healing, which way to believe? | Heb 11:32 | BradK | 197947 | ||
Hello daytona, Welcome to the Forum. Based on what you said, I have 2 questions: 1. How is "healing (as) a personal belief?; 2. How does Is. 54:5 tie into or support healing? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1759 | Bible teachers/pastors-help! | Heb 12:1 | BradK | 134502 | ||
EdB, Yes, I would say that I do experience both discouragement and depression at times. I know I certainly feel unworthy many times to even be teaching. Yet, my prayer is for the Lord to use me- despite myself- and to speak through His Word. Humilty is certainly one of the most important virtues of the Christian life. I generally claim Eph. 6:10 to set my focus right and need to focus on the confidence and hope of Is. 43:10! In being honest, I have to give all the glory and honor to Him. Thanks for sharing:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1760 | Premarital sex is a sin? | Heb 13:4 | BradK | 112467 | ||
Monkman, I have to heartily concur with our brother, kalos. He has provided some very sound advice and asked some pertinent questions. Without being repetitious, how would you define extramarital sex?, and upon what Scriptural basis would you establish it's legitimacy? I don't honestly believe you can:-) We should be honest before God, and honest enough with ourselves to not "explain away our behavior" or "make excuses". An excuse is simply the skin of reason stuffed with a lie! As the term "fornication" ( Gr. porneia) can and is translated "unchastity" and "sexual Immorality",how would you conclude that it is not a sin? After all, Rom 14:23 says, "..whatever is not of faith is sin.." Speaking the Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 ] Next > Last [97] >> |