Results 381 - 400 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Quries about Christmas? | NT general | BradK | 211644 | ||
Hello Rick, It's not that I didn't like the answer, I just don't see much merit in the content. Should we avoid Christmas like the plague, or ... What do you suggest that a reasonable, intelligent believer should do? That's my point:-) BradK |
||||||
382 | Quries about Christmas? | NT general | BradK | 211650 | ||
Hello RangerRick, Do you by chance know a "RangerNorth"? Just curious:-) BradK |
||||||
383 | Quries about Christmas? | NT general | BradK | 211754 | ||
MJH, Thank you for the UP info. It's nice to get to know you a bit better. Feel free to check mine out if you haven't already. In Him, BradK |
||||||
384 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | BradK | 216375 | ||
Hi Doc, Very well said. There is nothing new indeed under the sun! The enamourment with Judiaism, i.e. "Messianic Judiaism" seems to be caught (entrenched) in than the exact behavior/mindset that the book of Galatians seeks to correct! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
385 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | BradK | 216452 | ||
MJH, I appreciate your comments very much and will certainly lift up these in prayer! Your insight and love is evident. I agree that those who have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are believers:-) We have a few among our own local congregation that embrace this "Galatianism"! Thank you again. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
386 | Supportive scripture for woman preachers | NT general | BradK | 218299 | ||
Hello Mike, IMO, 3 primary considerations would need to be considered first: 1. We should be cautious about deriving doctrine from a Narrative such as Acts; 2. The context wouldn't seem to support this. It's speaking of Paul going to Jerusalem. Verse 9 is mentioned more in passing, than laying a foundation for and giving biblical authority to women preachers; 3. We're assuming the continuation of the office of Prophet. John the Baptist was the last OT Prophet. I don't see any mandate for this office to continue into this present age! This also touches directly upon the authority of scripture- and sola scriptura! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
387 | IS BAPTISM NECESSARY | NT general | BradK | 221089 | ||
Hello wordoer, May I offer a few observations: 1. There are no "contradictions" in scripture!; 2. One of the principles of interpretation is that we don't take doctrine from unclear or difficult passages! 1 Peter 3:21 is one of the more difficult in the NT as to the exact meaning. There is no consensus- with many and varied views! So, it would be remiss at best to derive a doctrine of baptismal regeneration from it; 3. What Peter is saying in this verse must correspond- or rather agree- with his statements elsewhere in the NT! In 1 Peter 1:3, we're told, "...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) Note that baptism is not how we're born-again, rather it's through "the resurrection of Jesus Christ"! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
388 | What is "entering into God's rest?" | NT general | BradK | 224963 | ||
Hello Ariel, Paul tells us in Phil 3:20 "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;" BradK |
||||||
389 | What is "entering into God's rest?" | NT general | BradK | 224968 | ||
Hi Ariel, I shouldn't have been so rushed in my reply:-) Let me clarify: The believer's present destination is Heaven- Phil. 3:20; Our ultimate future home is to be the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1-2) Rev. 21:2 "And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband." (NASB) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
390 | What is "entering into God's rest?" | NT general | BradK | 224969 | ||
Hello inquisitor, You made 2 statements: 1. You said, " "IF this Book were ever seized by those Romans and correctly interpreted, it would have meant even more severe and unrelenting persecution. Thus the need for this "disgused" form of issuing a message to this poor, practically defenseless christians. The most excellent example of this kind of coded message..." What proof do you offer for this speculation? Do you honestly believe Revelation was written, "disgused"(sic) to confuse Rome? I find this more than a stretch... My friend, Revelation was not written as some "kind of coded message"! Where do you get this from? the purpose of the book is detailed in the first verse: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John" (NASB) 2. You also said, "Now to us as modern Bible students, we can see that God was clearly referring to the Roman Empire when He used this code word, Babylon." How do we know this? What basis would you offer to support this contention? May I please -once again- urge you to do your study and avoid gross opinions and speculation! Your answers are not only hard to follow but they show a lack of sound biblical exegesis. If you don't know something it is always better to either avoid responding and just offering opinions or spend time in checking a good, solid Commentary upon which to base your reply:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
391 | Church and addiction | NT general | BradK | 230842 | ||
Hello Bill, Would you possibly clarify a few things you've said in this response? You said, "...our Lord knows our problem and has issued the prescription for all mankind" Could you define and clarify what our problem is and what the issued prescription is? You further state, "It's up to us to accept His Wisdom and follow His Commands to rid our souls of the dark blight of sin" So, are you saying it's ultimately up to us to deal with (our) sin? Was the Atonement not sufficient? What about Christ's finished work on the cross (John 19:30) How do you reconcile this with 2 Cor. 5:21, " He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (NASB) Lastly, you state "IF we don't follow His Commands, then we only have ourselves to blame on Judgment Day." I would interpret this as your saying that salvation too, is ultimately up to us? Am I understanding you correctly on these points? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
392 | Church and addiction | NT general | BradK | 230846 | ||
Hello Bill, Have you formerly posted to this forum under a different user name (author)? Are you formerly "Inquisitor" who was a previous poster here on the SBF? Any relation to him actually or relationally? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
393 | Church and addiction | NT general | BradK | 230893 | ||
Hello Bill, Neither Beja nor myself has said anything about your posts being repulsive! You're saying that. There is no hidden message. You are inferring that! Neither is anyone trying to punish you without a proper hearing or trial! These are your words alone! Now to the question at hand. Both of us have asked you directly whether you've formerly posted as "Inquisitor". You either are and have or haven't and you're not. This is not a question designed to stump you. There should be no exasperation about not knowing how to respond. The question requires a simple, direct Yes or No reply! If you are, then yes. If not, just answer no and we can move on and not waste any further time on this matter. So, you asked, Please, please, PLEASE advise. I am now doing just that. What do you say? BradK |
||||||
394 | Church and addiction | NT general | BradK | 230895 | ||
Bill: Let's stop with the game playing and side-stepping the question! Yes or no! Did you or did you not formerly post as Inquisitor! BradK |
||||||
395 | Why was Jesus a carpenter? | NT general | BradK | 231416 | ||
Hello notlost, It's possible one might think about their destination- as our Lord noted later in Matt. 20:28. But, to say anything beyond what we're told in scripture is to enter into speculation:-) BradK |
||||||
396 | when Christ became sin for us,and how? | NT general | BradK | 234484 | ||
Hello DP, You ask, "One question though where in scripture does it say Jesus “became sin"? Romans 8:3 tells us what God did: "...sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin". So, Christ came similar to, or in the appearance of sinful flesh, though being the God-man He did not posses a sinful nature. 2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (NASB) The Amplified reads, "For our sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in and through Him we might become [endued with, viewed as being in, and examples of] the righteousness of God [what we ought to be, approved and acceptable and in right relationship with Him, by His goodness]." Paul is saying that Jesus did not commit sin or have any personal aquaintence with it. As Robertson notes, "God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin." [Word Pictures] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
397 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | BradK | 201118 | ||
Dear Richard, The post you're responding to is over 7 years old, so I doubt the original poster will reply! I'm not certain of the conclusion you're making? I would suggest- based on a bit of my own study- that those verses of Paul (Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:12, Rom. 6:3, etc) are dealing with spiritual baptism consistent with 1 Cor. 12:13! My own experience tells me most people shrug off spiritual baptism and place more emphasis on the symbolic! The Holy Spirit is the the One Who unites us with Christ! This is the reality. Without it, symbolism is meaningless. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
398 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | BradK | 201170 | ||
Hello tdc, Happy Resurrection Day! I think the juxtaposition of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 with Acts 2:38 is confusing at best! It appears you're reading the Acts 2:38 formula into Pauls' proclamation. 1. Nowhere does Paul say baptism is a necessary (salvific) element in the gospel; 2. Are Rom. 6:3 and Col. 2:12 speaking of water? Note 1 Cor. 12:13; Though Christ was baptized early in His ministry (Matt. 3), in His death He was buried in the ground, not water! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
399 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | BradK | 126728 | ||
Yuke, Welcome to the Forum. I'm aware of the "Gap theory", but am mindful that it is just that- a theory. I hasn't been proved to my satisfaction that anything other than the intended, literal reading of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is the case. At any rate, we have no biblical support other than a literal "reading-between-the-lines" to support a Gap theory. Genesis 1:1 does not say that the Earth was created a long time (billions of years) ago, or that 1:3 happened 6,000 years ago. It may be correct, but in all honesty those are conclusions drawn by man, not given by God:-) Out of curiosity, what is your basis for holding to the Gap Theory? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
400 | Who is God Talking to in verse 26? | Genesis | BradK | 140902 | ||
Tess, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. He is not created and the scriptures do not identify the Word as God's first creation. This is faulty JW theology! The major problem with your erroneous interpretation of John 1:1 as the Word being "a God" is that you're admitting polytheism. The firstborn of all creation- Prototokos- is more a reference to position than chronology! it identifies the RELATION of the Son to creation. In similar vain is John 1:18- "the only Begotten". In considering John 1:18 "the only begotten", John alone uses monogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father. The word is descriptive of the kind of Sonship Christ possesses and not of the process establishing such a relationship. Jesus has the same nature as the Father. To call Jesus "the only begotten Son" means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son. Your position is nothing more than Arianism, which was soundly defeated at the Council of Nicea in 325. The Athansian Creed also has a more fully clarified definition of the nature of the Son. He is equal to the Father in His divinity! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [97] >> |