Results 3581 - 3600 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3581 | Can we work our way to heaven? | Rom 2:7 | Makarios | 6834 | ||
Excellent answer, Brandi! I am not sure exactly how many characters or how much space that Lockman gives us to state ourselves in a clear and concise manner on this Forum, but I do know this: That it is better to use that space with truth and scripture rather than to waste it away with divisiveness.. Thanks Brandi and I look forward to seeing more of your posts! | ||||||
3582 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Makarios | 6833 | ||
Great answer, Radioman! | ||||||
3583 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6818 | ||
Thanks Tim! I see that we are in agreement here also.. I believe that it would be 'easier' to embellish titles, add or copy words or phrases in places where they shouldn't be, or to 'incorporate' an earlier scribe's notes into the actual text by carrying out revisions based on certain specific texts only. It is generally agreed that those texts that agree and contain the least amount of 'embellishment' would be the ones that are indeed the closest to the original autographs, which is the very aim of textual criticism in the first place (getting as close as possible to the autographs).. This would explain most of those subtle differences in the Received or Majority Text and the Critical Text. In this way, we can understand that the TR was indeed a 'critical text' in itself.. But I am a firm believer also that we are getting 'closer' to the original autographs by looking even 'deeper' into history and getting closer to the autographs. I believe that the Critical text is more reliable then the Majority or Received Text or TR, and that was another reason why I chose the NASB over the NKJV for my primary Bible, even though the NKJV is a fine translation and has variants in the side margins. But like you said, they all teach the same doctrine and the disagreements or variants in them are minor and insignificant points in which no major doctrines are based upon. | ||||||
3584 | Using the "Roman's Road" to evangelize? | NT general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6815 | ||
Good question, jim. The 'Roman's Road' is a twentieth century phrase that is used to describe a few verses in the book of Romans that are frequently used to lead a person or group of people to Christ using the Bible. It is nothing more than that. People are saved by accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior and using Scripture as a basis to prove that sinful humanity needs Christ. I don't even use the "Roman's Road"! In fact, in my question I stated that I used a variant of it, jumping to different verses in Scripture to aid me in leading one to Christ using the Bible, instead of staying in the book of Romans. I was curious to see if anyone else had a 'way' or method of leading one to a knowledge of Christ by using the Scriptures. | ||||||
3585 | Capitals? What was your question Ray? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6812 | ||
Hello Ray! Hebrews 7:26 is describing Jesus as our "high priest". The word usage in the Greek for 'high priest' in this verse does not refer to God directly (as far as specific word usage) and therefore does not denote capitalization for the noun 'high priest'. Therefore, 'high priest' in the context of this verse is indeed describing Jesus as our perfect and exalted high priest, but is using a human term ('high priest' as pertaining to the Law vv. 28) to describe Jesus, and is therefore not capitalized. We can contrast the word usage here with vv. 25 and 27-28, where Diety is directly referred to (and rendering capitalization), while the human term as pertaining to the law, 'high priest', remains uncapitalized. | ||||||
3586 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6809 | ||
Right on Joe! Modalism is easily refuted by the fact that all Three Persons in the New Testament are portrayed together (2 Cor. 13:14, Matt. 28:19). Moreover, we see that the Father 'sent' the Son (John 3:17), the Father and Son love each other (John 14:31), and the Father speaks to the Son, and the Son speaks to the Father (John 11:41,42). The Holy Spirit 'comes upon' Jesus at the baptism (Matt. 3), and Jesus and the Father are viewed as having sent the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Clearly, a person cannot get around the fact that these are distinct Persons who interact with each other. If anyone can find any other scripture that supports modalism (Jesus is the Father is the Holy Spirit), then let me know.However, the verse that is most commonly referred to as supporting the 'idea' that Jesus is the Father is Isaiah 9:6.. I believe that when someone says that 'Jesus is the Father' after reading this verse, then they are altogether misinterpreting this verse! Ryrie's Study Bible comments on this verse and the use of "Eternal Father": "Lit., Father of Eternity; i.e., Messiah is eternally a Father to His people, guarding, supplying, and caring for their needs." Nelson's NKJV states, "Thus the word Father is used here of the Savior's role as an ideal king."So you can see here, as well as the references that I made in my original post, that Isaiah 9:6 is not saying that Jesus and the Father are different 'offices' of the same Person, but Isaiah 9:6 is referring to the Lordship of Christ to His people when it mentions "Eternal Father". If anyone has any Scriptural evidence that this verse somehow does not affirm the Trinity, then please bring that to my attention. Thanks! | ||||||
3587 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6807 | ||
Thanks Joe! And this was exactly what I wanted to 'undermine' concerning the entire "Oneness" debate, since I see this verse being the only 'credible scriptural evidence' that a view of Modalism or 'oneness' exists.. :) | ||||||
3588 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6755 | ||
Please tell me where you find modalism in the post that you have responded to..Joe or "reformer Joe", I write to you today to sincerely apologize to you and to all the other members of this Forum who hold to Calvinism. I have called you a heretic and have called Calvinism heresy. I have been very sharp and abrasive and my posts in response to your posts and the posts of others has been laced with hostility. I am guilty of the sin of returning fire for fire, and anger without giving a kind word in return. I am writing this post as an apology to you especially, and to InHzsrv and homer7000, of whom I have been more quick to draw up a sword against rather than to settle our differences. I pray that you would accept my apology for calling you a heretic. I took a 'self-imposed' hiatus from the Forum for good reason.I realize that you would not have at first contributed to this Forum if you had not at first been interested in the Bible and a person who has been saved by Jesus Christ. As a fellow brother in Christ, I offer my apology to you since I reacted to you unwisely. I would hope that this would pave the way for us to be able to genuinely accept communion together at the table of our Lord Jesus Christ!Nolan | ||||||
3589 | Online Outlets for Bible Ref Utilities? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6745 | ||
Thanks JVH! Those are all excellent! I can also think of several that are included in your SBF profile. :-) | ||||||
3590 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 6354 | ||
Once again on this issue, I believe that I have been misquoted, misunderstood and still unable to fathom the fullness of Reformed theology. The Calvinistic view of predestination has been represented by many on this Forum and I find myself in bewilderment at trying to understand this point of view. I feel that any further attempt to add or contribute to this discussion would only fuel more misinterpretation, misguidance, and confusion and I therefore will not participate any longer to this subject by writing in this thread or addressing it on this Forum. Rest assured, I study the Truth and seek the Truth. If you have found the Truth in Calvinism and if this works for you, then by all means, you have every right to continue, since the Gospel will still be preached (Phil. 1:15-18). I however, will not subscribe to this interpretation of these discussions and I will no longer contribute my efforts into understanding the reformed position. I will not reply to this note or to any further discussion thereof of this subject. | ||||||
3591 | Gentle, humble -- but with a sword? | NT general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6351 | ||
In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is addressing His disciples here, saying that the foundation of their discipleship should be laid in such a temper and disposition, as would make sufferings very light and easy to them; and it was upon the condition of a preparedness for suffering, that Christ took them to be his followers vv. 37-39. He told them at first, that they were not worthy of Him, if they were not willing to part with all for Him. Men don't hesitate at those difficulties which necessarily come with their profession, and which they counted upon, when they undertook that profession; and they will either cheerfully submit to those fatigues and troubles, or disclaim the privileges and advantages of their professions. Now the terms are settled, if religion is worth anything, it is worth every thing: and to the price of it; and they who make it their business and bliss, will make every thing else yield to it. We must not be drawn from Christ by the love of our family or loved ones. We must prefer Christ above all else. In this way, a 'sword' is drawn, that is, do we prefer Christ or do we yield ourselves to that which lays claim of us; that being our relationships, job, family, security. In this way, this describes the 'high price' that Christ asks of discipleship. In Matt. 11:34, we must come to Jesus Christ as our Ruler and submit ourselves to Him. The 'rest' He promises is a release from the drudgery of sin, not from the service of God, but an obligation to the duty we owe to Him. Christ has a yoke for our necks, as well as a crown for our heads, and this yoke He expects we should take upon us and draw in. To call those who are weary and heavy laden, to take a yoke upon them, looks like adding affliction to the afflicted; but the pertinency of it lies in the word 'my': "You are under a yoke which makes you weary: shake that off and try mine, which will make you easy." So therefore, if we practice discipleship with the disposition which would make sufferings very light and easy, then we will be taking on the yoke of Christ, in which we will indeed find rest, His rest, and conduct ourselves in a conscientious obedience to His commands. Now this is the hardest part of our lesson, and we should not be afraid of His yoke. Matthew Henry Unabridged Commentary of the Bible (Hendrickson) | ||||||
3592 | Did Gamaliel give sound advice? | Acts 5:34 | Makarios | 6342 | ||
In Acts 5:34-39, we read of Gamaliel addressing the Council regarding what to do about Peter and the apostles. Was the advice of Gamaliel sound advice? If so, should we disregard all followings or cults so that they can 'prove' themselves by standing the test of time? | ||||||
3593 | What is 'justification'? | Rom 3:24 | Makarios | 6341 | ||
Thanks Tim! That was a great followup answer and I agree! We read in the Old Testament that the Jews tried to earn a right standing with God by works, and Paul indicates that God's declaration of righteousness (justification) is given "freely by his grace". The word grace literally means "unmerited favor". So, it is because of God's unmerited favor that human beings can freely be 'declared righteous' before God, and this declaration occurs the moment a person exercises faith in Christ.Great answer, and I look forward to seeing other views about justification also. | ||||||
3594 | Why require faith to perform miracles? | Matt 13:58 | Makarios | 6335 | ||
EdB, it is true that God can do whatever he wants. Hank's original question had to do with the relationship between faith and miracles.. Do you see a connection between the two? Thats Ok, I'm not offended by what you wrote. God bless, Nolan | ||||||
3595 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 6332 | ||
Calvinists viewpoints on hell..1) True2) True3) True4) This is an age old Calvinistic opinion "not due to our choice" goes into predestination with the contention that we are not saved by choice (eliminating free will). This means that a person who is not 'elected' to salvation has no hope to repent and conversely the person who's election is predestined has no need to repent. This has no Scriptural support, so it must be a misinterpretation.5) False - God IS obligated because He obligated Himself. Question: Who has the authority to obligate God? God!! Due to God's pure nature He cannot go back on His Word. Read Acts 10:34-43. His Word states that He is not a respecter of persons. It is funny that Peter said this while he was working with the first Gentile conversions. (Gentiles were the first 'non-elect'.)6) Why are you using the word "Kindness" instead of salvation? Is God just being "nice" by offering salvation or is that his plan for mankind? Grace refers to salvation, kindness is a different thing.7) If this is the case, then you have to maintain that grace is universally available. Another missed point, you really must get back to context on Romans! Paul wrote Romans to those that were already saved. His references to 'elect' are to those who have FOLLOWED the 'Roman's road' to salvation. Read Romans 5:17-18 and 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, Acts 2:38. God intends to save everyone but the failure is not His but belongs to the individual. (1 Peter 3:9).I hope that you can answer some of these flaws that I have shown about your Calvinistic beliefs. Don't worry, I'm not in a hurry. You can go consult with your Calvinistic friends and get with them first before answering these flaws in Calvinism. But I do ask that you would not IGNORE them, since that would prove that Calvinism is not able to answer such flaws.Thank you for your thoughts!-Nolan! | ||||||
3596 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 6329 | ||
Yes, Christ's payment counted and the resident of hell is paying it again. And this makes perfect sense since the resident of hell never cashed in on Christ's payment, therefore making himself bankrupt!The problem with the second premise is that you are entirely confusing salvation with the Blood of Christ. And this isn't the proper thread to address that question. I still hold to 'unlimited atonement' even though your heresy has allowed me to become much stronger in examining my own views. And I am glad that you now know much more about prevenient grace! Good for you, and I hope that that would be a starting point for you to recover from Calvinism.I believe that I have soundly answered all of your questions through Arminian thinking. Let me know if there was a question that I left unanswered. | ||||||
3597 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 6328 | ||
And what does this mean? Are you as a Calvinist more 'humble' than someone who believes in the Truth about what Jesus did for all of mankind? I think you are very wrong and misunderstanding of the whole concept of grace. | ||||||
3598 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 6327 | ||
The knowledge of the truth is in the Bible, and that is where to find it, not in 'reformed theology'.. For I feel that it is YOU who are blinded by the truth and preach heresy if you hold that the Blood of Jesus did not pay for everyman's sins. This fact alone refutes all five points of Calvinism.. | ||||||
3599 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 6323 | ||
Hello Joe, you asked about Saul, Jonah and Jeremiah.. In each case, God in His sovereignty knew that each person that you mentioned would be 'set apart' for His service and accomplish a special mission for His purpose. However, God knew this BEFORE they ever came to a knowledge of salvation. I think that you too often are confusing salvation with election since salvation must come before 'election'. Jeremiah and Jonah both 'believed' God and accomplished their tasks through faith. But they gained approval by their faith, since God called them in a time when He dealt differently with mankind (before Christ). You see, they did not receive the promise that we now have in Christ when they gained approval of God by their faith (Hebrews 11:39-40). So therefore, it is hard to say that they were 'predestined' since they did not have the knowledge of Christ. However, in Saul's case, he was apprehended by God in a direct way, being led to salvation to Jesus Christ when the Lord appeared to Him (Acts 9). But in each case, Jeremiah, Saul and Jonah did not choose God to begin with, and this is a point that Calvinists continue to dodge. They each came to a point where they had to choose to follow Christ and be his 'chosen instruments'. They were not saved from conception. Saul made the decision to follow Christ after the Lord apprehended him (Acts 9), Jonah made the decision to finally go to Nineveh (Jonah 3:3), and Jeremiah followed the Lord's command at an early age, even though he objected to his calling because he was a youth (Jer. 1:6-8). In each case, it is clear that Jeremiah, Jonah and Saul had to each make a decision to fulfill their calling in the Lord. This conscious acceptance of God and their adherence thereof is what caused their salvation, not because they were predestined to make those choices..Actually, I am concerned about the chuch dying out in a Calvinistic worldview. So I will do all I can to help people realize that Calvinism is flawed and 'found wanting' in areas where Arminianism is sound. Thanks Joe, for your questions. | ||||||
3600 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 6320 | ||
Hello Mike! Wow, it sounds like you have quite a testimony to share! The Lord has blessed you and I am thankful for you as a brother in Christ! Thats Ok, sometimes I put in 5 dollars, sometimes a penny.. :-) If you'd ever like to e-mail me off the forum (maybe we could share our testimonies) then you can at archangel76@crosswalkmail.com. I'll will try to surf over to your webpage and give you some feedback! yours in Christ, Nolan! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 ] Next > Last [185] >> |