Results 381 - 400 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Can a person lose salvation? | Luke 15:11 | Radioman2 | 96402 | ||
He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life. Revelation 3:5 "It is unfortunate that this passage in Revelation has become a focal point of controversy. The result has been a fixation on what the verse does not say rather than what it does say. This verse was never intended as a warning. Within its context there is nothing negative or foreboding about these words. In fact, it makes a strong statement in favor of eternal security. It is a passage of encouragement and praise. "The comments are directed to a group of faithful believers from the church in Sardis. Unlike the majority of the folks in their congregation, this handful of members had remained unsoiled by the world around them. The verse in question contains Christ's commendation to this group for their consistent walk. "To assume from what is said here that God will possibly erase names from the book of life is to read into the text a concept clearly not present. At best, it is an argument from silence, for the verse simply reads, "And I will not erase his name from the book of life." If this statement raises doubts for some about eternal security, they would do well to search the Scriptures for an answer. But to base one's answer to this important question on this verse is to adopt a method of study with the potential of leading to all kinds of problematic conclusions." (...) "The good news is, God's pencil has no eraser. Before you breathed your first word, God knew how you would respond to His offer of grace. According to His foreknowledge, He wrote your name in the book of life. And there it shall remain forever. Jesus said it this way: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. John 10.27-28 "And as if that were not clear enough: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. John 10.29 " (To read the entire article, which I suggest you do before you post questions, go to: http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring/bible_says/eternal_security/erase_149096.html) --Radioman2 |
||||||
382 | Can a person lose salvation? | Luke 15:11 | Radioman2 | 96434 | ||
CDBJ: It's very good to hear from you. Thanks again for the information you posted two years ago. I have spent many profitable hours at the website you recommended, (www.solagroup.org). I'm still holding to the truth you have shown me re the sequence of events in Matthew 24 and Revelation. Regarding your post, as I suggested in my Note, ID# 96402, read the entire article at: (http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring/bible_says/eternal_security/erase_149096.html). However, whether you read the article or not, I want you to know that I always welcome any and all questions from you. I will do my best to answer them. I am indebted to you for the information you provided re Matthew 24 and Revelation. Grace and peace to you, --Radioman2 |
||||||
383 | The Rich Man and Lazarus... | Luke 16:23 | Radioman2 | 86035 | ||
If hell fire is false and if self-awareness after death is also false, then Jesus is using false doctrines to teach a truth. Parables illustrate truth. | ||||||
384 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80349 | ||
"This cup IS the new covenant in My blood." NASB Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. NASB 1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." NASB Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. ---------- You write: "Scripture ... Luk 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, Heb 12:24 ... Emmaus, God's day to you. The cup is the sign of the New Covenant, which is His blood. Searcher" You write: "That is what I see the Bible say" ---------- WHERE do you see the Bible saying this? I ask you: WHERE in the three verses you cited does it SAY "The cup is the SIGN OF the New Covenant"? What it SAYS is: "This cup . . . IS the new covenant in My blood." The verses in Luke and 1 Corinthians say nothing at all about a SIGN. In Hebrews 12:24, -- "...and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant..." -- there is no mention of the word SIGN. We know what the Bible means by what it SAYS. Likewise, we know what it says by what it SAYS. You write: "One could always stretch the Bible to make their case." I agree with you there. |
||||||
385 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80364 | ||
You write: '"This cup" is a sign of His blood.' That may be. I have neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. You originally wrote: "The cup is the sign of the New Covenant, which is His blood." "That is what I see the Bible say." Again, the word SIGN is not in the three verses you cited. I was not replying to what you meant, but to what you actually said in your post. You yourself used the word "say". I have merely pointed out that the text does not SAY anything about a SIGN; it doesn't even use the word. I have not addressed the issue of what the cup is the sign of. I merely pointed out that the word "sign" does not appear in these texts. We need first to determine what the text says before we can determine what it means. |
||||||
386 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80367 | ||
Emmaus: I could not and would not disagree that the Bible says "this IS my blood of the covenant," Matt 26:28. However, my point was not that every verse in the Bible is to be interpreted literally. We know that the Bible often uses figurative language. As for the doctrine of transubstantiation, no, I do not agree with this teaching. My sincere thanks to you, Emmaus, for your careful, patient work in presenting the doctrines of your church, often in the face of much hostility. I would that everyone on this forum presented their beliefs with such clarity and courtesy as you consistently show. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
387 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80371 | ||
Emmaus: One of the next questions may well be: What is the difference between the sign, the symbol, and the reality? :-) Thanks to both you and Joe for all your good help. Sincerely. Radioman2 |
||||||
388 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman2 | 95206 | ||
You write: 'I also believe that "The just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him" (Hebrews 10:38).' Don't stop there. Go on and read the next verse. NASB Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul. Now read the two verses together. AMPLIFIED Hebrews 10:38 But the just shall live by faith [My righteous servant shall live by his conviction respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, and holy fervor born of faith and conjoined with it]; and if he draws back and shrinks in fear, My soul has no delight or pleasure in him. [Hab. 2:3, 4.] AMPLIFIED Hebrews 10:39 But our way is not that of those who draw back to eternal misery (perdition) and are utterly destroyed, but we are of those who believe [who cleave to and trust in and rely on God through Jesus Christ, the Messiah] and by faith preserve the soul. Moreover, the subject of 2 Peter chapter 2 is false prophets and false teachers -- not believers, according to 2 Peter 2:1. NASB 2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. --Radioman2 |
||||||
389 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman2 | 95261 | ||
Oh, I'm chimin'. The R-man :-) |
||||||
390 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman2 | 95909 | ||
Whether Christians listen to Statements of Faith or whether the Bible is our source of Truth and Faith is NOT the point of my question. I asked where "Once saved, always saved" is found in a denomination's statement of faith for a reason, i.e., because I very much doubt that any statement of faith says that. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
391 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | Radioman2 | 93908 | ||
"Touch not mine anointed" ____________________ '...if any individual Christian is to be considered anointed, then so every Christian must be as well. For this is the only sense in which the term is used (apart from Christ) in the New Testament: "You [referring to all believers] have an anointing from the Holy One" (1 John 2:20, NIV). Thus, no believer can justifiably claim any special status as God's "untouchable anointed" over other believers.' ____________________ 'Advocates [of authoritarian rule or unconditional authority for certain preachers and evangelists] assume that Scripture supports their view. Their key biblical proof text is Psalm 105:15: "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" (KJV). But a close examination of this passage reveals that it has nothing to do with challenging the teachings of church leaders. 'It first needs to be noted that the Old Testament phrase "the Lord's anointed" is typically used to refer to the kings of Israel (1 Sam. 12:3, 5; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1:14, 16; 19:21; Ps. 20:6; Lam. 4:20), at times specifically to the royal line de-scended from David (Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 89:38, 51), and not to prophets and teachers. While the text does also mention prophets, in the context of Psalm 105 the reference is undoubtedly to the patriarchs in general (vv. 8-15; cf. 1 Chron. 16:15-22), and to Abraham (whom God called a prophet) in particular (Gen. 20:7). It is therefore debatable whether this passage can be applied to select leaders within the body of Christ. 'Even if the text can be applied to certain church leaders today, in the context of this passage the words "touch" and "do harm" have to do with inflicting physical harm upon someone. Psalm 105:15 is therefore wholly irrelevant to the issue of questioning the teachings of any of God's "anointed." (...) 'Finally, if any individual Christian is to be considered anointed, then so every Christian must be as well. For this is the only sense in which the term is used (apart from Christ) in the New Testament: "You [referring to all believers] have an anointing from the Holy One" (1 John 2:20, NIV). Thus, no believer can justifiably claim any special status as God's "untouchable anointed" over other believers.' (www.equip.org) |
||||||
392 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | Radioman2 | 93933 | ||
Benny Hinn In His Own Words - Quotes - 'I am a 'little messiah' walking the earth' Benny Hinn, "Praise-a-Thon" on , November 6, 1990 'Adam was a super being when God created him. I don't know whether people know this, but he was the first Superman that really ever lived. First of all, the Scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea - which means he used to fly. Of course, how can he have dominion over the birds and not be able to do what they do? The word "dominion" in the Hebrew clearly declares that if you have dominion over a subject, that you do everything that subject does. In other words, that subject, if it does someting you cannot do, you don't have dominion over it. I'll prove it further. Adam not only flew, he flew to space. He was-with one thought he would be on the moon.' Benny Hinn, Praise the Lord program on , December 26, 1991 'Man, I feel revelation knowledge already coming on me here. Life your hands. Something new is going to happen here today. I felt it just as I walked down here. Holy Spirit, take over in the name of Jesus... God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person; and He is a triune being by Himself separate from the Son and the Holy Ghost. Say, what did you say? Hear it, hear it, hear it. See, God the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person. But each one of them is a triune being by Himself. If I can shock you - and maybe I should - there's nine of them. Huh, what did you say? Let me explain: God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with his own personal spirit, with his own personal soul, and his own personal spirit-body. 'You say, Huh, I never heard that. Well you think you're in this church to hear things you've heard for the last 50 years?' Benny Hinn, Benny Hinn program on October 3, 1991 'God came from heaven, became a man, made man into little gods, went back to heaven as a man. He faces the Father as a man. I face devils as the son of God... Quit your nonsense! What else are you? If you say, I am, you're saying I'm a part of Him, right? Is he God? Are you His offspring? Are you His children? You can't be human! You can't! You can't! God didn't give birth to flesh. You said, "Well, that's heresy." No, that's your crazy brain saying that.' Benny Hinn, Our Position in Christ #2-The Word Made Flesh (Orlando: Orlando Christian Center, 1991), videotape #255. 'And let me add this: Had the Holy Spirit not been with Jesus, He would have sinned. That,s right, it was the Holy Spirit that was the power that kept Him pure. He was not only sent from heaven, but He was called the Son of Man - and as such He was capable of sinning... Without the Holy Ghost, Jesus would have never have made it...Can you imagine Christ headed for the grave, knowing He would remain there forever, if the Holy Ghost would change His mind about raising Him from the dead?' Benny Hinn, Good Morning, Holy Spirit (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 135-36. 'Ladies and gentlemen, the serpent is a symbol of Satan. Jesus Christ knew the only way He would stop Satan is by becoming one in nature with him. You say, "What did you say? What blasphemy is this?" No, you hear this! He did not take my sin; He became my sin. Sin is the nature of hell. Sin is what made Satan... It was sin that made Satan. Jesus said, "I'll be sin! I'll go to the lowest place! I'll go to the origin of it! I won't just take part in it, I'll be the totality of it!" When Jesus became sin, sir, He took it from A to Z and said, "No more!" Think about this: He became flesh, that flesh might become like Him. He became death, so dying man can live. He became sin, so sinners can be righteous in Him. He became one with the nature of Satan, so all those who had the nature of Satan can partake of the nature of God.' Benny Hinn, Benny Hinn program on (December 15, 1990). 'My, you know, whoosh! The Holy Ghost is just showing me some stuff. I'm getting dizzy! I'm telling you the truth - it's, it's just heavy right now on me... He's [referring to Jesus] in the underworld now. God isn't there, the Holy Ghost isn't there, and the Bible says He was begotten. Do you know what the word begotten means? It means reborn. Do you want another shocker? Have you been begotten? So was He. Don't let anyone deceive you. Jesus was reborn. You say, 'What are you talking about?'... He was reborn. He had to be reborn... If He was not reborn, I could not be reborn, I would never be reborn. How can I face Jesus and say, "Jesus, You went through everything I've gone through, except the new birth?' Benny Hinn, Our Position 'In Christ,' Part 1 (Orlando, FL: Orlando Christian Center, 1991), videotape #TV-254. (Apologetics Index http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/h01.html) 2908 |
||||||
393 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | Radioman2 | 93942 | ||
Benny Hinn is controversial for his theology, his practices, and his claims. Christianity Today on Benny Hinn 'Benny Hinn is controversial for his theology, his practices, and his claims. While he at one point denounced the word-faith message, he later picked it up again. 'Representatives of CRI and other evangelical apologetics ministries say they have noticed a pattern of Hinn telling people behind the scenes that he has changed, but then going on as before. (...) 'Indeed, for those who have been keeping an eye on him, Hinn has proven to be difficult to pin down. Not long after telling Christianity Today that the ''faith message'' (as articulated by such teachers as Kenneth Copeland ) does not ''add up,'' Hinn said that speaking out against Copeland was tantamount to ''attacking the very presence of God.'' Also, though affirming the concept of a triune God , he continues to maintain that the Holy Spirit has a ''spirit-body.'' 'In last year's interview with CT, Hinn said he would no longer use the term revelation knowledge in reference to some of his teachings because of the implication that those teachings were directly from God and thus infallible. While he has shunned the term revelation knowledge, just a few months ago on TV Hinn said that the Holy Spirit was at that moment teaching him that God originally designed women to give birth out of their sides. (...) 'According to Hanegraaff , Hinn several times denied to him having made the statement about women and birth. Hanegraaff said he finally told Hinn where he could find the disputed remark on the videotaped sermon. Hinn later acknowledged making the statement, calling it ''dumb.'' Hanegraaff said that when he reminded Hinn that he had credited the Holy Spirit with the teaching, the evangelist chuckled and said he had actually picked up the teaching from the (1963) Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. (...) 'Critics have also questioned Hinn's account of his testimony. Hinn says he was miraculously cured of stuttering, but PFO claims it has talked to several people from Hinn's youth who do not recall him stuttering. And in an article in PFO's next newsletter, Fisher challenges Hinn's claim that his father was the mayor of Jaffa, Israel. Hinn acknowledges that his father did not have the title of mayor, but says he performed the functions of mayor. Fisher says Hinn's father, who is now deceased, was ''a clerk in an Arab labor office.''' Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1992 (http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/h01.html) 2908 |
||||||
394 | Can one accept Christ but not the Bible? | Luke 24:27 | Radioman2 | 86730 | ||
Can one be a skeptic and a believer at the same time? Can an individual accept the Son of God but reject the written Word of God? Edb, Emmaus, Hank, Justme, Mommapbs, Morant61, Reformer Joe and anyone else who wishes to reply: I have a question for you. I sincerely would like to know: Here on the forum we often read postings written by people who claim to be Christians, who profess faith in Christ for salvation. Then they go on to say they have many strong doubts about the Bible -- its inspiration, authority and reliability in the various English translations. Often they cite verses by Paul that they question -- ones they don't agree with or that anger them. Or they may cite passages in Genesis that they have a hard time accepting as inspired, accurate and literal. Some do not trust any English translation, as if all were perverted versions produced as a result of some conspiracy to deceive. You get the picture. My question is: Is it likely that the person who continues to reject part(s) of the Bible, to question the inspiration or authority of the Bible, to have no confidence in any English translation, etc. -- is it likely that such a person is really a Christian? Especially if this doubt and mistrust of the Bible continues for years and years with no change, no growth, and no resolution? (In my question I am not suggesting that we pick certain individuals by name and judge whether they are saved.) My question is a general one. In short, people who have a low view of the Bible and who question every other verse they read -- how likely is it that they have really come to know Christ, with the result that they are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit? If one's faith in the written Word is so uncertain, precarious and fragile and remains that way for years and years, is it likely that this person truly believes that Jesus is everything the Bible says he is? Is it likely that their salvation is real? Again, this is not to judge any given individual(s) as to their salvation. But, it just seems a contradiction to me that although what we know of God and Christ is contained in the Bible, there are people who have little or no trust in the written Word of God and still claim to be Christians. Is this possible, impossible, the normal Christian experience, abnormal or what? What do you all think? Why do you believe what you do regarding this question? Can you give scripture and sound reasoning to back up your view of this matter? Sincerely, Radioman2 |
||||||
395 | Can one accept Christ but not the Bible? | Luke 24:27 | Radioman2 | 86732 | ||
. | ||||||
396 | Can one accept Christ but not the Bible? | Luke 24:27 | Radioman2 | 86782 | ||
Mommapbs: Q: 'Why was this "restricted?"' A: I don't know. Radioman2 |
||||||
397 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79568 | ||
Has anyone here ever served in the Armed Forces? Has anyone here ever fought in an actual war (World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc.)? If so, what do you veterans think? If a soldier lies to the enemy in the line of duty in order to protect the lives of himself or others, is he sinning? What do you all think is more urgent -- dying and taking pride in the fact that you didn't lie OR the survival of your fellow soldiers or civilians? Why would you feel obligated to tell the enemy everything you know? Also, the idea of sacrificing the lives of innocent women and children so you can boast of your sinlessnesss doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm not talking about situational ethics. I'm talking about what has more value -- your pride in your rigid obedience to the letter of the law or the lives of innocent people? Man was not made for the Law; but the Law was made for man. |
||||||
398 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79675 | ||
You make a good point. Your post provides an excellent example of what I have written in an earlier post: If a soldier lies to the enemy in the line of duty in order to protect the lives of himself or others, is he sinning? What do you all think is more urgent -- dying and taking pride in the fact that you didn't lie OR the survival of your fellow soldiers, civilians, or believers? Why would you feel obligated to tell the enemy everything you know? Also, the idea of sacrificing the lives of innocent women and children so you can boast of your sinlessnesss doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What has more value -- your pride in your rigid obedience to the letter of the law or the lives of innocent people? But it may be that common sense is not all that common. |
||||||
399 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79738 | ||
Tim: Thank you for doing a thorough job of providing us with verses that we need to consider if we are going to discuss this issue. It seems to me that in this thread there are at least three questions that are being addressed: 1) Is lying a sin?; 2) Define "lie" or "deceive"; 3) Are we obligated to tell the enemy all that we know? Before we can answer question #3, we must answer questions #1 and #2. You have answered question # 1 rather clearly. I will attempt here to define "lie" and "deceive". (From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) to lie is '1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression' - - - - - - - - - - 'de·ceive 'Function: verb 'Date: 13th century (...) 'intransitive senses : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression (appearances can deceive) '- de·ceiv·er noun '- de·ceiv·ing·ly /-'sE-vi[ng]-lE/ adverb 'synonyms DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGUILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. 'DECEIVE implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness (tried to deceive me about the cost). 'MISLEAD implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional (I was misled by the confusing sign). 'DELUDE implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth (we were deluded into thinking we were safe). 'BEGUILE stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving (was beguiled by false promises). ' |
||||||
400 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79748 | ||
Ed: You raise some good questions. However, I have never advocated tricking anyone into receiving the gospel or getting saved. Nor would I advocate misrepresenting the gospel in any way. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [40] >> |