Results 421 - 440 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | Isn't believing Christ for salvation suf | John 3:3 | Radioman2 | 91240 | ||
John Reformed: I see you are waiting for "him" to offer a foundation for his argument. Don't hold your breath. The weather is too hot for holding one's breath or skating on thin ice. On the forum, there is nothing more irritating than to ask someone what his exclusive, superior knowledge is and then to have that person refuse to tell. After a few dozen postings by such a person, you'd think they'd get to their point if they ever had one. This has been the case with a number of readers over the past 2 1/2 years, so you know what I'm talking about. Much thanks to you for all your fine postings. Radioman2 |
||||||
422 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 78578 | ||
For God so loved the elect Hank: Haven't you heard? For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that if the elect believe in Him they shall not perish, but have eternal life. |
||||||
423 | Am I once and forever saved? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85464 | ||
No, we are not once and forever saved. Isn't it a fact that our salvation is a roller coaster ride of being saved on Sunday and then losing it on Monday? Eternal life by definition is temporary, is it not? Isn't it a fact that Jesus is NOT able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He does NOT ever live to make intercession for them? Isn't it a fact that my salvation depends on God AND me? And that if I mess up, I might lose it? Isn't it obvious that if there is no security in our salvation, we can never have any assurance of it? Where does it say in the Bible "if you've left your first love, God, then you are no longer in Christ"? Please show us the book, chapter and verse where the Bible says this. |
||||||
424 | Am I once and forever saved? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85470 | ||
Revelation 2:4-5 does not say what you said it does. DAIRYLEADER5: You write: "But if youve left your first love,God, then you are no longer in Christ." What it actually SAYS is: Revelation 2 [4] Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. [5] Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Note that the text says: "or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." "WILL REMOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF HIS PLACE"; not "you are no longer in Christ." We know what the Bible means by what IT says -- not by what WE think it says. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
425 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 88067 | ||
Hank: Please come back to the Forum. Don't give up on it. Who knows? Maybe someday, using our free will, we shall elect to wake up and stop smelling the tulips -- or not. Or at least stop quarreling over them. In the meantime we can only hope that we won't fall from our good works and lose the salvation that, according to some, we can never have assurance of, since we can never know whether we've made it until we've held on and held out to the end. Radioman2 |
||||||
426 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 89065 | ||
Tim: You write: "Too often we make statements that are based upon assumptions, but present them as though they are Biblical statements." Amen! As it has been said on this forum 100 times, WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE MEANS BY WHAT IT SAYS. Your brother, Radioman2 |
||||||
427 | Is God's love unconditional ? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 91613 | ||
God's love is not based on the merit of the recipient. Deut. 7:7-8 (ESV) It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, [8] but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Romans 5:7-8 (ESV) For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— [8] but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. |
||||||
428 | Is God's love unconditional ? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 91631 | ||
Michaelogical: I did not say that God's love is not based on anything. Nor did I once use the word condition or conditional in my Note. I merely said what I said, which is: "God's love is not based on the merit of the recipient." It seems to me that the REASON for the oath is God's love. Not the other way around. The result of God's love is the cross. This is not the same as saying the condition of God's love is the cross. Look at the order found in John 3:16. God's love precedes the giving of His only begotten son. Grace to you! Radioman2 |
||||||
429 | What would Jesus have you do? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 102997 | ||
[khuck: Welcome to the Forum. I am delighted to have you on board. May God richly bless you. I agree with your post regarding baptism. Grace to you, Radioman2] * * * * * * * * * * * * * The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" (http://www.equip.org/search/). |
||||||
430 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103327 | ||
AO: You write: "What Jesus taught in John 3:1-21 does not pertain to the Old Testament..." John 3:5 born of water and the Spirit. 'Jesus referred not to literal water here but to the need for "cleansing" (e.g., Ezek. 36:24-27). When water is used figuratively in the OT, it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with "spirit" (Num. 19:17-19; Ps. 51:9,10; Is. 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; Joel 2:28,29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (compare Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom.' (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) --Radioman2 |
||||||
431 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103338 | ||
Baptism never was part of Paul's gospel 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . . In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.' ____________________ "...it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
432 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103369 | ||
a false addition to faith when... "Repentance. This is a valid condition for salvation when understood as a synonym for faith. It is a false addition to faith when understood as a prerequisite, requiring the cleansing of the life in order to be saved" (p. 1950, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1978). ******************** [AO: 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . .' 'If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?' Your quoting Acts 8:12 hardly answers the points made in my previous post, which follows:] Baptism never was part of Paul's gospel 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . . In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.' ____________________ "...it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
433 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103377 | ||
deejhermit writes: "Please stop taking verses out of the Bible and lifting them out of the Bible." Radioman2 replies: If you have a point, please tell us what it is. You need not resort to personal attacks as you did in the above quote. |
||||||
434 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103409 | ||
deejhermit: I've overreacted to what you had posted earlier. I apologize for that. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
435 | whats the reference to our day? | John 4:48 | Radioman2 | 85582 | ||
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 | ||||||
436 | Can you fall from grace? | John 5:24 | Radioman2 | 81640 | ||
"Can we be unsealed?" The Bible nowhere even hints that this is possible. - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER 'A. The Issue. Can a true believer ever lose his salvation by sinning, ceasing to believe, or in any other way? 'B. The Proof of Security. The doctrine of eternal security rests on a proper concept of what God actually does when He saves a soul. '1. He loves to the uttermost. '2. He purposes to keep in spite of everything. '3. He intends to present us faultless before Himself. '4. His Son ever lives to make intercession to keep us saved. '5. His Spirit has placed us into the Body of Christ. '6. His Spirit has sealed us until the day of redemption. '7. His Word guarantees that nothing (including ourselves) can separate us from Christ. 'In order to lose one's salvation all of these works of God would have to be undone, and THE BIBLE NOWHERE EVEN HINTS THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE. 'C. The Problem Passages. '1. Hebrews 6:4-6. If this teaches that one can lose his salvation, it also teaches that one can never be saved a second time. '2. John 15:6. Probably refers to the judgment seat of Christ. '3. James 2:14-26. Nonworking faith is not a faith that saves in the first place. '4. 2 Peter 2 and Jude are referring to false teachers, who in Jude's estimation were not true believers (Jude 19; compare Rom. 8:9). '5. Matthew 24:13. End of what? (The Great Tribulation.)' - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Scripture references for section B.) 1. John 13:1 2. John 10:28-30 3. Jude 24 4. Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1 5. 1 Cor. 12:13 6. Eph. 4:30 7. Rom. 8:28-39 (Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) (Emphasis added.) |
||||||
437 | Can you fall from grace? | John 5:24 | Radioman2 | 81671 | ||
Genuine saving faith always perseveres (compare John 8:31; 15:5,6; Col 1:22,23; Heb 3:12-14; 4:11; 1 John 2:19). "Those genuinely born again endure in faith and fellowship and the truth (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Tim. 2:12). The ultimate test of true Christianity is endurance (Mark 13:13; Heb. 3:14)." (MacArthur Study Bible). Col. 1:21-23 (ESV) And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, [22] he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, [23] if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. "1:23 *continue in the faith.* Those who have been reconciled will persevere in faith and obedience because, in addition to being declared righteous, they are actually made new creatures (2 Cor 5:17) with a new disposition that loves God, hates sin, desires obedience, and is energized by the indwelling Holy Spirit (compare John 8:30-32; 1 John 2:19). Rather than defect from the gospel they heard, true believers will remain solid on Christ who is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and faithful by the enabling grace of God (Phil 1:6; 2:11-13)" (page 1834, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
438 | More thoughts and questions on the boy | John 6:9 | Radioman2 | 98176 | ||
Hank: What if the fish were spurgeon? --Radioman2 :-) |
||||||
439 | Divorce and the Pastor | John 6:37 | Radioman2 | 87604 | ||
Divorce and the Pastor 'Where does it say in God's Word that divorce disqualifies a man from God's service? We're not talking about infidelity here. We're not talking about adultery here. We are talking about two people whose marital difficulties have reached the point where, for one of them at least, staying married is no longer the option. 'I understand Paul's directions to Timothy were that a pastor must be the husband of one wife. But if [one] divorces, and if [he] does not remarry, how has he violated Paul's directives? 'Let's check the record. What does the Bible say about divorce? 'First, through Malachi, God said, "I hate divorce." That's pretty clear. 'Second, Jesus was confronted one day by the Pharisees about the question of divorce and remarriage. Please get that! The context of the passage, Matthew 19:3-9, the reason they continued to question Him, was not to learn whether or not a married couple could divorce. They already knew from God's declaration in Deuteronomy 24, the passage to which Jesus appealed, that they could. The Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus on the question of whether or not divorced couples could, according to Scripture, remarry. 'Jesus said, "God's original plan never included divorce, but because your hearts are hard, he permitted it on the grounds of adultery. If the marriage is dissolved because of adultery, the innocent party may remarry without jeopardy." 'Who initially and originally said a husband and wife should not get a divorce? God. Who initially and originally allowed a husband and wife to get a divorce? God. Is there a contradiction there? Yes, there is, and we need to understand what Jesus said. The contradiction is within us – you and me – not with Almighty God! 'Is divorce wrong? It is, unless Jesus lied. 'Does it disqualify an individual from ever entering Heaven. It does not, unless Jesus lied, because Jesus said, "Whoever comes to me in faith, I will never cast out.' 'But where does Scripture say that if a pastor becomes divorced, it disqualifies him from being a pastor? The disqualification comes from remarriage which contradicts the Bible's directives.' [Note: Neither this post nor this thread is about personalities. It's not about naming names. The purpose here is to discuss biblical principles. The day that readers start naming names will be the last day of this discussion.] ____________________ DIVORCE AND THE PASTOR by David Sisler (http://davidsisler.com/9-2.htm) |
||||||
440 | Repost of ID# 55729 by stokeyhk | John 9:24 | Radioman2 | 86711 | ||
[Repost of ID# 55729 by stokeyhk. "The teaching that Michael, the archangel... stokeyhk Wed 07/24/02, 10:40am"] The teaching that Michael, the archangel is Jesus Christ before he came to earth and since his return to heaven is not exclusive to Jehovah's Witnesses. The name of Michael is found in Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7. The term "the archangel" is found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NIV) and Jude 9. Daniel 10:13 says: "Michael, one of the chief princes." Daniel 10:21 says: "Michael, your [Daniel's] prince." Daniel 12:1 says: "Michael, the great prince who protects your [Daniel's] people." Jude 9 says: "Michael the archangel." Revelation 12:7 says: "Michael and his angels." Michael means "Who is like God?" This points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael is the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah's sovereignty and destroying God's enemies. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NIV), the command of Jesus for the resurrection to begin is described as "the voice of the archangel," and Jude 9 says the archangel is Michael. If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus, but to other angels, then the reference to "the voice of the archangel" would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God. Notice the term is never plural in the Bible, thus implying that there is only one: "THE archangel." Revelation 12:7-12 describes "Michael and his angels" defeating Satan and his angels in connection with kingly authority being conferred on Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:7) Jesus is the one who leads the armies in heaven to destroy the nations of the world. Jesus is the one who will 'crush Satan's head' also. (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16) Daniel 12:1 associates the 'standing up of Michael' to act with authority with an unprecedented "time of distress" during "the time of the end." (Daniel 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21, 40) This fits the experience of the nations in Revelation 19:11-16 and Matthew 24:21. So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to the earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God. Stokey. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [40] >> |