Results 401 - 420 of 729
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: charis Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Is there no volition? | John 15:4 | charis | 978 | ||
Dear friend, as a seeker of Truth, I cannot 'agree to disagree.' because this would be a disservice to us both. However, I will promise to you that, because of my great respect for you, your faith, your honesty, and your desire for Truth (in Jesus), I won't allow any disagreement to hinder our continued fellowship. (I have some interesting questions about that in the future) Some of my best friends, mentors, and students are those that I share some disagreement. The key word is share. I fellowship with them in Jesus' name! After all, "...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..." Romans 3:4 I will always pray that my inadequacies will be shown to me through God's servants, and also that I might serve God by (by grace) portraying truth. Indeed, continued fellowship and communication will glorify the Lord in our midst. In Christ Jesus. |
||||||
402 | Is there no volition? | John 15:4 | charis | 1015 | ||
Good night, my dear fellow, from the land of the rising sun. Amen! to your note. Iesu Kirisuto no na ni yori (in the name of Christ Jesus), Randell | ||||||
403 | Can a Pastor makes friend with sheeps? | John 15:15 | charis | 54524 | ||
Dear luv2study, Greetings in Jesus' name! Friend, what in the world (pun very much intended!) is "outside help?!" Keep you pastor out of it?! "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." Hebrews 13:17 NASB. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
404 | Can a Pastor makes friend with sheeps? | John 15:15 | charis | 54527 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in the name of Jesus! Great answer! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
405 | What is prayer? | Acts 1:14 | charis | 6074 | ||
Dear prayon, Thank you for a concise, Biblical and beautiful answer! I agree that prayer is *communication* with God, implying more than 'placing an order' to a 'sugar daddy' in heaven. Indeed, we must listen, too! I daresay, for prayer to be effective, acting in accord with those things he speaks to us in prayer is necessary. Blessings to you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
406 | When will I speak/pray in tongues? | Acts 2:6 | charis | 27919 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in Jesus' name! Question: "Where is your focus, tongues speakers?" Answer from Yokohama: "...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:2 NASB! We believe that all things of God will be in accord with the Bible, but we do not worship the Bible, or scholarship. The present-day sensitivity to the quickening of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary to knowing God's good intentions. Experience does not define our faith, but experience can and does encourage us in our faith, "For the word of God is living and active (today!) and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 NASB. (parenthetical mine) Joe, I agree with every single word you wrote about the abuses of the gifts of the Holy Spirit! But (just maybe!), your bitterness toward these abuses has affected your ability to discern the present-day efficacy of these gifts.(?) There is at least one church I know of that practices the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit, yet retains thought, study, order, dignity, and the Word of God permeates every aspect of their church and home experience. This church is not perfect in this sojourn, but pursues it daily. I am sure that there are many more of this kind of church, but they don't get famous. :-) Sadly, the famous (infamous) ones are often steeped in the abuse that you decry. :-( Blessing and Love to you in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
407 | When will I speak/pray in tongues? | Acts 2:6 | charis | 27924 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings from Japan in the name of Jesus! I guess I could tell you were not as 'cessationist' as some (others) may think! Perhaps the gift of discerning is upon me from time to time, too! ;-) Brother, I was once part of a church that demanded water baptism and tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in order to be 'truly' saved. My 'heretical' questions about those not 'truly' saved got me excommunicated, after 17 years of fellowship. So, I know exactly (up close and personal!) what you mean about the abuses. Perhaps that is where some of my radical 'Jesus-centric' ideas come from. (?) In my local church, we accept the gift of speaking in tongues, but never flaunt it, focus upon it, or require it. It is simply one of the gifts that the Lord has given His church, for the glory of His church, thereby edifying God. All other gifts and ministries are treated in the same manner, and no person is lifted up, because the gifts are from God, for God, and not for personal gain or fame. And, Oh! do I agree with you about the 'sensational' (emotional, soulish?) application of these gifts and ministries, undignified and arrogant, without a picogram of true humility or responsibility! You wrote beautifully: "I do not worship the Bible as I worship God. However, I hold the Bible in the utmost place of honor and reverance in my heart as the inerrant message from that God, revealing as much of Himself as He in His wisdom has decreed that we are to know. While I, too, experience the presence of the Holy Spirit in the proclamation of His Word, in the sacraments, in prayer, and in corporate worship; that experience is solidly God-centered and based 100 percent around the book from God about God to the glory of God alone." Thank you, my colleague, and many blessings upon you and yours. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
408 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | charis | 1953 | ||
Dear wdc, Your answer is not confusing to me, but very lucid. The 'last days' seems to be the 'church age,' or vice-versa. This would include what was seen on the Day of Pentecost, what we see now, and what will happen 'on that day.' As to the details of future events, I don't think we know, or CAN know, because much more is hidden than is revealed. I find it ironic that many ridicule all 'Spirit-filled' Christians because of the bad examples of abuse, but claim divine revelation and understanding by the 'unction of the Holy Spirit' when talking of their own dogma. Go figure! It is obvious that the Spirit of Jesus is among us (all), and that he wishes us to be of one heart. The things that keeps us from being able to explain ourselves to eachother is Christian bigotry, impatience, tradition, personal pride in dogma, intolerance toward other views, and lack of respect for another believer. Not necessarily in that order, and I am sure there are more. One thing that is sure, though Satan may not be personally responsible for all of the above, he definitely enjoys the end result! Many blessings to you in Christ Jesus. |
||||||
409 | OT church? | Acts 2:17 | charis | 4043 | ||
Dear Sam, Salvation, meaning the rescinding of our sentence to be sent to Hell, is definitely a have-have not situation. Saints from any age that have received a pardon from the curse of Adam are, in that sense, saved. However, I must say that I believe that there is a difference in the covenant, and more than one dispensation of salvation. "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Matthew 11:11 NASB This scripture speaks to me of a better dispensation of salvation in the kingdom of God. I agree that grace has been working from the very beginning. Anyone looking at stiff-necked Israel must clearly see that God has always been graceful toward His people. But theirs was a different covenant. The church of Jesus Christ was built upon the new revelation of the kingdom of God, that even Abraham was not privy. The Old Testament was for a chosen race of people, decended from one man. God allowed a few foreigners to be received into the fold, but generally did not accept Gentiles. In the New Covenant, race is not considered, neither is gender or social status. It is unique, and better than any previous promise. I am certain that Abraham, Moses and David are not ashamed of their relationship with God, and I certainly do not consider them 'second class citizens.' They are to be honored in their relationship with God. I do not see that the New Covenant negates the Old Covenant in any way. You will see my position on this in previous postings regarding Israel. The Old Testament is a 'tutor' to us, but a reality to the saints of that age. I also find it hard to think of the blood of Christ as working retroactively. When Jesus descended to tear down the gates of Hell, the saints of old received the benefit of this holy work, but I do not see their status as 'upgraded.' My friend, I do see that salvation is salvation. However, I must believe that the Christ came to usher us into a new and better age, which I prefer to call the 'Church Age.' Blessings upon you in the Lord Jesus, charis |
||||||
410 | Who is God talking to? | Acts 2:17 | charis | 61064 | ||
Dear John, Greetings in the name of Jesus! Indeed, we must identify the participants in any communication to discern the context. Yes, to whom something is said allows us to understand what was said. But, my friend, we cannot contextualize ourselves out of ANY portion of Scripture in an absolute sense. The entire Bible was written for the benefit of God's people, and the entire New Testament is for the benefit of those that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. I will use the two examples you used: John 8:44 Can we honestly say that we, body, soul and spirit, are completely of the Father? That we never do the will of Satan? This would be at odds with the confession of Paul, who said, "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." 2 Corinthians 12:7 NASB. As to Luke 13:34, the history of the church has shown time and again the religious leaders of Christianity have continued to murder pious men who spoke the word of God boldly. "Only," "never," "always," etc. are words that can get us into trouble with the Spirit of God, because we limit our understanding with 'present' (or more often, 'past') revelation of God, negating ongoing communication with the individual. Truly, the Bible canon is finished, but the Spirit continues to speak to His servants. Well, I must go now. Love and blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
411 | Who is God talking to? | Acts 2:17 | charis | 61070 | ||
Dear Searcher, Greetings in the name of Jesus! To answer your question, yes, if led by the Spirit with the purpose of glorifying God, we CAN pick up snakes and drink poison without harm. We can also see the sick recover, and many other things in Jesus' name. Was Peter's sermon for the church? Are you the one to judge which parts are for whom? Or does the Spirit judge these things? How can you say "your" is for the Jews only, BUT it includes us too? Yes, we DO have to be careful when we read the Bible! We must read with faith. We must also have the 'flexibility' (humility) to allow the Spirit of God to do as He pleases. When we say, "This part only applies to these people," we place a limitation on God according to our present understanding. Though I have some ideas about the 'application' of Bible passages, making 'absolute' statements sets me up for a fall. 'Only,' 'never,' 'always,' and such words are arrogance before God. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
412 | Who is God talking to? | Acts 2:17 | charis | 61113 | ||
Dear Searcher, Blessings in Jesus' name! Indeed, my friend, we might just have to wait until heaven to see I is right! :-) Sorry, but I see the phrase you use, "agree to disagree" to be a cop-out. This thread began by my asking if this passage from Acts and the reference to Joel were signifying the "church age." I think it is pretty obvious to most of the subsequent posters that I was speaking of relevance to Christians now. A year and a half later, you said, "No, it's only for Isreal." Perhaps my questions have not been clear, but I must ask for clarification. Are you speaking of Israel (the audience at the time) as being the unregenerate race of people, who constantly spurned God's commandments, had many factions, selfish rulers, traditions in place of the word of God, who ignored the prophets, and even persecuted them, who were obstinate and sinful? If so, doesn't this ALSO sound like another religion we all know? Or are you saying that Peter was talking only for the benefit of 'Messianic Jews?' ('Jews-for-Jesus,' et al) Because I think we can agree that the New Testament is addressed to ALL that believe in Christ Jesus, regardless of race, name, tribe, or former religious affiliation. Because a certain passage is specifically addressed to a certain audience, are we (non-Jews) to simply ignore that passage? And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" Acts 2:40 NASB The above clearly is speaking to "them," the Jews, right? How about: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:3 NASB It is rather obvious that Jesus is speaking to the (Jewish) disciples, leaders, multitude throughout the Gospels, so are the Beatitudes none of our business? The entire Sermon on the Mount, too? None of these were addressed to Greeks or Gentiles, as far as I can see. Paul very specifically spoke to the church in Galatia, Corinth, Rome, etc. The author of Hebrews wrote to, guess who? So I don't need those books in my Bible? And the Lord spoke to John in the Book of Revelation many 'specific' words of exhortation to different churches. Well, I've never even BEEN to Laodicea, so I can ignore that prophecy? Based on audience context, very little of the Bible is 'specifically' pertinent to ME! Yet I read and believe that ENTIRE Bible. Let us not so glibly assign large portions of Scripture to 'irrelevancy.' Searcher, believe it or not, I understand the concept of context. But to make statements such as you made, then just say, "Well, I see it this way, so let's agree to disagree," is not in keeping with the bulk of your excellent contribution to this forum. If this is the extent of your participation in this thread, I guess that's all I have to say, too. :-) Peace and joy in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
413 | Who is God talking to? | Acts 2:17 | charis | 61181 | ||
Dear Searcher, Blessings in Jesus' name! No. But you nit-pick without answering the real question, "Who is God talking to?" In any case... "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." Revelation 22:21 NASB The end. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
414 | Will you join me? | Acts 2:33 | charis | 4966 | ||
Dear RevC, These discussions have not borne fruit. I do not lambaste you, personally, and I admit that you have been a gentleman. However the Tri-Une nature of God is an integral part of virtually every Christian creed, and is not food for debate, any more than a denial of the Virgin Birth, the infallibility of the Bible, or the work of the Cross. A 'oneness' or 'Jesus-only' God is not merely a 'matter of discussion,' but divisive, and inherently destructive. This is the reason for my boycott. Indeed, you are free to discuss anything you like, but I cannot participate. With Love in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
415 | Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 374 | ||
Dear JVH0212 (again), Though I agree that Jesus Himself commanded that we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this command was pre-church. The church was created when the Holy Spirit was poured upon the gathered believers in Acts 2. Thereafter, I find no reference to any act being done in any other name than that of the Lord Jesus, the Christ. I find no action 'in the name of God,' or 'in the name of the Holy Spirit.' (Rom 2:24 is OT quote) Rather, I find that the name of Jesus (or Christ Jesus, or the Lord, etc.) is used extensively. I can't think of this as a 'formula.' Was Luke being brief or flippant? Were the apostles being disobedient to Jesus' command? I find it interesting to note that on TV we often hear 'in the name of God' or in a wedding scene 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' but never hear 'in the name of Jesus.' Is this because Jesus is a 'rock of offense' as the Bible (OT and NT) so clearly states? I well understand that abusing the name of Jesus by heartless and mindless utterance or meaningless repetition is not holy. However, the simplicity of His name should not be underestimated, nor should we become too 'religious' in our interpretation of scripture. I am not 'Jesus only' and I believe strongly in the Trinity, or triune nature of God. But that cannot negate the authority and the power of the name of Jesus, in fact it bolsters and confirms it. | ||||||
416 | Without the Spirit? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 2162 | ||
Dear inhzsvc, without gasoline, a Ferrari is red and beautiful, and expensive, but inanimate. Also a Ferrari without the growl, the roar, and assorted engine music is only eye-candy :-) In any case, I cannot experience anything but the sights and sounds of the one, but I can experience the animate power of the other. Though I agree with you in the semantic sense, the church was almost totally impotent until His Spirit indwelled them. That I why I said they were 'created' on the Day of Pentecost. I was under the impression that this was a commonly held view. If I am mistaken, I stand corrected. Friend, I apologize for my assumption regarding baptism. The flow of the conversation up to that point was getting a bit heated on that issue. Truly, I do consider this forum to be fellowship (koinonia), and the many different opinions expressed by yourself and all the saints do nothing to change that in my mind and heart. Indeed, you and I agree on very much more than we disagree. Blessings and peace to you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
417 | Jesus' name baptism? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 4619 | ||
Dear JVH0212, I read with great interest the quote from Gregory A. Boyd. As I have stated on many occasions, I am not Oneness Pentecostal or Jesus-only. Nor do I have anything 'against' Jesus' command in Matthew 28. How could anyone negate His words? However, the above article is obviously a 'knee-jerk' diatribe against the opposite foolishness of the Jesus-only denial of the reality of a Tri-une God. I see both as bigoted swings of a pendulum, emotional, not spiritual. Both have sincere purpose, but sincerity does not make us right. Mr. Boyd's comment that "We are commanded to do all things "in the name of Jesus," but this obviously does not mean we have to say "in Jesus name" before we do anything (Col. 3:17)" suggests that we do not have to do anything in Jesus' name! This would fly in the face of the 18 times that Jesus said "In My name" in the Gospels! The Lord was clearly speaking of the Trinity, but also (just as clearly) speaking of the authority that the Father had granted Him. Mr. Boyd goes on to say that the Jews "placed no significance on saying these words." The name of Jesus is not just another word! I rarely get riled, but this statement is stupid. As to asking you to defend Hank Haegraaf, I wouldn't think of it :-) Just because someone has a successful ministry does not make him right on every subject. I will continue to pray in the name of Jesus, in the name of the Lord Jesus, in Jesus' name. I will also trust that He knows my heart when I follow the example of the saints in the Book of Acts and baptize new believers, praying in the name of Jesus. After all, it is a prayer, a supplication to God, not a 'formula.' (Note: once I was taught that a baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was wrong. I have repented from that position.) Blessings, dear brother, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
418 | Jesus' name baptism? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 4620 | ||
Dear JVH0212, My friend, do you realize that it has been over two months since we last discussed this issue? The horse ain't dead, yet :-) Love in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
419 | Pre-Forum thinking? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 4954 | ||
Dear Buf, The original question has to do with water baptism, and the discussion that followed was centered on the name into which a believer is baptized. Concerning this issue, I am no longer 'hung up' on the controversy between the two camps, which some call a 'formula.' However, I take very seriously, as a Christian, the words of encouragement from the apostle Paul, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father." Colossians 3:17 NASB. I do not consider this to be a legal 'commandment' to be adhered to by the letter, but an attitude of heart, to be pursued with joy and faith. If you find my usage of the name of Jesus amusing or are implying something, please say so. My stance in this issue is clear, and anyone who has read my previous postings would find the answer to your question obvious. Finally, I was addressing my colleague Ray concerning his distress concerning water baptism. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
420 | where does he ask that,baptized or not | Acts 2:38 | charis | 7040 | ||
Dear Glen, I have to agree with JVH0212. The idea of Oneness, Modalism or Jesus-only Petecostalism has been discussed at length. Indeed, the conclusion was that most agree with the overwhelming majority of modern and historical Christianity that believes in the Trinity, or Triune God. I personally know of 4 major Pentecostal denominations that believe in the Trinity, as well as virtually every mainline denomination. In addition, though I am familiar with many international para-church and Charismatic ministries, I have never heard of one coming against the doctrine of the Triune nature of God. In fact, I can think of only one Pentecostal denomination that adheres to the Oneness ideology, and there is a lot of controversy within their own ranks on this issue. Another area that you have brought up is the requirement of water baptism for salvation. This has been discussed thoroughly, as well. My belief is that water baptism of the believer is favored by God, and definitely enhances his-her walk in Christ. However, that water baptism is a requirement for salvation is not clearly shown in the Bible. Blessings to you in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [37] >> |