Results 301 - 320 of 801
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | Gods time not ours | Ecclesiastes | jlhetrick | 189643 | ||
Hello again Max, God bless you for your desire to see friends and family saved. The person at your church gave very good advise and I pray you follow it. It's not uncommon (as I understand it) for a new believer to be overwhelmed with the desire for others to be saved (it was this way for me and others I know). Nor is it uncommon for a new believer to go about the business of seeing to the salvation of friends and family. As your friend at church has counseled- it is a work you can never achieve. Only God can save (as I believe you already know) and He will call all who He saves. See Psalm 3:8, 2 Timothy 1:9 for examples. You may be a significant part of that calling as He uses your witness and then again you may not be. Like a lot of Christians there was a time when I thought it was my responsibility to make sure others "got saved"; but this is not our calling. In my opinion, the best way to ensure that you are not getting in the way (so to speak) is to simply submit yourself to the Lord and allow Him to lead you in the example of Christ. Read the gospels and interestingly find that Jesus is never pushy. Live your life in the example of truth in all your ways honoring your saviour and you may find yourself being awesomely blessed as the Lord uses you to reach others. By the way- I can speak for myself and a few others I know. Becoming a follower of Christ AFTER being married is a significant undertaking. It's possible to attempt to "lead" our wife and family while not "following" the Lord. I believe the key is to submit to following Him and the other relationships in your life can only benefit from that; even if it feels at times that they are not. Hope this is helpful brother, Jeff |
||||||
302 | Such thing as a choice? | Eccl 6:10 | jlhetrick | 153141 | ||
Dear Tim, Try to pay attention to what Doc is saying as he explains to you the character of God and presents answers to the questions by representing scripture in context. Doc isn't THE authority on scripture, however, he posts with researched and contextual representation of scripture, not pulling individual verses out to make a point. If you are willing, you can be taught. Don't forget how awesome God is. God's mind never changed regarding Nineveh, nor did His plan. God knew very well that the people would repent if they were warned. His plan, was not to destroy Nineveh, but rather to spare it at that time. Thus, the ongoing work with Jonah to get him to Nineveh to give the warning (which is really the fascinating part of the story to me). Thank of Sodom and Gomorrah. When Abraham "debated" with God asking him to spare the cities if 50 righteous were found. God said He would not do it if 50 were found. As you know, Abraham "bargained" all the way down to ten. God said, "I will not destroy it on account of the ten." Well, the opposite thing happened here vs. Nineveh. The cities were destroyed. Had God "changed his mind" when Abraham interceded? Of course not, God knew exactly how many righteous there were and had determined to destroy the cities. Abraham, I am sure, learned this truth. In the book of Jonah, God had determined to spare Nineveh. He designed a plan to involve man in that. He chose Jonah, Jonah resisted, God's plan prevailed. Regarding "adding to what is written". I believe that God expects us to add common sense, intellectual understanding, and spiritual discernment when reading and studing the scriptures. This approach allows the Holy Spirit to give us His interpretation of His word. Otherwise, we may find ourselves guilty of slinging verses up on the screan with intentions of supporting our position (which may be wrong) Jeff (always learning) |
||||||
303 | ... | Is 4:1 | jlhetrick | 170409 | ||
Hello Aaron, As you can see, you have stirred up the proverbial hornets nest. I'm not sure if that was your intention or not, but, here we are. You responded to BradK that you were "trying the spirits of this forum". You then offer 1John 4:1. I need clarification. Did you intentionally post some bogus stuff, calling it "prophecy of the church" with the thought of testing those of us on the forum? If so, I see clearly that those who have responded have passed your test; clearly seeing and pointing out the bogus nature of your posting. However, on the other hand, I'm not sure that you don't really, actually believe what your original post states. As the dialogue continues I'm believing you do believe it. In any case, Acts 17:11 is a good place to refer regarding the testing of spirits Acts 17:11 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. ASV Note that the key here is the "examining" of "the Scriptures". Others have already sufficiently examined the scriptures to "test" your "prophecy of the church" and found it to have failed the test. In other words, it does not "line up" with Scripture. One more thought. The idea of "testing" seems to be one of using Scripture to validate or refute a teaching, not the other way around. In other words, I don't find the apostles presenting bogus teachings as "tests" for the saints to see if they can "get it right". Christ's Love, Jeff |
||||||
304 | ... | Is 4:1 | jlhetrick | 170449 | ||
hello again Aaron, you quoted: "1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." Is your point here that you are the "we" and the "us" referred to in this verse and that the rest of us are the "he that is not of God heareth not us."????? Jeff |
||||||
305 | ... | Is 4:1 | jlhetrick | 170464 | ||
Hello Aaron, you write: "They could show me from the scriptures how the apostles revealed prophesy being fulfilled. for example the fulfillment of Judas as I showed in an earlier part of this thread. If the apostles can do it why can't we. Do we not share the same Holy Spirit or is their another spirit that was in them?" perhaps you've missed the whole point. you, and we, are not apostles. Jeff |
||||||
306 | ... | Is 4:1 | jlhetrick | 170465 | ||
Hello Aaron, You are the one that is making up your own stuff that not only doesn't agree with the orthodox beliefs, nor does it agree with scripture. Out of context, yes, your teaching something that has been shown here in this thread to be out of context and can not be supported within the very context from which you yank it. so at this point in your beliefs, on this threads topic, yes, I have no choice but to put you in the category of someone who is not hearing from God. You see Aaron. God uses His word to correct us. 2 Tim 3:16 16 Every scripture inspired of God (is) also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction , for instruction which is in righteousness. ASV 1 Tim 1:3 3 As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine , ASV When the word of God speaks to you (as those in this thread have pointed out for you) and you will not listen, then you are not hearing from God. Jeff |
||||||
307 | Where is Jesus Christ in Rev 4 | Is 11:2 | jlhetrick | 208379 | ||
Or maybe the door standing open | ||||||
308 | What qualifies a cultist? | Is 43:7 | jlhetrick | 187661 | ||
Hello P25, I agree, absolutely no splitting hairs- it serves no purpose or benefit. I believe the central point here is truth; something I believe we are both equally concerned with. My response to you had nothing at all to do with Watchman Nee. Know nothing at all about the person beyond the very minimal information contained in this thread. Not the point. While the definition of a cult can range from a sentence or two to a fairly lengthy discussion, I believe that the modern understanding/use of the term by Christians is basic enough. Would you agree with the basic premise of the definition quoted by Doc in post 187614? I believe it was fair of you to challenge Doc on his position. I also believe it was fair and appropriate for me to basically challenge your statement. The trinity IS a cardinal doctrine of Christianity; furthermore, it is one of the most attacked doctrines of those who wish to deny that Christ is God. In all honestly sir, I firmly believe that anyone who intentionally teaches contrary to the truth of the Trinity found in Scripture is as worthy of the "label" cultist as anyone. Some, many (myself included) have a limited understanding of the Trinity; and an even more limited ability to articulate it. But a "misrepresentation of the trinity" (your words regarding Nee) is unacceptable. My argument is that, no, we do not need "far more than a misrepresentation of the trinity", as you put it, to equal cultish teaching. So, for the record, my response had nothing to do with Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, or even Sarah Lee :) It was specifically to you regarding your apparent lessening of the importance of the trinity. And to put even more on the record, I am not saying that you do not hold the importance of the trinity as highly as I or any other Christian does. Only that your post seemed to indicate otherwise. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
309 | ... | Is 43:10 | jlhetrick | 168630 | ||
Hello Lionheart, Great answer Jeff |
||||||
310 | ... | Is 43:10 | jlhetrick | 168635 | ||
Lionheart You've got that right. It amazes me how often I blow it. I can only be thankful that I have been and continue to be a recipient of His grace. And His mercy! furthermore, once I finally understood that I will never get it all figured out, it freed me up to stop trying to connect all the different teachings I came across. Once I was able to do that, I was able to go back to the bible and, as has been articulated in this thread, let IT speak for itself. Take care, Jeff Jeff |
||||||
311 | Bible before interpetation into English | Jer 27:6 | jlhetrick | 170781 | ||
Hello dnewland, Just a comment that might help. You write: "Paul goes a little further than Jesus did." If you believe the Scriptures to be the word of God you have to reconsider your statement. Paul took no liberty of his own in writing Romans 13. He was inspired by God to write everything you are calling into question. You write that it isn't as clear cut as others think it is. Yet others have presented clearly what the bible has to say on the issue. Particularly Jesus' statment regarding rendering unto Caesar. Jesus refused to get caught up in a political word-game, and so should you. You may study further to see that Jesus and His disciples did pay taxes. As you know, the government under Caesar did enormous injustices financed by the tax monies of the people, including that payed by Jesus and the disciples. You might consider this as well. When you pay your tithe at church what does the church do with the money? You probably don't know the answer to that as most Christians probably don't. Is there ever inappropriate and perhaps even sinful spending by those in the church that have control over the money? Probably by some. Do we stop paying the tithe? When you pay your tithe you serve God and the people of God. If another uses that money unjustly, outside of your control, it is he that will answer to God for it. the same is true of government taxes. Jeff |
||||||
312 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184175 | ||
Hello jonp, This is a little off topic perhaps, but I have a question about a statement in your post. You wrote: "just as the angelic court are assumed in God's words 'Let us make man in OUR image' (Genesis 1.26). We are given a recognition that such spiritual beings exist but not given the details." I too have heard it taught that God was speaking to the angels when He said "let us make man in OUR image", but I have always struggled wtih this teaching. Perhaps you can shed some light on it for me. Where in Scripture are we to draw the conclusion that God was speaking to angels. I guess the questions that need to be answered are; 1. where does Scripture state that angels were created in God's image? 2. where in Scripture does it state that man was created in the image of angels; or the image of God and angels? Help with this please. I have also heard this passage taught as referring to the Trinity and having heard this accepted it as being scriptural. Thanks in advance for any help you can give here. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
313 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184186 | ||
Thanks Jonp, You did not bring up the question in order to cause controversy. I brought up the question. And not to cause controversy but for the very reason I stated in my post. I have heard the passage explained both ways; referring to the angels and referring to the trinity. You have given a lot of information in response but the questions remain as they have not been answered here. It is not an issue of controversy so please don't feel the need to be defensive. This is the way of the Forum. When someone posts something very specific that is questionable and does not offer biblical support for it, another will often ask for clarification and/or biblical support. In my case, on this topic, I simply don't know the answer and was hoping that you might help. In the interest of trying to weigh this all allow me to comment on some points you made. you wrote: "The issue here is why God said 'us'. We must ask, would a writer who was very concerned continually to stress the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6.4-5; Exodus 20.3 - note the 'Me') be so careless as to use 'us' in a polytheistic world." I honestly don't know, but my first thought was that the writer DID use the word US and DIDN'T offer an explanation. That would appear to make your question irrelevant. You also wrote: "And this is especially so as in a creation account we should expect to find some indication of where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from." Yet we do not find it in this creation account...? "So there is nothing unlikely in their being introduced" But they are not..? "Moving on to your questions about God's image. We must ask, what is the image of God in man. It is surely 'that in man that makes him different from all other creatures" Would you include the created angels in this statement; I mean, that we are "different" from all other creatures? That seems to take us back to square one here. Anyway, I hope my response serves to show that I truly do not know which is right on this topic and my questions were my questions, not attempts to discredit you or cause controversy. By the way, you do have my email so if you are able to answer the question from Scripture I'm still searching and would appreciate your input. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
314 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184188 | ||
Jonp' you wrote: "God is God and Satan is only one of 'the sons of the elohim' (Job 1-2). But that being said as a created being he is very powerful (Jude 9). We must therefore be thankful that our lives are hid with Christ in God' and have been transported into the kingdom of His beloved Son where all he can do shoot his arrows at us." Yes, thankyou for that statement brother. And Praise the Lord that He does keep and protect us. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
315 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184189 | ||
humbled, Thank you for your question to Jonp regarding the reference to Gen. 1:26-27. If you look below you will see that I was also trying to address this but was unable to articulate the question as well as you were. In any case, I do believe that if the "us" referred to God and angels verse 27 might look quite different. Just my thoughts, God bless, Jeff |
||||||
316 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184196 | ||
I agree and I particularly appreciate our sister Azure as well. Haven't seen anything from her lately but I do miss a lot with only being able to log on for short periods some days. By the way, I hope to encourage you by saying that regarding the regular posters, you represent the top one percent in terms of responding with grace. I'm afraid I often come across on the other end of the spectrum and I guess recognizing this is at least a step in the right direction. God bless, Jeff God bless, jeff |
||||||
317 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184217 | ||
Brother Jonp, Thanks for the response. Bare with me as I do my best to respond to some of what you have said here. I will do my best to stick to the point. "A good principle in Scripture is to commence with what is clear, and then to move on to what is not clear, and finally to interpret what is not clear by what is clear." I agree with this statement yet I do not see this happening in this particular case. It seems that you have taken a few verses, and, based on your presumptions about Gen. 1:26, assigned those same presumptions. Pointing to Gen 3:22 doesn't begin to present a clear example that would sufficiently clarify 1:26 as referring to Angels. "But ‘like one of us’ here gives a decided suggestion of plurality far in excess of what we would expect to find in a book which emphasises the oneness of God, if God alone was in mind. Indeed if its reference is to God alone then it leaves itself wide open to being interpreted as signifying more than one God." When considering the trinity, I simply don't agree with this premise. Switching the focus to the "knowledge of good and evil" statement and presenting the argument that the angels knew both good and evil does not support the argument in my opinion. I would like to here from others regarding how they see this. The rest of your post does give some good examples of how angels operate, but still does not point to support your position in any way clear to me. I do believe that if there is anything you have written that should serve to bring question to your own argument it should be your comment on verse 27. You wrote. "But Genesis 1.27 makes clear that it was God Himself Who was involved in creating man, just as He alone created all things." To clarify, I believe you meant it WAS GOD who created.. vs. "who was involved in creating..." If you do not mean/believe this please correct me. But the value of your statement is in it's pointing back to vs. 26. If the "US" and "OUR" refers to both God and the angels, then how could we possibly interpret this verse as saying anything other than man was created by BOTH God and the angels? If God said "let us make" and was speaking to the angels, then the "us" being God and the angels did in fact create man. I'm of the opinion that either of us believe that. What we have agreed on is the importance of context and the only proof positive interpretation method is that of Scripture interpreting Scripture. With those things agreed on I would add that the best "context" is the immediate context (though that is my opinion and certainly open to debate). What where there is immediate context that apparently speaks to the point, my thought is that that should be considered with the heavier weight. Where it stands, vs. 27, "God created man in His own image..." (NASB) seems a better and more immediate reference to clarify the preceding vs 26. We're not only dealing with a "our image" issue, we're dealing with a "us create" issue. Otherwise we tend to rewrite vs 27 in such a way as to say "God and the angels created man in their own image..." There would be a false teaching. And jonp, please sir. To present the theory that God simply wanted the angels to "feel involved in what He was doing" is an extreme stretch in the least case. As parents, you and I may in fact mislead our children into believing they are more involved with a task than they are in order to involve and encourage them. But even if it's something as small as bringing daddy the hammer from the tool box, the fact is that the child did participate in the completion of the task. I stress caution in this way of thinking. I find nowhere in Scripture where God misleads His creation in order to make them feel involved. I hope my response is sufficient to cause some alarm and caution at least. It is likely that we all have been guilty of interpreting scripture based on preconceived ideas based on early taught experiences and denominational biases. The work of growing in the knowledge of Him is in that we allow the scriptures themselves to fine-tune our understanding and what we believe. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
318 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jlhetrick | 184323 | ||
Sister Azure, bless you and thank you for your kindness. Speaking for myself, and I believe others would agree, there are many things that you contribute to the forum that are as productive and as much a blessing as what others may have "learned" about the scriptures. Your humility, your grace, and your sincere honesty are treasures of Scripture that many of us know very much about but few are able to live them. I just want you to know that when I read your posts, it is these things in you that cause me to strive ever harder, making me aware of my own shortcomings. God bless your church ministry and all you do. We understand when you have to be away for awhile but please don't forget about us. You are a pearl. Sincerely, God bless, Jeff |
||||||
319 | How does God judge and who? | Obad 1:16 | jlhetrick | 211158 | ||
Mr. Jones- I'm not finding your point. What is your understanding of "the life was the light of men" in John 1:4? Light illuminates in darkness. It makes clear the way. The life of Christ was and is most definitely an example for us. As for his ability to face temptation and remain sinless your missing an essential doctrine. He was born of a virgin. There was no sin in His nature and so no tendency toward sin. He did not need to employ devine, supernatural power to resist sin. Because He was and is God His very nature was in opposition to sin. He knew temptation, but his nature did not desire to fulfill it. We, on the other hand, were born of the flesh, utterly sinful, not seeking God nor what is good. (Romans 3:11-12) The necessity of a savior; we were helpless and ungodly and in need of redemption which Christ only was and is able to provide (Romans 5:6). We weren't able to resist and therefore shouldn't have been able to resist sin. There was nothing in us or even within our grasp to have enabled us to resist. But praise God for His redemption and for the example of the life of Christ. Now that He has saved us and made us new, we can resist sin and should. |
||||||
320 | How does God judge and who? | Obad 1:16 | jlhetrick | 211167 | ||
Bobjones- you’re all over the place so it's hard to follow and address; so I will just pick out a couple of points where I'm either misunderstanding or not in agreement. You wrote: "So his life is the condemnation. John 3.19 says it plainly" You seem to be missing the point of the verse by not reading it through. The verse by itself clearly does not in any way suggest that His life is the condemnation. Quite the opposite. What comes after the statement of "the light has come into the world" is the truth of what is condemned. "...and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil." (NASB) Evaluating that verse in the wider context of Scripture will certainly show this to be the case. It's unscriptural to hang the cause of condemnation on Christ. Regarding Philipians 2:7 I think I'm following you but not sure. It's not an uncommon mistake that some have equated the "emptying" and "taking on the the form of a bond servant" with somehow giving up a portion of who He was as God, that is, a part of His character. This is simply a false assumption resulting from a lack of understanding that Jesus Christ is, always was, and always will be God. If He would have at any time became less than the fullness of God then He would have ceased to be God. It's not possible and not taught in Scripture. Once made flesh through the virgin birth He became a man flesh and blood. He never ceased though to be God; it's the essential truth of the virgin birth. The sin nature imputed to us from Adam was not imputed to Christ. Another misconception is that Jesus could not have used divine power to resist sin. He certainly could have and it would have done nothing to lessen that he was tempted as we are. It might be argued that it could have lessened how we viewed His example since we do not have the same ability. Of course, we do have the power of God who does always provide a way of escape from temptation. Finally, the command of Scripture to resist temptation is not given to fallen man with no inclination toward God. It is, instead, given to the saved to whom He has shown mercy and freely given grace. As for what Romans makes clear... it is that all are eternally lost save for salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Only the saved have the ability to sincerely and consistently resist sin. I'll leave it there for now as that is a lot to chew on. Hope this is helpful. Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [41] >> |