Results 3721 - 3740 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3721 | Should a Christian be a Mason? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 10115 | ||
CHICK PUBLICATIONS "Chick Publications has, since its inception, been a bit sensationalistic at times. We do not believe that their approach is the best to use in presenting the gospel. For example, in a number of their volumes in The Crusaders comic series, they use John Todd as an authority on witchcraft and related subjects, and Todd has been proved to be a “teller of tales” (to put it mildly). "Also, the volume entitled Sabotage, where the King James Version is purported to be the only accurate translation -- all others being Roman Catholic perversions -- is also inaccurate and unreliable. "Furthermore, the two issues entitled Alberto and Double Cross are historically inaccurate, unreliable in content, and unchristian in approach. "So, we do not endorse or promote Chick Publications. ...based on the above observations as well as on the whole, we do not feel they are a reliable tool." (http://www.equip.org/search/) Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 |
||||||
3722 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | kalos | 10000 | ||
Hello, onnig! Thank you for your posting. You make some very good points. I would like to add the following to what I previously wrote. After all, it is difficult, if not impossible, to say all that one would wish to say regarding the Roman Catholic church in one single posting. (Note: I myself am an Evangelical Christian. I want to make it clear that I am not ecumenical (strongly pro-Catholic). Nor am I a fundamentalist who is literally rabid in his denunciation of Catholicism. I am not here to promote ecumenism or acceptance of Roman Catholicism. All I seek to do here is to point out the areas of genuine doctrinal agreement and the significant areas of difference between Catholics and Evangelicals. To do that in my original question, I quoted an article published by the Christian Research Institute. To provide further information on this topic, I quote in part another article from CRI, which follows. If one desires further information on this subject, he may wish to go to the website given at the end of this Note. ) "A Protestant appraisal of Catholicism should then examine the areas of genuine doctrinal agreement between Catholicism and Protestantism (especially evident in the creeds), before moving on to analyze the significant areas of difference. "One of the most perplexing issues evangelical Protestants face is how to understand, evaluate, and ultimately classify the Roman Catholic church. Few topics prove to be as controversial as the question of just how Protestants view and relate to Catholics. There exists no universal agreement or consensus among conservative Protestants in this regard. The spectrum of opinion ranges from one extreme to another. "On the one hand, some people hold to an optimistic but seemingly naive ecumenism that sees no essential or substantial differences between the church of Rome and historic Protestantism. This camp views Catholicism as authentically Christian, but largely ignores the doctrinal controversies that sparked the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. They seem to only take into account the vast areas of agreement between Protestants and Catholics. "At the other extreme is a band of Protestant fundamentalists who are literally rabid in their denunciation of Catholicism. This assemblage (usually led by vociferous ex-Catholics) dismisses Catholicism outright as an inherently unbiblical and evil institution. They not only consider the Roman church to be doctrinally deviant, but also the efficient cause of many or most of the social, political, and moral ills evident in the world today. Genuinely "anti-Catholic," this faction views the Catholic church as the "Whore of Babylon," a pseudo-Christian religion or cult. They seem to concentrate exclusively on those various doctrines that sharply divide Protestants and Catholics. "I believe most evangelical scholars who are knowledgeable about Catholicism would feel uncomfortable with both of these positions. Unfortunately, however, these two camps often operate as if their own views are self-evident and exhaustive. Both camps (especially the anti-Catholics) virtually anathematize anyone who is not squarely in their camp. If one is critical of Catholicism because of Reformational doctrinal distinctives, the first camp accuses that person of being divisive, not supporting Christian unity in this important age of ecumenism. In contrast, if one defends certain Catholic beliefs as being authentically Christian, the second camp accuses that person of being a betrayer of the Protestant Reformation and fraternizing with the enemy. Both camps fail to see that there is an acceptable alternative position between the two extremes. "This series of articles will attempt to provide some needed balance to this important discussion." STATEMENT DC170-1 "WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part One): An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism" (http://www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
3723 | Christ entered the Holy or most Holy?... | Heb 9:12 | kalos | 9930 | ||
Hebrews 9:12 (New World Translation) "he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us]." Hank: I would give you verses before and after if I could see them with unblurred vision. Perhaps tomorrow, si vous plais. --JVH0212 |
||||||
3724 | CAN THE DEVIL STEAL A GIFT OR GOD TAKEIT | Rom 11:29 | kalos | 9876 | ||
So the same Bible that *says* the gifts (plural) of God are irrevocable actually *means* that they are not irrevocable? What is wrong with this picture? In my Bible I see no evidence of a God who cannot be trusted to keep his Word OR of a devil who is "greater [than] he that is in you" (1 John 4:4), which the devil would have to be before he could steal a gift that God gives you. |
||||||
3725 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9831 | ||
Hank and Nolan: It seems we have yet another poster who delights in creating confusion and doubt regarding the truthfullness and inspiration of the Word of God. Where do they all come from? Maybe we need an alternate forum. In addition to StudyBibleForum.com, perhaps someone should start up a CriticizeBibleForum.com or an Anti-BibleForum.com. I've never before seen such calculated deception in action. That the Bible is inspired but not true is just about the silliest thing I've ever read on the Forum. Mixing in the word literal with truthful is a very cunning trick, obviously designed to deceive. --JVH0212 |
||||||
3726 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | kalos | 9819 | ||
No, they are not synonymous terms. Look up "baptized" and "filled" in Vine's or any other Greek lexicon or word study. Let me begin by saying there are three things to keep in mind here: 1) My main point is: There is ONE baptism, but MANY fillings. 2) Because the Bible itself makes a distinction between "baptized by the Holy Spirit" and "filled with the Holy Spirit", we too must make a distinction between the two terms. Baptized and filled do not both mean the same thing. Filled is not just another way of saying baptized. 3) We don't prove the Bible by experience. Instead, we prove experience by the Bible. 1 Cor 12:13 NASB For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. The Bible in 1 Cor 12:13 says: "By one Spirit we were all baptized." Notice that this verse, in contrast with Acts 2:4, DOES use both Spirit and baptized in one sentence. This is how we were initially placed into the body of Christ. It ocurred to each of us ONCE -- when we received Christ as Savior and were born again. QUESTION: Since "by one Spirit we were all baptized" (when we were placed into the body of Christ), then what else could the baptism in, of, by, or with the Holy Spirit be? Surely there are not 2 or more different kinds of Holy Spirit baptism, are there? Also note that in Acts 2:4, the text there does not say: "And they were all baptized with the Holy Spirit." It uses the word "filled". "And they were all FILLED (emphasis mine) with the Holy Spirit." Filled, not baptized. Not according to the plain text of the Scripture. So, each individual believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit (placed into the body of Christ) ONCE, when he is born again and first becomes a Christian. However, the filling with the Spirit is a repeated reality in the life of the believer. I.e., there is ONE BAPTISM, BUT MANY FILLINGS. The fullness of the Spirit affects all areas of life, not just speaking boldly. Also note the Bible teaches that ALL believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9). --JVH0212 |
||||||
3727 | what does Hebrews 6v4-6 mean? | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 9801 | ||
EdB: You make a good point here. Yours is a very interesting observation, one that deserves serious consideration. And, may I add, the doctrines on which these three men would disagree are all considered secondary (not trivial, not unimportant, but secondary) doctrinal issues. None fits the category of the essentials of the Christian faith, i.e., the basic doctrines of the Bible. (See previous postings for a definition and discussions of what is meant by essentials vs. secondary issues.) For example, acceptance or rejection of tongues, Calvinism, the rapture doctrine, etc. does not determine whether one is going to heaven. These are secondary issues. On the other hand, if one does not believe in the Trinity of God or the Deity of Christ, then, by definition, one is NOT a Christian. The Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are examples of the essentials of the Christian faith. What we believe about these two issues has everything to do with whether we are Christians. |
||||||
3728 | what does Hebrews 6v4-6 mean? | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 9800 | ||
EdB: You write: "However reference is just another man’s opinion," In some cases, the references contain a man's conclusions. I would hardly call them opinions, but I won't debate that. However, writers of study Bibles and other references are not giving opinion, but fact, when they give language, historical, cultural, or geographical information. They are giving factual information that has nothing to do with opinion. What a certain word means in the original Greek; who was king, governor, high priest, or tetrarch at a given time; the meaning of words like ephod, fringes, phylacteries, and shekel; and the location and elevation of a certain Israeli village -- all these things are matters of fact. They have nothing to do with anyone's interpretation of anything. Historians may disagree in their conclusions, but everyone agrees that a cubit equals approximately 18 inches. There are not a dozen opinions on the meaning of cubit. So, every last word of every last commentator is NOT opinion. Much of it consists of simple statements of fact -- fact which sheds much light on the proper interpretation of various passages of scripture. No one said throw out your study Bibles? In the 143 days in which I have participated in the Forum, many people in many ways have said exactly that. They have said they don't need any reliable sources, they don't need any commentaries, study Bibles, etc. They have said that their intuition or whatever is more reliable than what others have written. As Hank said, it is as if they are implying that all the study Bibles and other references are just a lot of hogwash that we don't need. The point here is not whether to agree or disagree with those who have written such statements. The point is that such statements have been posted on this forum and that not a few people share this opinion. One more thought. If I have said it once on this Forum, I have said it a dozen or more times. No man, no preacher or teacher, no writer, no commentary, no denomination is infallible. Only the Bible is infallible and only in the original manuscripts. This is my way of saying that I agree with you when you say that outside references are not to be viewed as the final authority. |
||||||
3729 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | kalos | 9794 | ||
You write: "There are 5 instances in the Book of Acts that mention the Baptism in the Holy Spirit." I just used an online concordance to do a search for "baptism in the Holy Spirt (Ghost)" in the book of Acts. I found no mention of the phrase "baptism in the Holy Spirit (Ghost)." I found two places where the phrase "baptized with the Holy Ghost" occurs -- two, not five. They are Acts 1:5 and Acts 11:16. Even in Acts 2:4 the word "baptized" is NOT used. The word there is "filled." Acts 2:4 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Filled, not baptized. Two mentions of "baptized with the Holy Ghost". Two, not five. Please note: this has nothing in the world to do with opinion or interpretation. This is a simple matter of fact. Look it up in any concordance and you will find this to be so. |
||||||
3730 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9764 | ||
Nolan: If the progenitor of that sentence only believes parts of the Bible, then I guess we're even. Because I only believe parts of what that person posts. (Although, in all fairness, it is not easy to discern what he believes since his postings give few clues.) | ||||||
3731 | Don't sweat the small stuff? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9756 | ||
Prayon: Amen and Amen! Well put! JVH0212 |
||||||
3732 | what does Hebrews 6v4-6 mean? | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 9755 | ||
Hank: I see you get it. (And I know Nolan gets it, too.) You've made some very good observations here. Weeks or months ago, I posted the thought that a lot of people are quoting a lot of Bible verses without knowing what the words in those verses mean. If the Holy Spirit in me plus the text of the Bible alone always equaled the right interpretation, then pray tell, why do 20 supposedly Spirit-illuminated people read the same passage and come up with 20 different interpretations? There is some weakness in either the Bible, the Holy Spirit, or the individual. Well, I wonder which one it is. We could post these thoughts every day for 1,000 days and some still would not get it. |
||||||
3733 | what does Hebrews 6v4-6 mean? | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 9735 | ||
Nolan: You still don't get it? We have been advised to assassinate our brains, throw out all our study Bibles and reference books, forget the fact that Christ has given to the church teachers and that many of those gifted teachers write books. Instead, we are to pretend that we already know everything we need to know. That the best method of interpretation is to read the text of the Bible and whatever comes to mind first must automatically be the right interpretation. And, if you ever do need help, you don't need people like Dr. Ryrie, Dr. Scofield, Dr. Stanley, or Dr. MacArthur. Just consult your local Lone Ranger self-appointed Forum Bible expert. This makes sense, does it not? Not. |
||||||
3734 | Don't sweat the small stuff? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9725 | ||
Hank, I have spent most of my adult life telling people that "truth" is not established by a majority vote, contrary to liberal humanist propoganda. But, if I believe what I read on this forum, then apparently I was in error. To get at the truth, you post survey questions. If you do not get the answer you wanted, just keep re-posting the question until someone agrees with you. Or if your circuitous logic fails to persuade anyone to agree, then the next best thing apparently is to so confuse your readers with nonsensical babbling, that they give up and agree to anything just to change the subject. | ||||||
3735 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9710 | ||
Nolan, Hank, MoranT: Today I read the following: "Some unimportant historical details in the Bible are false, but the important stuff is true." I am writing to you because I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Please advise. JVH0212 |
||||||
3736 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9628 | ||
This is more than just a secondary issue. Jim Dunne: You write: "It is not clear to me that the creation story is intended to be taken as historical fact. (Nor do I see it as particularly necessary that it be so.)" My attempt to answer your implied question follows. Again, nothing in my answer is meant as a criticism or putdown of you or your question. By no means. I welcome your honest questions. I know the quote that follows is a bit lengthy, but bear with me. I'm sure if I gave only half an answer, I would subsequently need to write the second half to explain and expand on the first half. So I'll just give my complete answer here, though it be a bit lengthy. Why is it necessary that the Genesis account of creation be taken as historical fact? "...understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, and if God is not the Creator, then maybe He's not the Redeemer either. If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create...the same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires. "So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel and implications as to the end of human history all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis. The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking. It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings. Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. There is no way to understand humanity as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny. If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny. Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life. "Now there basically are only two options. You can either believe what Genesis says or not. And that is no over- simplification. Frankly, believing in a supernatural creative God who made everything is the only possible rational explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose and for destiny. "Now the divine equation given in the Bible in contrast to nobody times nothing equals everything, the divine equation is found in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I don't know how it could be said any more simply or more straightforwardly than that. Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act. "So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance. "Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition....In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse. "Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence. "This is more than just a secondary issue. " (http://www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm) |
||||||
3737 | The cannonization of Jude | Jude | kalos | 9617 | ||
Can you cite any source(s) to prove your assertion that 5 books of the New Testament were not accepted into the cannon of scripture? Apparently they were accepted, because they are now included and have been for centuries. I am not saying your information is incorrect. I merely ask can you cite references to books or journal articles to back up your assertion? If so, please give us the references here on the forum. Anyone with a keyboard can make generalizations, assumptions and assertions, but where is the scholarly support for the idea that these 5 books were not included in the cannon of scripture? |
||||||
3738 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | kalos | 9546 | ||
EdB: You ask: "Can I hand a pagan a Bible written in his language and, giving him time to study and apply it, expect him to come away with correct doctrine?" This is very similar to the question you posted on 04-28-2001: "If I lived on the make believe island of Jabuck. And I had no religious training or knowledge of Bible times and was given a Bible in my language. If I read and studied it with purity of heart and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit would I ever conclude, “this” precept, ordinance, statue, or commandment, while it doesn’t say so, was in fact addressing a social situation that doesn’t exist today, therefore I should discount it?" My answer at that time also applies to your current question. I do not intend this as a criticism or putdown of you in any way. I know you are a sincere fellow Christian with an honest heart. So with no disrespect to or criticism of you, I offer my best and most honest answer. In reply to your last paragraph, "If I lived on the make believe island of Jabuck . . . ", let me say this. Your last paragraph begins with the word "If" and is therefore a hypothetical question. So my reply addresses a hypothetical situation. I'm not saying YOU are doing this, I merely point out what would happen IF one did what you speak of in your last paragraph. If one were to go into isolation, cut off from all contact with the outside world, pretending that we're not connected to 2000 years of church history, with nothing but the text of the Bible (no English or Bible dictionary, no background information -- no cultural, historical, geographical, or language information -- on the verses in question, and no knowledge of the basic (universal) principles of interpretation), even then one would have no guarantee that all of his own understanding, interpretation, and conclusions would be correct. Follow it through to its logical conclusion. If it were possible to retire to a desert island and come out several years later with perfect understanding of every Bible teaching, then all one would have to do to be a world class Bible expert, is to do just that -- throw away and close your mind to everything but the text of the Bible. This sounds like a holy, pure, righteous and right thing to do -- ideally. But in reality it wouldn't work. You would not get at the truth of the Bible in this way. The method you describe in your hypothetical question is not much different from what the founders of the Watchtower organization (Jehovah's Witnessess) actually did. Look at the chaotic, heretical, blasphemous conclusions and teachings they came up with as a result. |
||||||
3739 | Internet loner Bible teachers | 1 Cor 3:1 | kalos | 9517 | ||
Lone Ranger Christians. 1 Cor 3:1-3 (New Revised Standard Version) And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? "Lone Ranger Christians never flourish in their isolation from the Body of Christ. This is especially true of Internet loner Bible teachers and self-appointed prophecy experts. They are usually lacking in accountability to peers and elders and are often spiritually immature. In most cases they don't have an overall sound Biblical world view." (www.Idolphin.org/cspace.html) |
||||||
3740 | Who cannot believe in the Trinity? | Matt 28:19 | kalos | 9459 | ||
SEARCH before posting. "Please *search* for your question before asking it." As of 07-14-2001, 32 Questions, 74 Answers and 139 Notes whose contents include "Trinity" have already been posted. *Search* before posting is not bad advice. The question of the Trinity has been debated to death on this forum. Anything that could possibly be asked, answered or noted about the Trinity has already been posted at least twice. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 ] Next > Last [212] >> |