Results 3761 - 3780 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3761 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | kalos | 8310 | ||
To Hank and to whom it may concern: I do not entirely disagree with you or our brother Mark. To what you all have written, may I add: It is the Bible that contains the record of the gospel of Christ. The Bible is the ultimate source of all that we know of God, Christ, and our salvation. While one or more individuals may not have owned a copy of or known the Bible the day they were saved, consider this: Somewhere along the line someone who witnessed to you of the saving gospel of Christ has read, understood and used scripture. That is to say, today, 2000 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, were it not for the existence of the Bible, few if any people would have ANY knowledge of the saving gospel. Take away the Scriptures entirely, and, even if preachers are sent and people hear them, what would the preachers have to preach? What message would there be for people to believe? It is the gospel as recorded in the written Word of God that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16). Why, for example, was the Gospel of John written in the first place? "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31 Saved apart from the Bible? Christ is the Living Word and the Scriptures are the Written Word of God. Try separating the Living from the Written Word. I don't believe it can be done. |
||||||
3762 | When the plain sense makes good sense | 2 Tim 2:15 | kalos | 8080 | ||
"When the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest it be nonsense." 2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (All Scripture quotes are from the King James Version of the Bible.) The basic principle of interpretation is to interpret *plainly*. The word *literal* is avoided here because it creates connotations which have to be corrected. An overly wooden literal interpretation can be confusing or misleading and often is not necessary or desirable. Examples follow: Matt 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. *ye devour widows' houses.* Do the scribes and Pharisees eat literal wood and nails? No, "They used their position as judges to adjust claims against wealthy widows or to get the widows to leave their estates to the scribes and Pharisees" (Ryrie Study Bible). Then why did our Lord use the phrase "ye devour widows' houses"? The Bible sometimes uses a "figure of speech", which is defined as "an expression in which a nonliteral sense of a word or words is used to create a forceful or illuminating image." Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. *if ye bite and devour one another.* Does this verse mean that the people of the church at Galatia literally chew and swallow one other's flesh? Of course not. It is speaking of strife in the church. Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. *the four corners of the earth.* Have you ever seen a photograph of earth taken from space? Have you seen any corners on the planet lately? What then, is the Bible wrong? May it never be. The writer here is using figurative, not literal, language. Summary: Sometimes the literal sense is the plain sense. At other times, it is not. If one forces an overly literal interpretation where it does not fit (as in the 3 verses given as examples here), then the literal sense can indeed become nonsense. |
||||||
3763 | Holy Spirit and the nature of God? | Heb 1:2 | kalos | 7999 | ||
Hiram: Thank you for a good question, one in which many others are likely to have an interest. I dare not judge you concerning your salvation. I merely bring the following to your attention for your consideration: "To believe in Jesus Christ [for one's salvation] is to have a confident conviction that: "1) *He is who the Bible says He is* (emphasis added). "2) He will do what He promises. "3) Upon placing my trust in Him, I enter into a personal, eternal relationship with the Son of God." (Quoted from a sermon by Charles Stanley, In Touch Ministries) |
||||||
3764 | 1,000 Posts for JVH0212 CONGRATULATIONS! | Ps 45:1 | kalos | 7998 | ||
Nolan: Thank you for your many kind words. But if I have done anything well, it is "not I, but Christ." My thanks to Charis and Hank, as well as to you, for the abiding friendship and encouragement of you all. Additionally, I owe a tremendous debt of thanks to the following: Dr. Oliver B. Greene, evangelist; Dr. Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, whose monumental work continues to educate and inspire me after 30 years of using it (for more info see www.scofield.org); Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Th.D., Ph.D.; Dr. John MacArthur (pastor and teacher, author and editor, broadcaster), whose biblical interpretation I trust in and rely on more than anyone else's; Hank Hanegraaff, President of Christian Research Institute, who is my radio and online mentor; Dr. Harold Lindsell, author and editor; Dr. J. Vernon McGee; Dr. D. James Kennedy, pastor, teacher, author, and defender of the Faith; the Lockman Foundation for the Amplified Bible, the New American Standard Bible, and StudyBibleForum.com; the editors and translators of the New American Standard Bible; and many others too numerous to name. And I wish to give my very special, heartfelt tribute of thanks to the translators of the American Standard Version of 1901 for their awesome and preeminent work. |
||||||
3765 | How many times to ask same question? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 7770 | ||
As of 6:00PM, there are now 117 Q, N and A regarding the sabbath that are posted. I tend to agree with you, "there is hardly constructive debate or new information that can be added here." All one side (the seventh-day sabbatarians) can do is keep repeating over and over: "It's the fourth commandment." "It's the fourth commandment." "It's the fourth commandment." "It's the fourth commandment." "It's the fourth commandment." Earth to Forum, we KNOW it's the fourth commandment. Then the other side, those who are not under law but are under grace, gives Scripture and explanations that are totally ignored and never replied to. Whatever objection one makes to sabbath keeping, the only answer you ever get is, "It's the fourth commandment," which when translated means: I believe in sabbath keeping. I believe in it. I believe in it. I believe in it. To quote Charis, "Continuing to ask a question that has been duly answered is belligerence." |
||||||
3766 | Death of death? | Rev 20:14 | kalos | 7767 | ||
Ask the Jehovah's Witnesses. They make a career of denying the fundamental Bible doctrine of the everlasting punishment of the lost. | ||||||
3767 | Isn't The 4th Cmdmnt Part Of Mosaic Law | Col 2:16 | kalos | 7715 | ||
Now you're claiming that your question is not what YOU said it was? A long time ago (this morning) on Tue 06/19/01, 9:06am YOU ASKED: "Isn't The 4th Cmdmnt Part Of Mosaic Law?" Now you imply you were not asking that. Now you say: "I am asking if the fourth commandment should be done away with?" Radioman asked: "Do you also keep all the dietary laws, the new moons, festivals, 20 percent tithe (look it up in the Mosaic Law -- the tithe Israel paid anually was much closer to 20 percent than 10), the command to stone a child who is continually rebellious, the blood sacrifices and all the rest of the ceremonial law contained in the Law of Moses?" You replied: "The dietary laws are sound ... why not keep a festival or a new moon ... there were three tithes ... the blood sactifices were done away with (Heb 10)." The book of Galatians and other portions of the NT more than adequately answer the general question, Why not keep all the rest of the ceremonial law contained in the Law of Moses. The NT also answers the specific question: "Why not keep a festival or a new moon." Or are Paul and the writer of Hebrews also "in error" and "not correct"? The question, Do you also keep...all the rest of the ceremonial law contained in the Law of Moses?, is a direct question -- one that can be answered by a simple YES or NO. You have not replied yes or no, therefore you have not answered the question. By your answer you IMPLY that you are in favor of keeping "all the rest of the ceremonial law contained in the Law of Moses." To do so would be to repeat the error of Galatianism, ie, mixing Law and Grace, which DO NOT MIX. |
||||||
3768 | Sabbath. | Matt 12:1 | kalos | 7710 | ||
Steve Butler writes: "Second - Just because Augustine taught it does make it right. " JVH0212 writes: Are you saying that "Just because Augustine taught it does [not] make it right"? If you are, then Congratulations! You completely missed the point of the paragraph which begins: "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine..." Had one read the paragraph, he would have seen that no one is quoting Augustine to prove that the fourth commandment is no longer in effect. Here is the what the paragraph SAYS: "The EARLY church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was *not instituted until the fourth century*)." What it MEANS is what it SAYS: The early church fathers, including Augustine, bear witness to the FACT that Sunday worship WAS instituted long before the fourth century. This runs "contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship WAS NOT instituted until the fourth century." The emphasis of the quote is not on WHAT Augustine taught, but WHEN he taught it. The fact that he taught it when he did goes to show that Sunday worship, right or wrong, was instituted EARLIER than the seventh-day sabbatarians claim that it was. |
||||||
3769 | Death of death? | Rev 20:14 | kalos | 7671 | ||
Nolan: Thank you for the good information on death and Hades. Indeed "death is the condition and Hades...the place of the dead." Since it is persons, not conditions or places, that are tormented, then the logical (and biblical) conclusion would be that, no, death and Hades are not tormented forever. I suppose that if one asks the same question enough times, he may eventually get the answer he wants to hear. |
||||||
3770 | Sabbath. | Matt 12:1 | kalos | 7655 | ||
"Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org Click on Issues and Answers. Click on Previous Topics) |
||||||
3771 | New Birth - Event or Process? | 1 Pet 1:23 | kalos | 7559 | ||
New Birth - Event or Process? New Birth "Cleansing from sin that God gives to all who believe on his Son through the Holy Spirit. "It is absolutely necessary for a person to be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God. In the central passage in the New Testament about the new birth (John 3), Jesus tells Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, that he will not enter the kingdom of God unless he is born anew. The alternation between singular and plural Greek pronouns in the passage shows that Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus both personally and representatively. The need for the new birth is not only true of Nicodemus, but of the entire Sanhedrin, all Jews, and, by extension, all people. ************************ "Some have considered the new birth to be a process a person experiences, even over a period of years. Such an interpretation is not congruent with the tense of the Greek verb in this passage . The aorist tense suggests that the new birth is an event rather than a process. Prior to a certain point in time, a person is not-born-again or regenerated; after that point, the person is. ************************ "The new birth is, then, a sovereign act of God by his Spirit in which the believer is cleansed from sin and given spiritual birth into God's household. It renews the believer's intellect, sensibility, and will to enable that person to enter the kingdom of God." Carl B. Hoch, Jr. Bibliography. L. L. Belleville, Trinity 1 (1980): 125-41; F. BŸchsel, TDNT, 1:665-75, 686-89; S. Charnock, The Works of Stephen Charnock, vol. 3; J. Dey, Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, pp. 725-30; N. R. Gulley, ABD, 5:659-60; Z. C. Hodges, BSac 135 (1978): 206-20; A. Kretzer, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:243-44; W. L. Kynes, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 574-76; J. I. Packer, EDT, pp. 924-26; A. Ringwald, NIDNTT, 1:176-80; P. Toon, Born Again: A Biblical and Theological Study of Regeneration. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. a division of Baker Book House Company (http://www.bakerbooks.com/), Grand Rapids, Michigan. Bibliography Information Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'New Birth'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". (http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/BakerEvangelicalDictionary/). 1997. |
||||||
3772 | Once salvation is lost, it's always lost | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 7549 | ||
If you have a point, would you mind calming down and telling me plainly what it is? | ||||||
3773 | Once salvation is lost, it's always lost | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 7509 | ||
I know Scripture doesn't contradict itself. That's what I've been saying on this forum for the last 109 days. :-) JVH0212 |
||||||
3774 | If not us, then who? | John 16:13 | kalos | 7504 | ||
Jim: Thank you for your kind response. No need to apologize, I assure you. There is no problem. :-) And I want to thank you, too, for sharing with us. Keep up the good work, Jim. :-) JVH0212 |
||||||
3775 | Angel of the Lord - where in NT? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 7503 | ||
If you are doing a search for the words "Angle of the Lord" you will never ever find it in the Bible. If I explain my question any more, I'll be answering it. :-) |
||||||
3776 | One Place, Seeking The Fatther's Heart | Acts 2:1 | kalos | 7438 | ||
No question. That's why the original entry was submitted as an N-O-T-E, not as a question. |
||||||
3777 | ANTI or PRO? Which is it? | 1 Tim 6:20 | kalos | 7437 | ||
Well, Charis, the previous reply (Thu 06/14/01, 1:12am) to your question has, if nothing else, answered a question of my own: Has the Forum entered the twilight zone or the bizarro world? Apparently we have. | ||||||
3778 | Gabriel not named as the archangel. | 1 Thess 4:16 | kalos | 7436 | ||
No, I didn't. That's why the original entry was submitted as an N-O-T-E, not as a question. | ||||||
3779 | Once salvation is lost, it's always lost | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 7419 | ||
I was not saying a backslider (whatever that is, since no form of the word appears in the NT) cannot be restored. Nor am I the author of the concept that: If they "have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance," as it plainly SAYS in Hebrews 6:6. The writer of Hebrews is the one who says that. Maybe that verse wasn't inspired. Maybe the writer was "in error." Maybe the scripture here does not mean what it says. Maybe somebody doesn't understand or believe what it says. All of the above? None of the above? |
||||||
3780 | ANTI or PRO? Which is it? | 1 Tim 6:20 | kalos | 7418 | ||
Likewise, it is apparent that where some folks are concerned, *the "spiritual" man cannot understand the things of the natural world.* (Natural as in 'of or pertaining to nature', not natural as in carnal.) And most of all they (the things of the natural world) are foolish to him (the "spiritual" man.) Folly? I won't touch that one. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 ] Next > Last [212] >> |