Results 3781 - 3800 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3781 | If not us, then who? | John 16:13 | kalos | 7417 | ||
Jim: As always it's good to hear from you. I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate. :-) And that happens. It doesn't mean anybody is wrong or bad or quarrelsome. It just means there's a failure to communicate. Let me go back through my reply and try to clarify my meaning. In my previous answer as in all my postings, my writing will mean what the words say it means. For example, I do not say something in an earlier posting only to subsequently deny that I meant what I said for the self-serving purpose of avoiding charges of inconsistency. No hobgoblins here! :-) John 16:13 is talking about the ministry of the Holy Spirit to provide revelation to the writers of the New Testament AND his ministry of providing illumination of the scriptures to them and to believers throughout the ages, which includes us. Jesus also said in this verse: "He (the Holy Spirit) will disclose to you what is to come." Does this sound like it refers to tongues or to prophetic revelation ("what is to come")? I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that I said this was fulfilled in the apostle's time and not others afterwards. I specifically did say "The promise of Christ in John 16:13 *was* and IS BEING (present tense) kept. The Holy Spirit has been *and STILL IS keeping and fulfilling* it since the Day of Pentecost." I further said that John 13:16 is applied to past AND CURRENT BELIEVERS." (in this Note, emphasis is added) In light of what I said in plain and straightforward language, I cannot see how you can possibly read into my posting that I said this was not fulfilled afterwards. (Please note, Jim, I am not saying you intentionally misread what I said. What I write now is in no way meant to be taken as criticism or fault finding of you. OK? :-) ) What chapters and verses do I use to say this *experience* that took place then is not for now? Is that what I said? A careful reading of John 16:13 will reveal that this verse makes no mention of any *experience* whatsoever. It merely says that when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth and will disclose to you what is to come. You referred to people who say the evidence of speaking in tongues is not for us now. Where does John 16:13 make any plain and clear reference to the gift of tongues? Because the verse doesn't mention it, I made no mention in my answer of any *experience* or of the Gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. How did tongues get into either the verse or the discussion? It just isn't there. I'm on your side, Jim. I humbly and respectfully suggest that for the sake of clarification you re-read the verse (John 16:13), my posting and your reply to me. Thank you for writing and for your patience with me. :-) JVH0212 |
||||||
3782 | Can I express my opinion? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 7404 | ||
Indeed it is always wise to seek God for wisdom and understanding. Translation or study ought to be mingled with much prayer. Isn't that what I just said in my previous post -- that "It will come as the result of a diligent search of the scriptures mingled with much prayer"? One may translate something from one language to another without having the Holy Spirit. But, normally, one cannot translate from one language to another without having STUDIED the language. (I hardly think anyone made a formal translation of the Bible from Greek into English by using the gift of tongues. Only if I observed this phenomenon would I even consider it possible.) Nothing wrong with looking to know if folks are filled with the Spirit. But if the subject is Bible translators, we ought also to be looking at their qualifications and credentials. Do they know and have they studied both the source and target languages? If not, they are disqualified from doing the work of a translator, even if they had prayed and spoken in tongues for the last 100 years. |
||||||
3783 | Can a divorced person remarry? | 1 Cor 7:15 | kalos | 7387 | ||
Kandola: "While forgiven, you must bear the consequence of the divorce." What does that mean? That you are hereby sentenced to wear the scarlet letter, D for divorcee, for the rest of your natural life? It is true that, according to the scriptures, Christians have, not merely the right, but also the duty to judge. However, before one goes around condemning everyone else, one needs to comply with the following: "Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" (Matt 7:5). (I trust that neither Jesus who said this nor Matthew who wrote it, is "incorrect" or "in error"). The standard by which we judge the divorced person must be based upon all of the scriptures related to the issue. The standard must not be based upon one's own imagined understanding and definition of divorce and remarriage. Scripture, not personal fantasy, is the basis for judgment. Further, one dare not base his opinion on one and only one verse, ignoring all other scriptures that address the issue. According to some, there is only one passage of Scripture that addresses the issue of divorce and/or remarriage. Even then they are "incorrect" and "in error" in their interpretation in that they do not understand their one Scripture, the reason being their failure to consider every word of the verse. Nor do they apply the principle of analogia scriptura, which is as follows: One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the *analogia scriptura*, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And SINCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ITSELF, ANY INTERPRETATION OF A SPECIFIC PASSAGE THAT CONTRADICTS THE GENERAL TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS TO BE REJECTED." (Emphasis by capitalization is mine.) Let all judge and jury wannabes consider the following: 1) As has already been noted in this thread, there are two extraordinary cases in which Scripture teaches that God does permit divorced people to remarry. Those cases have already been adequately presented, defined and defended. 2) Thus, there are Scriptural grounds for divorce: adultery or desertion. The key to understanding lies in the proper understanding of the word divorce and what it means, including what it meant to the average Greek, Roman or Jew of the first century when he heard the word. A tradition dating back centuries and beginning with the Roman Catholic Church views divorce as "legal separation from bed and board." And that's all divorce is in this tradition. However, The people of the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, both Jews and Greeks, properly understood that divorce is the "dissolution of the marriage bond just as though it had never existed." If one accepts the second definition (the definition that is true both Biblically and historically), then one can only come to one conclusion: The RIGHT TO DIVORCE carries with it THE RIGHT TO REMARRY. If it doesn't, then divorce is not dissolution of the marriage bond. Instead divorce becomes legal separation from bed and board, nothing else. Which definition to follow: the popular one (legal separation) or the historically and Biblically sound one (dissolution of the marital bond, which carries with it the right to remarry)? Additionally, 1 Cor 7:11 clearly teaches that "If a Christian divorces another Christian *except for adultery*, neither partner is free to marry another person" (p. 1738, MacArthur Study Bible, Word, 1997). The converse of this principle is: If a Christian divorces *FOR adultery*, then he/she IS free to marry another person. If one indeed has a Scriptural right to divorce (and scripture does permit divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality or desertion), then he would also have the right to remarry. Finally, some make the dubious point that while divorce may be "permitted", it is not "allowed". Hello? I was under the impression that the words permit and allow meant THE SAME THING. |
||||||
3784 | Who knows? | Rev 21:27 | kalos | 7379 | ||
Tim: Thank you for providing us with relevant and enlightening scripture references and for sharing with us your excellent observations. May I just add the following: Rev 3:5 "Book of Life." A divine journal records the names of all those whom God has chosen to save and who, therefore, are to possess eternal life ( Rev 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27,: 22:19; compare Dan 12:1; Luke 10:20). Under no circumstances will He erase those names . . . , as city officials often did of undesirable people on their roles. (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1996) Phil 4:3. "Book of Life." In eternity past, God registered all the names of His elect in that book which identifies those inheritors of eternal life . . . (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1828). When were our names written in the book of life? "From the foundation of the world." Before the first man was ever born, the names of the elect were written in the book of life. Rev 17:8 NASB "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come." Rev 13:8 (NASB) All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. "Lamb slain". The Lord Jesus who died to purchase the salvation of those whom God had chosen was fulfilling an eternal plan. "from the foundation of the world". According to God's eternal, electing purpose before creation, the death of Christ seals the redemption of the elect forever (compare Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). Antichrist can never take away the salvation of the elect. The eternal registry of the elect will never be altered, nor will the saved in the Antichrist's day worship him. (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 2010) |
||||||
3785 | NASB95 study bible??? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 7366 | ||
Chris and Charis: I thank both of you for the recommendations for and fine quotes from the Introduction to the NASB Ryrie Expanded Edition Study bible. Charis, could you perhaps repeat the quotes, only this time say it louder? :-) "Whoever has ears to hear let him hear." The quoted principles are essential for all of us to know and follow. I share your excitement and enthusiasm for the entire Ryrie Study Bible, having used the original since 1978. Over the years, I have read, studied, made notes of, quoted, photocopied, re-read and memorized parts of the various articles and sections to which Chris referred. These incude, as Chris pointed out: A Synopsis of Bible Doctine (containing in outline format sound Bible doctrine with which all of us need to be familiar), as well as articles on: Bible inspiration, understanding the Bible, how we got the Bible, meaning and blessings of Salvation, archaelolgy and the Bible. The above noted sections and articles alone are worth the price of the Ryrie Study Bible. :-) JVH0212 |
||||||
3786 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | kalos | 7350 | ||
jim: Thank you for your correct and biblically supported answer. Obedience is indeed one of the evidences of genuine saving faith. Keep up the good work, Jim. | ||||||
3787 | Only "three 'things' in heaven"? Really? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 7347 | ||
Nolan: Bingo! Correct answer. Are you ready to go on the next round? :-) You have given a correct and very specific answer to a very specific question. It's true! Neither a single verse nor the combined teaching of the entire Bible supports the quoted assertion. And IF one said that 1 John 5:7 supported it (which is not what you said, no criticism here) that person would be providing a classic example of poor scripture interpretaion, i.e., scripture twisting. |
||||||
3788 | How far can Christians go in sinning? | Heb 12:8 | kalos | 7317 | ||
Amended question. glory777: My sincere thanks to you for pointing out to me that the question needs clarification. Let me re-phrase the question. :-) Amended question: What does the Bible teach concerning the notion that millions of Christians live in a state of unbroken carnality? Is such a notion biblical? |
||||||
3789 | Can you read and comprehend Greek? | 2 Tim 2:23 | kalos | 7297 | ||
To whom it may concern: Are you proficient in the Greek language? (How many years did you study New Testament Greek at the university level?) Have you studied Old Testament Hebrew? What about Aramaic? If you cannot answer in the affirmative, then you are not qualified to second guess the interpretation of someone who is proficient in one or more of these languages. Reading a dozen medical or health articles in Reader's Digest does not qualify you to second guess your doctor. Watching every episode of "L.A. Law" does not prepare you to pass the bar exam and set up your own practice. Subscribing to "Psychology Today" doesn't mean you are ready to start your own counselling service. Nor does the ability to quote a dozen Bible verses and outshout the other guy anoint you to serve as a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, or a teacher of babes. In the event that you have an irresistible urge to proclaim that another man is incorrect, wrong or in error, you need to know the subject as well as, if not better than, the other man. Before you blurt out your omniscient pronouncements, just remember: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Does a child in kindergarten take it upon himself to tell a college physics professor that he is wrong? |
||||||
3790 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | kalos | 7293 | ||
"Such rules...have no real value in controlling physical passions. " 20 You have died with Christ and are set free from the ruling spirits of the universe. Why, then, do you live as though you belonged to this world? Why do you obey such rules as 21 "Don't handle this," "Don't taste that," "Don't touch the other"? 22 All these refer to things which become useless once they are used; they are only human rules and teachings. 23 Of course such rules appear to be based on wisdom in their forced worship of angels, and false humility, and severe treatment of the body; but they have no real value in controlling physical passions. (Today's English Version (TEV) Col 2.) SteveB: I am confused. You write: "I have written John - w/o any response from him." According to the current (as of this writing) tree of this thread: You asked a primary question. (8:43am) I replied to you. (11:19am) You replied to me. (11:33am) I, in turn, answered you. (12:38pm) You replied to me (2:55pm) saying, "I have written John - w/o any response from him." Now I'm replying to your post of 2:55pm. This is why I am confused. You wrote to me twice. I replied twice. The only other note from you that I know of is the one to which I am at this very moment replying to. If you sent me an email, I just checked my inbox and it shows no email from you. If you have written to me in a message to which I have not replied, then I overlooked your message. In this thread I have not intentionally failed to reply to you. I may indeed have failed to reply to one of your messages, but if so I was unaware of said message. **************************** You write:" This is another error by one that you follow." 1) I follow Christ. 2) Butler is not correct. You write: "I am done debating this with you." I am grateful and relieved that you are done debating this with me. As a Cardinals fan, I'd rather watch a Cubs baseball game. Because of the wording and attitude with which you write your questions and comments, it would be a total waste of my time to reply to you any further. I doubt that you will ever convince anyone of anything if your method is to use criticism and condemnation in your responses. Of course if you have no valid point, you have to find something to say, even if it is not correct. Apparently you have already made up your mind and have no desire to be confused by the facts. You write: "We will know the truth when we see the Lord." I hope you will. I hope that his "interpretation" agrees with yours. Further, if it does not, I hope against hope that you will not make the pronouncement that "The Lord is not correct." In conclusion, I now write: "I am done debating this with you." I wonder if it's been a true debate or if it was merely two simultaneous monologues in which it was all talking and little listening on your part. In all fairness you did listen to me in order to gather ammunition with which to criticize and condemn me, Dr. Scofield, Dr. MacArthur and anyone else who might have the temerity to disagree with you. Since neither Sabbath keeping nor non-Sabbath keeping is an essential Bible doctrine, then I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it. It's no sin for you to keep it as long as you keep it to and for yourself. |
||||||
3791 | Babies and young children a distraction? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 7289 | ||
Nolan: Yours is a good posting with several good points. It is my opinion that if a local church decided by majority vote that a rule be posted and enforced calling for the supervion of children by their parents, then that church would indeed have the right to enforce the will of the majority. The announcement of the rule in all fairness ought to include a warning that repeated non-compliance will result in certain consequences. The use of discreetly worded, discreetly placed signs would serve to deprive a parent of using ignorance as an excuse for non-compliance. Of course, Christian charity, tact, respect and patience should be present in every enforcement of violations of the rule. "Is that necessary?" Unfortunately it has become necessary in our society to make laws and rules to get people to do what they should have had the common courtesty and common sense to do without rules. |
||||||
3792 | where does he ask that,baptized or not | Acts 2:38 | kalos | 7280 | ||
Acts 24:14 certainly does not outweigh the volume or the validity of Scriptural evidence I have presented in reply to the issue. SINCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ITSELF, ANY INTERPRETATION OF "A SPECIFIC PASSAGE THAT CONTRADICTS THE GENERAL TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS TO BE REJECTED." (Emphasis added.) "The problem is that a group’s denial of an essential biblical teaching *excludes that group from Christianity*. While there may be some Christians *in Oneness churches, the movement as a whole is non-Christian*. As CRI president Hank Hanegraaff has said, “*It would be inappropriate to argue that* Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that *the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian.*” "The Oneness denial of the true nature of God is HERETICAL. *Additional false teachings* only compound *their error*. If you want to know more about *the dangerous HERESY know as Oneness Pentecostalism*, CRI has several valuable resources available." (Emphasis added.) Material found at: www.equip.org/search/ |
||||||
3793 | where does he ask that,baptized or not | Acts 2:38 | kalos | 7277 | ||
Too late! In more than one posting I have already called Oneness Pentecostal doctrine heresy and have given sound biblical support for doing so. Your example(s) regarding baptism in Jesus' name only have nothing in the world to do with the heretical Oneness dotrince which denies the Trinity (One God, Three Persons) and teaches there is One God, One Person. The forumla to be said over a person while baptizing him is a secondary (not trivial, but secondary) issue, one which does not constitute heresy one way the other. If one wishes to use the word heresy or heretic in a discussion it would be to his advantage to first look it up and learn what it means. Be careful what you say is good advice for ALL of "US." |
||||||
3794 | clear conscience | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7237 | ||
Ray: You know what I would call it? I, too, would call it something that is meaningful to you. You have as much right to post your thoughts concerning capitalization as others have of carrying on their ceaseless, endless, eternal, limitless, confused and confusing, boring quarrels over secondary or even tertiary issues. (Note: "secondary" does not mean "trivial." I've never used the word secondary as a synonym for trivial.) We've all seen it: quarrels over the placement of a comma or an italicized word or a definition. Give us a break, people. Picking apart every jot and tittle of another's posting demonstrates neither scholarship nor Christian charity (agape). (I don't mean you, Ray. I sincerely don't. I am speaking of posters in general, but not all.) Moreover, I view an interest in capitalization as being a harmless pursuit, one that is a welcome relief from the bitterness and intensity of some of the debates held in a Forum that was never intended to be a discussion group (see Lockman Foundation's Terms of Use). You write: "...but I am pleased, my friends, that you have gotten used to the idea [of capitalizaton]." From reading your many postings, I have become so accustomed to the idea that if I so much as make a typographical error in which I leave out a capital letter, I feel guilty. :-) You are to be commended for maintaing a spirit of gentleness, humility and good cheer in your postings. Keep up the good work. :-) JVH0212 |
||||||
3795 | clear conscience | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7221 | ||
Ray: As always, it's good to hear from you. You do contribute many entries to the Forum and I appreciate it. Perhaps I did misunderstand you. I'm afraid I can't answer your most recent question because I don't understand it. I am totally baffled. I'm not even sure anymore what I would or would not be agreeing with. :-) That does present a bit of a problem. Along with Charis I say: "I am not sure what this thread is anymore." Grace to you, :-) JVH0212 |
||||||
3796 | clear conscience | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7208 | ||
Ray: Yes, I am interested in stating an opinion. Thank you for asking. My opinion is that I agree with you, Ray. :-) JVH0212 |
||||||
3797 | Newcomer's Guide to the Forum | 2 Tim 2:15 | kalos | 7206 | ||
A Newcomer's Guide to StudyBibleForum.com Free! Free! Free! You may file and use this guide without cost or obligation. It is uncopyrighted and will remain so. Similar guides are being sold online for as much as 50 cents. Welcome to the Forum! Hopefully you will find here much to inform, entertain, inspire and occasionally confuse you. In the brief history of the Forum (as of the date of this writing, 06-10-2001) there have been one or two minor disagreements between members, which are always resolved amicably and diplomatically in a spirit of peace and brotherhood. To my knowledge we have yet to see one person convinced against their will. Nor should they be. I doubt whether any three of us could completely agree on lunch, let alone doctrine. (Disclaimer: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent the views of our gracious host, the Lockman Foundation; a majority of active Forum members; the Society for the Preservation of Fables, Myths and Misinformation; General Halftrack; or the highest off all -- my mom.) Follwing are guidelines for your consideration: 1) First, before you do anything else, learn to use the Forum Search function. It will make your life on the Forum much simpler. 2) As the Lockman Foundation suggests, use Search to determine whether your question has previously been asked by someone else. 3) Read the Terms of Use. Among other things there, you will note that StudyBibleForum.com is neither a discussion group nor a topical survey. 4) "Your submission may not include...[certain] characters." If you should attempt to use one, then when you went to preview your submission, you would get the error message above, listing all the unacceptable characters. Print and save that error message. (It may be the only undisputed point you'll ever find at this website.) Normally, unacceptable characters are not a problem here at the Forum. 5) While you are new to the Forum, you may unintentionally submit the same entry two or more times. If you do, don't worry about it. It's easy to do. 6) In the unlikely event that someone will misunderstand or disagree with a particular point of yours, try not to take it personally. Even the closest of friends do not agree on everything. 7) Always bear in mind that the Bible contains many verses which are capable of more than one biblically supported interpretation. In these cases, a calm, reasoned, polite discussion is preferred. 8) There are but few basic principles of biblical interpretation. If you have not already done so, familiarize yourself with and apply them, particularly the principle of analogia scriptura which is defined here: John MacArthur writes: "One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the *analogia scriptura*, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And SINCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ITSELF, ANY INTERPRETATION OF A SPECIFIC PASSAGE THAT CONTRADICTS THE GENERAL TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS TO BE REJECTED." (Emphasis added.) 9) To know what constitutes a good and appropriate posting, read the 5 voting questions and the explanations that follow. 1) At any posting, click on the title. 2) This will take you to a page that allows you to vote. 3) Scroll down until you come to "Cast vote" and click on those words. 4) At the next page, scroll down until you see the voting questions and their explanations. 10) In my experience I have found that the Lockman Foundation sincerely desires and welcomes your input. Do not hesitate to contact them with your questions, comments and suggestions. 11) You can save yourself needless frustration if you remember that you need not reply to every criticism you receive. 12) An excellent standard to expect of yourself and your fellow post-ers is: "Every person has a right to their own opinion; however no person has a right to be wrong in their facts." Check your facts carefully before you post them publically for all the world to read and remember. Careful scholarship will save you a lot of embarrassment. 13) 2 Timothy 2:23 (ASV) "But foolish and ignorant questionings refuse, knowing that they gender strifes." (The possibility, however slight, exists that every great once in awhile, you may encounter a "foolish and ignorant" question. Avoid being drawn into a dispute over it. Stick to the issues and avoid naming personalities involved in the dispute.) |
||||||
3798 | Did Adam die lost? | Genesis | kalos | 7201 | ||
If Adam did not teach Abel, then who did? Abel's grandmother? Seriously, prayon, thanks for a good post. This is my left-handed way of agreeing with you re who taught Abel. Abel sure didn't go to the local bookstore and purchase a copy of The Message. |
||||||
3799 | clear conscience | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7200 | ||
Ray: thanks for creating a new, clear conscience. I know I could use one. (it's a joke) take care --JVH0212 | ||||||
3800 | clear conscience | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7187 | ||
love4him. And I was wrong to come down so hard on you, a person with whom I have no quarrel at all. Thank you for your kind note. I don't think there ever was any real disagreement between us as to what would constitute the full and complete answer to your question as you asked it. Truly one could find no fault at all in your question. The fault lies within me in the manner in which I approached the answer. I admit I was somewhat off topic. I probably sounded as if I were being too harsh in addressing you. In that I do admit I was wrong. I apologize. It is my hope we shall be prove to be colleagues and not combatants on this sometimes bumpy, sometimes meandering road to biblical truth. Welcome to the Forum. Come on in and participate. I look forward to reading your future postings. Count me as an ally -- no strings attached. Agreement with me is not a requirement for friendship. (Oh, how my friends disagree with me! I couldn't blame them. :-) )Take care! --JVH0212 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 ] Next > Last [212] >> |