Results 3821 - 3840 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3821 | Elder must be 'the husband of one wife'? | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7053 | ||
EdB: I for one never thought your intent was to be a thorn in anyone's side nor to threaten the health of the forum. Footnote: EdB, this is not a criticism of you nor is it directed toward you, OK? I am not singling out any individual or group. What I say now generally applies to anyone and everyone on this Forum, including myself: "Every man* has a right to his own opinion; but no man* has a right to be wrong in his facts." ---------- *man. better worded as 'person'. |
||||||
3822 | where does he ask that,baptized or not | Acts 2:38 | kalos | 7050 | ||
Neither do I condemn GStrecker as a heretic. What I said was: "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." |
||||||
3823 | where does he ask that,baptized or not | Acts 2:38 | kalos | 7049 | ||
Ray writes: "Also, please rewrite your last sentence without the question mark so I know what you mean exactly. Later, Ray" OK, Ray, here goes. Following is my question rewritten as a statement. Hope this helps: Change original last sentences to: "What do you mean when you write "the Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Christ"? "Yes, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. (It is equally true that '2 plus 2 equals 4' AND that '4 equals 2 plus 2'.) Caution: this does NOT mean that the Spirit of Christ is NOT the same as the Spirit of God. There are NOT two separate and distinct Spirits -- the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. (It is NOT true that '1 equals 1' AND '1 equals 2' -- both these statements cannot be true at the same time. The truth is '1 equals 1' -- STOP PERIOD.) Not three Spirits, but one. Each of the above terms refers to one and the same Holy Spirit. One Spirit -- many names and titles. But one of those names is neither Jesus, nor Christ, nor Christ Jesus, nor Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it is One God, three Persons; not One God, One Person." |
||||||
3824 | where does he ask that,baptized or not | Acts 2:38 | kalos | 7045 | ||
Why Modalism determined to be heresy. "The problem is that a group’s denial of an essential biblical teaching excludes that group from Christianity." Ray: I am always at your service. Since you "missed the Oneness tree pretty much" (a condition which I envy), I will tell you why Modalism "was determined to be" heresy. Thank you as always for your interest. --JVH0212 (Note: the numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. within the text are footnote numbers.) Oneness Pentecostalism: Heresy, not Hairsplitting -------------------- “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 June 1997 issue of Charisma features an article by executive editor J. Lee Grady entitled, “The Other Pentecostals,”1 reporting on the estimated 17 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide with 2.1 million in the United States.2 Grady calls Pentecostalism a “house divided.”3 While Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals alike trace their roots back to the Azusa Street Revival of l906,4 Oneness Pentecostals have been “separated from their brethren by a nasty doctrinal feud that split families and churches.”5 Today younger leaders in the Oneness movement hope to end the feud and lead their movement into the mainstream church.6 It is disturbing enough to read that 17 million Oneness believers are following a theology that rejects the biblical doctrine of the trinity.7 Even more troubling is the article’s suggestion that among many evangelicals this Oneness error is not terribly significant!” Papering over Differences After discussing the Oneness rejection of Trinitarian language, Grady uses the phrase, “To split doctrinal hairs even further,...” to introduce Oneness’ insistence on baptism in Jesus’ name only.9 While Oneness Pentecostals may be “too sectarian to mix with other evangelicals,” he writes, “they are too orthodox to be compared with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Grady concludes, “No one really knows what to do with them.”10 He proceeds to juxtapose striking comments by two leaders, one from each camp. Trinitarian scholar and ex-Oneness follower Gregory Boyd is quoted as saying, “If you deny the eternality of the three personal ways God is God, you undermine the very essence of Christianity.”11 Oneness leader T. F. Tenney states, “We do not deny the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.... We believe Jesus Christ is wholly, fully, absolutely, and completely God. But no one is going to put us in the position of saying that there are three Gods.”12 Grady then offers an observation on our times, seemingly without recognizing its devastating ramifications: “The argument over whether God is three-in-one or one-in-three is a moot point for the average layman, who tends to view the doctrine of the trinity as an unexplainable mystery.”13 Grady implies that the Church should be more concerned with other issues. Concerning the baptismal view of the most rigid Oneness Pentecostals, he states, “It is on this issue, theologians say, that Oneness Pentecostals have drifted dangerously toward spiritual elitism and heresy.”14 Indeed, the Oneness view of baptism is lethally flawed. Oneness View Seriously Flawed Even to remotely imply, however, that corrections to the Oneness understanding of baptism would rescue Oneness theology is wholly misleading. Grady expresses cavalier confidence that a prominent leader within the largest Oneness denomination, the United Pentecostal Church (UPC), has a right relationship with the Holy Spirit. Referring to Anthony Mangun, a friend of President Clinton, Grady writes: “A good friend who has the Holy Ghost. That might be the best friend any president could have.”15 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.”16 -------------------------------- 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. CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Material found at: www.equip.org/search/ |
||||||
3825 | where does he ask that,baptized or not | Acts 2:38 | kalos | 7036 | ||
GStrecker: Are you trying to resuscitate a now dead issue at this Forum, the issue of Modalism or Oneness? After a long, heated debate over this issue, we have learned: Evangelical Christians agree with the doctrine of Trinity -- one God, three Persons; not, as the Oneness would have it, one God, one Person. We also learned Oneness (Modalism) is heresy. "Pentecostals do believe the Holy Spirit is a Person, just not a third person. God is a Spirit, and God is Holy." Correction: To be accurate the first sentence should read: "*Some* Pentecostals do believe the Holy Spirit is a Person, just not a third person." Actually, while some do believe this, some do not. However, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the USA DOES believe the Holy Spirit is a person, one of three persons who make up the Godhead. "God's name is Jesus." Correction: While Jesus is God, it is not quite accurate to say that God's name is Jesus. (Even IF it were true, God's name still would not be Jesus. Jesus who? Persons named Jesus have existed for many years and in many nations. Were they the Messiah, the Creator, the Redeemer, etc.? I don't think so. That's why He is identified in Scripture as Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, or Christ. After the book of Acts, seldom is He referred to as merely Jesus.) "Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; And He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Exod 3:13-14 "The bible teaches that the Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Christ." Correction: What does that mean? That there are three Spirits -- the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ? |
||||||
3826 | Believe in Jesus Christ. | Acts 16:31 | kalos | 7027 | ||
I quote here the best, clearest, most concise and accurate answer -- an answer that a child or an unchurched seeker could understand -- I've ever heard to the question: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO *BELIEVE* IN JESUS CHRIST? "To believe in Jesus Christ is to have a confident conviction that: 1) He is who the Bible says He is. 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) |
||||||
3827 | Elder must be 'the husband of one wife'? | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7023 | ||
EdB: I have no quarrel at all with your point (if I understand you correctly) that case histories alone do not prove anything, except that a certain thing was true in at least one particular case. I would never put a case example above Scripture. And I believe it was not Hank's intent to do so, although I neither could nor would attempt to speak for Hank, who is quite capable of speaking for himself. (No offense, Hank, if you are reading this.) You write: "I too have known men and women that have successfully carried on in the ministry after the disaster of divorce. But I’m forced to ask a question was it God’s perfect will or something else?" Is it God's will is always an appropriate question. And, as we know, God's will never goes against His forever-settled-in-heaven Word. But does the Bible prohibit ALL remarriage after divorce? "Some believe that Paul here excludes divorced men from church leadership. That again ignores the fact that this qualification does not deal with marital status. Nor does the Bible prohibit all remarriage after divorce (Matt 5:31,32; 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15)" (John MacArthur). EdB, I am not deliberately attempting to antagonize anyone. My only intent is to provide information related to this thread. :-) |
||||||
3828 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7021 | ||
EdB, one of your questions: Can we at least agree if the guy is married he should have only one wife :-) My answer: Yes, indeed. I am very happy to agree with this -- it is fitting that he has (present tense) only one wife. Also, my sincere thanks to you for showing me that we can include in our postings the characters :-). (I thought at least one of these characters could not be included in a submission.) A lot more :-) is needed around the Forum. Take care! --JVH0212 |
||||||
3829 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7016 | ||
Steve: Previously you wrote: "The writer (John MacArthur) has the hard heart in the wrong person." In a later posting you said: "I do not need a "single credible Bible scholar" to have my same view." My only comment is: Yes, you do. If you wish to criticize or refute what one "credible Bible scholar (John MacArthur)" says, you would be far more convincing with the help of another "credible Bible scholar." (I sincerely hope we will not spend the next two weeks arguing over the defintion of "credible", "Bible" or "scholar." To do so would be to use a diversionary tactic. But one cannot fool all of the people all of the time. ) Then you write: "Some say one is a one-woman man, even if she dies, but, not according to these verses." Not according to these verses? Where in these verses is there any mention, one way or another, of "even if she dies?" There's not a word about dying or becoming a widower in 1 Tim 3:2, just as the words marriage and divorce are not used in this verse. |
||||||
3830 | How do we pull marriage out? | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 7006 | ||
Hank: Thank you for a very complete and accurate posting. In one paragraph you have given us the meaning of 1 Tim 3:2. Originally, I would have thought that such an explanation as yours would be unnecessary, since this is no complex, detailed theological matter. I MISTAKENLY thought that common sense would indicate the verse to mean: "A man who desires to be an overseer (bishop, elder) should *(if he is married)* be the husband of one wife." (Emphasis added.) How this particular verse is interpreted as a COMMANDMENT to get married I will never know. | ||||||
3831 | Book of Life "will never be altered." | Rev 3:5 | kalos | 6975 | ||
God's pencil has no eraser. 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) |
||||||
3832 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 6972 | ||
Hank: After reading many of the views presented at StudyBibleForum.com, I have concluded that the next time someone opens a Christian theme park, it should include Fantasyland. Then all the posters here who get direct revelation from God and ignore the teachers that Christ has given to the church will feel right at home. Moreover, they that are unlearned and unstable, who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, don't need a credible Bible scholar or any other support for their fantasies, I mean beliefs. |
||||||
3833 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 6957 | ||
"Paul was never the permanent church leader, he moved on. So I do not think he fell under the title of being a leader. " An apostle is not a leader? Another intriguing observation. |
||||||
3834 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 6956 | ||
Retxar: My sincere thanks to you for posting a well-informed, informative and amply researched and supported reply to this issue. Maybe you'll set a trend on the Forum -- a trend towards posting facts, not fantasy. Keep up the good work. | ||||||
3835 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 6954 | ||
Hank: Thank you for a very biblical, sensible, accurate posting on the above passages and questions. Biblically based, reasonable, thorough postings such as yours are extremely rare on this Forum. I happen to agree with you on this issue. But, even when someone takes an opposing stand on an issue, I honestly don't mind reading their points, if they can make a point that is biblically based and reasonable. It isn't merely agreement or disagreement ("rightness" or "wrongness" of a posting), it's whether the writer shows any common sense in approaching the subject. |
||||||
3836 | WEB Bible and capitalization. | 2 Tim 3:16 | kalos | 6930 | ||
Ray: Note the following re the World English Bible (WEB) and capitalization. I believe it will be of interest to you. "The WEB doesn't capitalize pronouns pertaining to God. This is similar to the NRSV and NIV, and the same as the original ASV of 1901. Note that this is an English style decision, *because Hebrew has no such thing as upper and lower case, and the oldest Greek manuscripts were all upper case*. I kind of prefer the approach of the KJV, NKJV, and NASB of capitalizing these pronouns, because I write that way most of the time and because it is a way of offering greater honor to God. I admit that it is kind of a throw-back to the Olde English practice of capitalizing pronouns referring to the king. This is archaic, because we don't capitalize pronouns that refer to our president. "It is also true that choosing to capitalize pronouns relating to God causes some difficulties in translating the coronation psalms, where the psalm was initially written for the coronation of an earthly king, but which also can equally well be sung or recited to the praise of the King of Kings. *Capitalizing pronouns relating to God also makes for some strange reading* where people were addressing Jesus with anything but respect. In any case, in the presence of good arguments both ways, we have decided *to leave these as they were in the ASV 1901 (which also gives us fewer opportunities to make mistakes*)." (emphasis added) This FAQ is maintained by Michael Paul Johnson (http://ebible.org/mpj/). Please mail comments or suggestions to mpj@ebible.org mailto:mpj@ebible.org. This page is kept at http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm. |
||||||
3837 | What does 1 Tim 3:2 mean? | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 6928 | ||
To return to the original question: What does 1 Tim 3:2 mean?: "The issue is not the elder's marital status, but his moral and sexual purity." Steve: "1 Tim 3:2 *the husband of one wife.* "Lit. in Greek a 'one-woman man.' This says nothing about marriage or divorce. The issue is not the elder's marital status, but his moral and sexual purity. This qualification heads the list, beause it is in this area that leaders are most prone to fail. (...) "A 'one-woman man' is one totally devoted to his wife, maintaining singular devotion, affection and sexual purity in both thought and deed. To violate this is to forfeit blamelessness and no longer be 'above reproach'" (p. 1864, MacArthur Study Bible, Word, 1997). |
||||||
3838 | What does 1 Tim 3:2 mean? | 1 Tim 3:2 | kalos | 6927 | ||
God's utter hatred of divorce is very clear in Scripture. But is it true that "There is only one reason for the divorce, for a Christian"? Steve: "God's utter hatred of divorce is very clear in Scripture. "Nonetheless, there are two extraordinary cases in which Scripture teaches that God does permit divorced people to remarry. "First, note that Jesus Himself included this exception clause: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, *except it be for fornication*, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Matt. 19:9, King James Version, emphasis added). He allows an exception in this one case, only "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Matt. 19:8). Clearly, Jesus is treating divorce as a last resort, only to be sought in the case of hard-hearted adultery. "The apostle Paul allows one more reason for divorce: if an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer, the believer is under no obligation in such a case (1 Cor. 7:14). This would free the abandoned spouse to remarry. "But we must emphasize that apart from those two specific, exceptional cases, divorce is not sanctioned in Scripture.(http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/divorce.htm) More extensive answers to this question are available in John MacArthur, The Fulfilled Family (Chicago: Moody, 1981); and, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23,(Chicago: Moody, 1988). 1 Thess 4:8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you. |
||||||
3839 | Can a divorced person remarry? | 1 Cor 7:15 | kalos | 6913 | ||
God's utter hatred of divorce is very clear in Scripture. Louder: Nonetheless, there are two extraordinary cases in which Scripture teaches that God does permit divorced people to remarry. First, note that Jesus Himself included this exception clause: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, *except it be for fornication*, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Matt. 19:9, King James Version, emphasis added). He allows an exception in this one case, only "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Matt. 19:8). Clearly, Jesus is treating divorce as a last resort, only to be sought in the case of hard-hearted adultery. The apostle Paul allows one more reason for divorce: if an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer, the believer is under no obligation in such a case (1 Cor. 7:14). This would free the abandoned spouse to remarry. But we must emphasize that apart from those two specific, exceptional cases, divorce is not sanctioned in Scripture.(http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/divorce.htm) More extensive answers to this question are available in John MacArthur, The Fulfilled Family (Chicago: Moody, 1981); and, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23,(Chicago: Moody, 1988). |
||||||
3840 | Study Bible Forum -- or Circus? | Gen 1:17 | kalos | 6863 | ||
Chris: Thank you for a very fine, thought-provoking posting. Generally I agree with the content of your answer. I especially agree with you when you write: "I think one problem has been that many folks (including myself) have asked questions that they have already made a decision about and are simply hoping to defend what they believe!" I think with some it goes beyond merely *defending* what they believe. In some cases the writer's apparent intent is to post a question for the purpose of arguing the question to death with the aim of convincing everyone else to change their views and agree with the writer. Sometimes it seems the writer's motive is to draw attention to himself/herself. Other postings are obvious attempts to impress the rest of us with the writer's supposed great erudition and vocabulary. (I'm not impressed with such, although I am often impressed when a writer humbly and with good intentions posts an answer whose thoroughness and accuracy I applaud.) Many, if not most of us, are too busy defending what we believe to listen to the other side. To paraphrase the Word, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." Which would one rather be -- a baloon or a building? This is only my opinion, but I see nothing wrong in quoting from study Bibles and other references to answer a question. First, whether the reader agrees with a quoted reference work, at least, when selected properly, the reference quotation is often more relevant to the subject at hand than the original writings of some of the posters. I would rather read a quote from a respected publication than to see the Forum degenerate into a mere pooling of ignorance. Not that all or even a majority of original writings reflect ignorance, but too many of them do. What I often object to is not the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a reply, but the fact that views are presented that are inappropriate, highly irrelevant, unstructured, illogical and, most important of all, not biblically based. I honestly don't mind reading something with which I disagree if there is a sound argument for it. There are not a few disputed passages or interpretations for which a good biblical argument could be made for 2 or more sides of the issue. I say let the repliers present a good biblical argument for their views -- not rambling, incoherent, pointless, mocking replies that often do not cite even one verse of scripture. It's irksome and insulting after spending much time and care composing an answer or note, only to have one's answer lightly dismissed or mocked. Or worse, what often happens is that someone will reply and mockingly or flippantly disagree with another's interpretation when the replier has NO interpretation of his own. This is the height of arrogance and ignorance. Chris: none of this criticism pertains to or is intended for you personally. I am merely expressing concerns for many of the postings I read here. I have been enjoying your informative and well-written postings, Chris. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 ] Next > Last [212] >> |