Results 821 - 840 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
821 | Acts commentary recommendation? | Acts | srbaegon | 147328 | ||
Hello Huron, The paperback is the one that is recommended. I didn't know about the hardcover. Steve |
||||||
822 | Have ye received the Holy Ghost? | Acts | srbaegon | 190948 | ||
Hello Missionary35, Actually, the verse does not tell believers to do anything. Rather Peter is telling his fellow Jews to repent, be baptized in Jesus name, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Steve |
||||||
823 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217873 | ||
I am certain that BradK, Doc, or I would completely agree that the 66 canonical books are "God-breathed." That is not in doubt. The warning is taking a statement from a narrative book and building a doctrine around it. For instance, consider 1 Samuel 25. David went to Nabal for supplies for his men, but Nabal refused. David is upset and says, "Surely in vain have I guarded all that this fellow has in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that belonged to him, and he has returned me evil for good. God do so to the enemies of David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him." Does that lend credence to believers to kill foolish men? Of course not. Neither are we expected to be polygamous and marry the fool's widow after he dies as David does Abigail, his second wife. Historical narrative accurately tells us what happened. We can learn patterns of godly conduct from it, and there are even some precepts given in it. But to build a theology on it can be dangerous. Steve |
||||||
824 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217883 | ||
You avoided my question. Do David's actions lend credence for believers to kill foolish men? And are we expected to be polygamous and marry the fool's widow after he dies as David does Abigail, being his second wife? Steve |
||||||
825 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217886 | ||
You still avoid the question. I will restate it. Is any sin of David, whether as king or prior, permissible for Christians to follow in? Steve |
||||||
826 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217889 | ||
I was originally speaking of Nabal and Abigail, then extended it to Uriah and Bathsheba. But you have sufficiently answered my question enough to point out your error. The king was in a position to make laws concerning the civil administration of God's laws, but he could never supersede them. David wrongly had Uriah killed in order to cover up adultery. God confronted him through the prophet Nathan for both sins (2 Samuel 12:1-15). David then goes through a period of repentance and grieving for it (2 Samuel 12:16-23; Psalm 51). That being the case, we cannot follow David's example in this great sin though it is recorded in God's word. Steve |
||||||
827 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217899 | ||
True, most would not follow given the consequences, but that is missing the point. David should never have committed those acts because they were of a sinful nature. They were contrary to God's desire. David explicitly says so in Psalm 51:3-4 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. David cries out for mercy, because he knows the sins he committed were flagrant, and there was no sacrifice that could be offered to atone for them (see Leviticus). He was guilty beyond hope according to God's law, so he had to go to the righteous judge of heaven and earth and throw himself on the mercy of the court. Steve |
||||||
828 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | srbaegon | 44088 | ||
Hello nimrod2 Thanks for clarifying. I had thought you made a "faux pas", but you were intentional in your wording. Regardless of your interpretation of the creation account, your appeal to Lev 25 and the Sabbath year severely damaged your position. As Makarios mentioned, it's bad hermeneutics. I can agree that a sabbath can occur after six periods of time (days, weeks, and years are all mentioned in Scripture), the proper use must be taken from the direct context. Steve |
||||||
829 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | srbaegon | 44106 | ||
Hello nimrod2 It was not my intention of discussing creation accounts, only to point out one place that did your argument diservice. But I'll comment by number anyway. 1. I believe that phrase is used for any part of that period from tribulation through final judgement as well as all of it put together. 2. I agree. 3. An assumption based on silence which weakens its effectiveness in argument. One could as easily say that the "evening and morning" phrase should be assumed since it was used in the first six. 4. A tenuous conclusion regardless of the interpretation of the seventh day closure. Scholars I've read point to the Lord's final kingdom. 5. and 6. Certainly demonstrates God being unaffected by time on earth. 7. Conclusion based on our current abilities and observations. That doesn't make it good or bad, just arguable. 8. The passages are speaking of the unlimited aspect of God's covenant with His people. If each was taken literally, the covenant spoken of must be counted from when that covenant was executed. So in Ps 105:8 it's specifically the Abrahamic covenant. I believe that God created with apparent age, because when He created the creatures, He told them to be fruitful and multiply. Impossible if they didn't have apparent adulthood. Steve |
||||||
830 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | srbaegon | 44258 | ||
Hello Doug It's never cheezy to have friends on the correct side of an issue. :-D BTW, I'll take a hot fudge sundae you have repented. ;-) Steve |
||||||
831 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | srbaegon | 44627 | ||
Good morning Steve I'm not sure Tim set up a straw man. My own experience has shown that the vast majority of those who reject a literal 24-hour day also reject a literal Adam. I would add that this majority I just described also believes one can earn his way to heaven; that there's no devil and probably no hell; that only bad people would go to hell, but "I" am not that bad; the Bible can't be taken seriously or literally;... In other words, unbelievers. Steve |
||||||
832 | where did this teaching come from? | Acts 2:37 | srbaegon | 53113 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth It's not one and the same. God demonstrated grace before the incarnation. Deut. 7:6-8 (ESV) "For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. [7] It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, [8] but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Steve |
||||||
833 | where did this teaching come from? | Acts 2:37 | srbaegon | 53115 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth I agree that Logos (Christ) was at His side, and that God's grace has been planned before the world was made. But they are not the same. See John 1:17--Jesus was the avenue through which grace and truth came. Steve |
||||||
834 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | srbaegon | 50438 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth Mr. Jackson (or whoever he refers to) is in error trying to connect 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5 to water baptism. These are clearly workings of the Holy Spirit in spiritual baptism and sanctification by the word of God. Steve |
||||||
835 | Can God save us the way HE WANTS TOO? | Acts 2:38 | srbaegon | 50446 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth The section referencing Eph 5:26 (5:23 above is incorrect) is the height of eisegesis. Jackson deliberately truncates the verse so that the reader is misled, not having the final important prepositional phrase that defines the washing--the word of God, not water baptism. Steve |
||||||
836 | CAN JESUS DICTATE THE TERMS OF SALVATION | Acts 2:38 | srbaegon | 50449 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth I am being real. If the Lord Jesus, during His earthly ministry, did not preach water baptism as necessary, then He changed the conditions of salvation after the resurrection. I cannot follow someone so inconsistent. Steve |
||||||
837 | WHY? | Acts 2:38 | srbaegon | 50472 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth I can quote people as well: 1. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The negative proposition in this declaration is the clue to its interpretation. Christ, in these words, expresses succinctly and with amazing accuracy the exact relation that baptism bears to saving faith. The outward symbol is enjoined with no equivocation, and yet no saving value is placed upon it, for the negative proposition conditions damnation solely upon the failure to believe. The failure to be baptized does not condemn, according to the divine estimate. Now, if baptism were essential to salvation the statement would be incomplete. William Kelly expresses the correct view in his commentary: "Baptism outwardly sets forth the truth of Christ. Thus baptism has a decided value as a testimony before God and men…. Peter insists upon baptism, though he expressly guards them from thinking too much about the outward act; but the grand point is the demand of a good conscience towards God by Christ’s resurrection…. This makes baptism simply consequent on believing; but when we hear of condemnation, it is on the ground of not believing. Alas! millions will be condemned who have been baptized, yet so much the worse because they do not believe." --William Walden Howard Steve |
||||||
838 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | srbaegon | 50567 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth I agree with you, except we have a difference in what is intended by "getting into Christ-baptized into him". You see it as water baptism, I as Spirit baptism. Steve |
||||||
839 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | srbaegon | 50594 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth That is correct. It is the baptism into Christ by/in/through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) which was announced by John (Mark 1:8) and Jesus (Acts 1:5). It's not water. Steve |
||||||
840 | Luke 7:29-30? | Acts 2:38 | srbaegon | 50602 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth Again, I agree these baptisms are the same--baptism in the Holy Spirit. Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ] Next > Last [64] >> |